Navy will soon let women serve on subs

rivrrat · Mar 1, 2010

Hatuey said:
It doesn't. Because to anybody who thinks above a 12 grade level, this isn't about personal experience on a submarine. It is a simple matter of ergonomics and what is reasonable and what isn't. Now how many more posts are you going to make because you feel insulted by your own lack of knowledge being exposed?

Considering you made 3 posts on me calling out your ignorance, I'm pretty sure I could make him cry.

No dear, I made three posts calling you out on your hypocrisy because I found it so amusing. And to show how little of what you have to say actually means anything. And I will continue to point it out when I see it.

Hatuey · Mar 1, 2010

rivrrat said:
The number of ships is irrelevant to the discussion.

Of course it is relevant you complete bellicum ignoramum. If you change the accommodations on a single submarine. You have to change them on every submarine.

They don't have to be retro'd.

And I've already explained this to you in 8-9 different posts. It doesn't matter whether or not you think they have to or not. They will be. Because of people who want to feel good about themselves. Ie. You.

I know that you seem to agree with the ****tards that think they do, but they don't have to be.

And I, as well as many others, disagree. Equal rights isn't something we can 'skimp' on.

Show me a single law that says that any employer has to allow women and men to do the same kinds of jobs. Show me a single one. Just one? Thanks.

Wrong about what?

Your knowledge of the military. Submarines. Etc etc. We can wait.

Equal rights isn't PC.

An employer fulfills her commitment to employment rights the minute you are hired. What position you occupy inside the workplace is entirely at the discretion of the employer.

When you succeed, let me know, k? Maybe I'll cry, or ... something.

Women being allowed to enter into any job that a man is allowed to enter into. Sexism isn't equal rights.

See above.

Equal rights isn't "PC". It's what we, as a country, do and stand for. It's what our military fights and dies for and yet the military is really one of the final places where equal rights ARE NOT given. Ironic, that.

See above. Everything else you've typed is just rehashing of your ridiculous belief that not being put in just any position because the employer doesn't want to is somehow a violation of your rights. If your employer hires you to cook fries but you have training in cash, it doesn't matter where you think you should work. It is at the discretion of the employer and what you've been hired to do. If the Navy doesn't want women serving on submarines, it simply has to say so. No violations of equal rights because it has already hired women.

Hatuey · Mar 1, 2010

rivrrat said:
No dear, I made three posts calling you out on your hypocrisy because I found it so amusing. And to show how little of what you have to say actually means anything. And I will continue to point it out when I see it.

Here. Since you're so keen on using words that are obviously too big for you:

Definition of hypocrisy :

insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

Now, I honestly do not care who else is debating in this thread. Their experiences? Just as irrelevant as yours. Who they are? Even more irrelevant. Or are you mad you're the only one who got called out for arguing that this is debate has anything to do with equal rights?

rivrrat · Mar 2, 2010

Hatuey said:
Of course it is relevant you complete bellicum ignoramum. If you change the accommodations on a single submarine. You have to change them on every submarine.

No need to.

And I've already explained this to you in 8-9 different posts. It doesn't matter whether or not you think they have to or not. They will be. Because of people who want to feel good about themselves. Ie. You.

Yes dear, I know idiots WANT to change them, and they likely will due to other idiots. But there is no need to.

Show me a single law that says that any employer has to allow women and men to do the same kinds of jobs. Show me a single one. Just one? Thanks.

Never said there was. But there's also not a law PROHIBITING women from entering into certain workforces. EXCEPT in the military. Pull your head out of your ass.

An employer fulfills her commitment to employment rights the minute you are hired. What position you occupy inside the workplace is entirely at the discretion of the employer.

Yup. As it should be. And?

See above. Everything else you've typed is just rehashing of your ridiculous belief that not being put in just any position because the employer doesn't want to is somehow a violation of your rights. If your employer hires you to cook fries but you have training in cash, it doesn't matter where you think you should work. It is at the discretion of the employer and what you've been hired to do. If the Navy doesn't want women serving on submarines, it simply has to say so. No violations of equal rights because it has already hired women.

LMFAO It's a violation of equal rights when the ****ing government PROHIBITS a group of people from doing something that another group of people can do. Jesus christ, are you really that ****ing dense? I don't give a flying **** what private businesses do. I don't give a flying **** if some private businesses flat out ****ing refuse to hire blacks, or women, or gays. Do. not. care. What I do care about is the GOVERNMENT legally prohibiting a specific group of people from doing something that another group of people CAN do.

Jesus, I feel like I'm talking to a 3yr old.

rivrrat · Mar 2, 2010

Hatuey said:
Here. Since you're so keen on using words that are obviously too big for you:

Definition of hypocrisy :

Now, I honestly do not care who else is debating in this thread. Their experiences? Just as irrelevant as yours. Who they are? Even more irrelevant. Or are you mad you're the only one who got called out for arguing that this is debate has anything to do with equal rights?

Called out?? The very basis of the argument is equal rights. There is no "calling out" to be done, sweetie. There is simply some reading comprehension and basic linguistic understanding required on your part. Why don't you try it before continuing to make an ass of yourself.

Hatuey · Mar 2, 2010

rivrrat said:
No need to.

Yes dear, I know idiots WANT to change them, and they likely will due to other idiots. But there is no need to.

And you're still arguing from the perspective of a 12 year old. It doesn't matter what you feel people don't need to do. It is about what will actually happen. Why is it so hard for you to understand that simple fact of life?

Never said there was. But there's also not a law PROHIBITING women from entering into certain workforces. EXCEPT in the military. Pull your head out of your ass.

The military doesn't have to put anybody in any position it doesn't want to regardless of what jobs they apply for or are trained to do. To imply that they are somehow violating equal rights for doing something they are within their legal rights as employers to do is ridiculous.

Yup. As it should be. And?

So then which right as guaranteed by the constitution is being violated here? Which employment law? I suppose you'll have something more than "equal rights". That you will actually provide the right and law being violated by not putting women to work on submarines.

LMFAO It's a violation of equal rights when the ****ing government PROHIBITS a group of people from doing something that another group of people can do.

Show me a single federal employment law that was broken.

Jesus christ, are you really that ****ing dense? I don't give a flying **** what private businesses do. I don't give a flying **** if some private businesses flat out ****ing refuse to hire blacks, or women, or gays. Do. not. care. What I do care about is the GOVERNMENT legally prohibiting a specific group of people from doing something that another group of people CAN do.

Jesus, I feel like I'm talking to a 3yr old.

:rofl - So then you should have no problem showing us which "equal rights" the Navy is violating by not putting women on submarines. Why can't you do something that simple? I'll wait. An employer regardless of whether it is private or public - as the government is - does not have to hire anybody to be in any position regardless of whether or not they are male or female, black, white or gay.

Hatuey · Mar 2, 2010

rivrrat said:
Called out?? The very basis of the argument is equal rights.

Show us which right was violated. Show us a single amendment within the constitution that was broken. Show us some legal basis for this "equal rights" argument. Or please go away with it? It is quite boring and disingenuous. Sorry. I'll use a smaller word. Dishonest.

1069 · Mar 2, 2010

The military doesn't have to put anybody in any position it doesn't want to regardless of what jobs they apply for or are trained to do. To imply that they are somehow violating equal rights for doing something they are within their legal rights as employers to do is ridiculous.

Well, they are federally funded, Hatuey.
It's not like they're private employers.
As women, our hard-earned tax dollars shouldn't have to go to fund institutions that discriminate against women.

Hatuey · Mar 2, 2010

1069 said:
Well, they are federally funded, Hatuey.
It's not like they're private employers.
As women, our hard-earned tax dollars shouldn't have to go to fund institutions that discriminate against women.

I'm perfectly fine with the Navy hiring women to do certain jobs and men to do others. How that is discrimination is beyond me. If the Navy didn't hire women period, you'd have a point. If they fired women on the basis that they are women and nothing else. You'd have a point and it would be discrimination. But an employer assigning employees to certain positions based on 1. Problems which will arise as a result regarding performance 2. Ergonomics and last and probably least, 3. because it simply makes sense is fine with me and apparently the U.S. constitution as far as "rights" are concerned :shrug:

rivrrat · Mar 2, 2010

Hatuey said:
Show us which right was violated. Show us a single amendment within the constitution that was broken. Show us some legal basis for this "equal rights" argument. Or please go away with it? It is quite boring and disingenuous. Sorry. I'll use a smaller word. Dishonest.

Gee, I dunno. Maybe the same rights that were violated when blacks were in the same position prior to 1948. :roll:

rivrrat · Mar 2, 2010

Hatuey said:
I'm perfectly fine with the Navy hiring women to do certain jobs and men to do others. How that is discrimination is beyond me. If the Navy didn't hire women period, you'd have a point. If they fired women on the basis that they are women and nothing else. You'd have a point and it would be discrimination. But an employer assigning employees to certain positions based on 1. Problems which will arise as a result regarding performance 2. Ergonomics and last and probably least, 3. because it simply makes sense is fine with me and apparently the U.S. constitution as far as "rights" are concerned :shrug:

Assigning positions based on skill is one thing. Flat out PROHIBITING an entire ****ing segment of the population is entirely another. I mean, prior to '48, blacks weren't ALLOWED in many positions in the military, and they were segregated. That's okay with you? Since they were allowed in the military, and all, right? Doesn't matter that blacks were just cooks and whatnot because they were deemed too stupid and weak to do anything of real importance? I mean, they were at least allowed to walk through the door, so that makes it all a-ok.

Gimme a ****ing break. Jesus, I may as well be talking to my nephew for all the comprehension you're displaying here.

Captain America · Mar 2, 2010

Redress said:
That is true of all ships though. Even on a carrier, you really can't get away.

I served on a bird farm with the chick-a-dee's. Believe me, there are so many cubby holes on a carrier. Places to catch a buzz or cop a feel.

But you're right. You couldn't just walk home.

Myself, I used to just go lay low under the C.I.W.S. The temperature was always cool in there and it was our home away from home (Fire Control.)

Redress · Mar 2, 2010

Captain America said:
I served on a bird farm with the chick-a-dee's. Believe me, there are so many cubby holes on a carrier. Places to catch a buzz or cop a feel.

But you're right. You couldn't just walk home.

Myself, I used to just go lay low under the C.I.W.S. The temperature was always cool in there and it was our home away from home (Fire Control.)

CIWS was kinda a magical thing us airdales did not know much about and did not mess with.

Captain America · Mar 2, 2010

Redress said:
CIWS was kinda a magical thing us airdales did not know much about and did not mess with.

It is a schweet weapon fo' sho'. We always had much respect for our airdales and the job they did. Cream of the crop, they were.

Thank you for your service. :2wave:

American · Mar 2, 2010

rivrrat said:
Assigning positions based on skill is one thing. Flat out PROHIBITING an entire ****ing segment of the population is entirely another. I mean, prior to '48, blacks weren't ALLOWED in many positions in the military, and they were segregated. That's okay with you? Since they were allowed in the military, and all, right? Doesn't matter that blacks were just cooks and whatnot because they were deemed too stupid and weak to do anything of real importance? I mean, they were at least allowed to walk through the door, so that makes it all a-ok.

Gimme a ****ing break. Jesus, I may as well be talking to my nephew for all the comprehension you're displaying here.

Sounds like he's not saying what you want him to.

rivrrat · Mar 2, 2010

American said:
Sounds like he's not saying what you want him to.

I don't *want* him to say anything.

Hatuey · Mar 2, 2010

Gee, I dunno. Maybe the same rights that were violated when blacks were in the same position prior to 1948.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans]Military history of African Americans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

There hasn't been a single conflict the U.S. has been involved in which blacks haven't served. From cooks to officers. Not sure what the hell it is you're talking about. :roll: - Now show us how separating groups based on non-existant physical and anatomical differences is comparable to separating groups which have demonstrable physical and anatomical differences. I'll wait. Better yet. Bring up which "equal right" is being violated.

rivrrat said:
Assigning positions based on skill is one thing.

So is the military assigning positions based on *whatever* the military wants. Show us any different or quit the "equal rights" argument.

Flat out PROHIBITING an entire ****ing segment of the population is entirely another.

No it is not. The navy hires women for all high ranking positions. It has deemed that not allowing them on submarines is the best option for efficiency. I agree. If women were not allowed in the Navy or allowed to go up in ranks at all, you'd have a point. But that is not the case now is it. Now which "equal right" is being violated here?

I mean, prior to '48, blacks weren't ALLOWED in many positions in the military,

This is false.

and they were segregated.That's okay with you? Since they were allowed in the military, and all, right? Doesn't matter that blacks were just cooks and whatnot because they were deemed too stupid and weak to do anything of real importance? I mean, they were at least allowed to walk through the door, so that makes it all a-ok.

I couldn't wait until you brought up this ridiculous angle. Mostly because it is a sign that you are losing the argument. The U.S. military has allowed blacks in all major positions in the military since the war of independence there has been everything black from officers to cooks. But since you know absolutely nothing of black people or the military it is not surprising you wouldn't know this. What actually happened is that the military kept units segregated up until WWII. It simply did not make sense - for organizational purposes - to keep units segregated. Before that? Black officers were allowed to go up the ranks just as well as white ones. The segregation was brought on as a result of belief. Not demonstrable differences. So no. your comparison is false and ridiculous.

Gimme a ****ing break. Jesus, I may as well be talking to my nephew for all the comprehension you're displaying here.

I've asked you in 3 different posts to show us which equal right is being violated. Because you obviously do not seem to be able to. You just keep throwing out historical inaccuracies and vague terms like "equal rights". Which right? Which constitutional right is being violated here?

rivrrat · Mar 2, 2010

Hatuey said:
No it is not.

Yes, it is.

This is false.

No, it is not. If it were false, then Truman wouldn't have had to sign an executive order demanding equal opportunity and treatment for blacks, now would he?

EDIT: Done with you Hatuey. I'll only beat my head against a wall so many times before I realize it's pointless to keep arguing with someone who is seemingly incapable of comprehending the actual conversation. Not going around in your silly, ignorant circles any longer. I have more interesting things to do... like... watch paint dry.

Hatuey · Mar 2, 2010

rivrrat said:
Yes, it is.

No, it is not. If it were false, then Truman wouldn't have had to sign an executive order demanding equal opportunity and treatment for blacks, now would he?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans]Military history of African Americans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

War of Indep.

In response, and because of manpower shortages, Washington lifted the ban on black enlistment in the Continental Army in January 1776. All-black units were formed in Rhode Island and Massachusetts; many were slaves promised freedom for serving in lieu of their masters; another all-African-American unit came from Haiti with French forces. At least 5,000 African-American soldiers fought as Revolutionaries, and at least 20,000 served with the British.

...

Black volunteers also served with various of the South Carolina guerrilla units, including that of the "Swamp Fox", Francis Marion, half of whose force sometimes consisted of free Blacks. These Black troops made a critical difference in the fighting in the swamps, since they were immune to malaria through sickle-cell anemia, and kept Marion's guerrillas effective even when many of his White troops were down with malaria or yellow fever

War of 1812:

During the War of 1812, about one-quarter of the personnel in the American naval squadrons of the Battle of Lake Erie were black, and portrait renderings of the battle on the wall of the Nation's Capitol and the rotunda of Ohio's Capitol show that blacks played a significant role in it.

Mexican War:

Also, soldiers from the Louisiana Battalion of Free Men of Color participated in this war. Blacks also served on a number of naval vessels during the Mexican War, including the U.S.S. Portsmouth, and the U.S.S. Columbus[3].

Civil War :

The history of African Americans in the U.S. Civil War is marked by 186,097 (7,122 officers, 178,975 enlisted)[4] African American men, comprising 163 units, who served in the Union Army during the Civil War, and many more African Americans served in the Union Navy. Both free African Americans and runaway slaves joined the fight. On the Confederate side, blacks, both free and slave, were used for labor, but the issue of whether to arm them, and under what terms, became a major source of debate amongst those in the South. On March 13th, 1865 the Confederate Congress enacted a statute to allow the enlistment of African Americans but less than fifty were ever recruited.

Indian Wars:

From the 1870s to the early 20th century, African American units were utilized by the United States Government to combat the Native Americans during the Indian Wars. Perhaps the most noted among this group were the Buffalo Soldiers:
9th Cavalry Regiment
10th Cavalry Regiment
24th Infantry Regiment
25th Infantry Regiment
27th Cavalry Regiment[5]
28th Cavalry Regiment[5][6][7]

Spanish-American War:

After the Indian Wars ended in the 1890s, the regiments continued to serve and participated in the Spanish-American War (including the Battle of San Juan Hill), where five more Medals of Honor were earned. They took part in the 1916 Punitive Expedition into Mexico and in the Philippine-American War. The Spanish-American War's General Shafter preferred his "Buffalo Soldiers" to their white counterparts.

WWI

The U.S. armed forces remained segregated through World War I. Still, many African Americans eagerly volunteered to join the Allied cause following America's entry into the war. By the time of the armistice with Germany on November 1918, over 350,000 African Americans had served with the American Expeditionary Force in on the Western Front.

Most African American units were largely relegated to support roles and did not see combat. Still, African Americans played a minor role in America's war effort. One of the most distinguished units was the 369th Infantry Regiment, known as the "Harlem Hellfighters", which was on the front lines for six months, longer than any other American unit in the war. 171 members of the 369th were awarded the Legion of Merit.

That is just the start. Black officers, cooks, sea bees, buffalo soldiers etc. No. Your argument is false. Which positions are you talking about that blacks were not allowed into? I'm still waiting for that one. Or are you going to show us a Cuba Gooding Jr movie? :shrug:

Zyphlin · Mar 2, 2010

Moderator's Warning:

I know this is a heated topic but the attacks need to be dialed down. The condenscending remarks towards others intelligence, insinuations that someone is like a "3 yeard old" or a "12 year old", the accusations of illiteracy, and others need to end. Its starting to move past simply heated and into flaming and it needs to be pulled back or water is going to have to be thrown on the fire. Just a warning

Redress · Mar 2, 2010

Captain America said:
It is a schweet weapon fo' sho'. We always had much respect for our airdales and the job they did. Cream of the crop, they were.

Thank you for your service. :2wave:

Hearing them fire is a trip. Movies get those noises so wrong. Sounds like the worlds largest chain saw.

edit: whole Navy is cream of the crop. Certain people dismiss the navy in that we don't go fight on the ground, without ever realizing that the stressed involved in 6+ months at sea are, while different, pretty extreme.

Black Dog · Mar 2, 2010

Redress said:
Hearing them fire is a trip. Movies get those noises so wrong. Sounds like the worlds largest chain saw.

edit: whole Navy is cream of the crop. Certain people dismiss the navy in that we don't go fight on the ground, without ever realizing that the stressed involved in 6+ months at sea are, while different, pretty extreme.

These Ranger boys say....

I don't think so!

And here is one for all my brothers in Armor...

They don't think so either!

The Mark · Mar 2, 2010

Blackdog said:
...stuff...

How about we just say that the whole military is, in general, "cream of the crop"?

Black Dog · Mar 2, 2010

The Mark said:
How about we just say that the whole military is, in general, "cream of the crop"?

#1 Because they are not.

#2 Because I was joking hence the

at the end.

Get with the Internets man!

ADK_Forever · Mar 2, 2010

Blackdog said:
#1 Because they are not.

The military might protect us very, very well but, as far as being human beings they sometimes leave a lot to be desired.

Military Culture Punishes Rape Victims instead of Rapists

Feminists are keenly aware that we live in a society that promotes a rape culture. I can think of few places that is this more obvious than in the rank and file of today's military. Women in uniform are finding themselves, too many times, victims of sexual assault and rape -- only to be re-victimized by the process of trying to get help and see justice served.

According to this BBC article, which I had a hard time reading without wanting to yell and cry in alternating bouts, a 2003 survey conducted by the University of Iowa found that a whopping 30% of 500 interviewed woman veterans said they'd been victim to an attempted or completed rape. The DoD estimates that in 2009 about 90 percent of sexual assaults and rapes went unreported, admittedly in part due to an restricted reporting option.

What else are we to expect, when we read stories like that of Marti Ribeiro, who felt she had to choose between reporting her rape and being punished herself? Hers is not a unique story, because it is all too common that a woman has to choose between being ostracized by her unit or command in seeking justice, or being herself punished for a minor offense, such as laying down her weapon, while her rapist goes free or is transferred. These stories fill my inbox, and if Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez is telling the truth, I am not the only one receiving these messages.

These rapes and assaults are committed by men in uniform, yet it is the women in uniform who are punished, either by non-judicial punishments for minor things that should not prevent a courts martial for rape going forward, or by being forced out of their careers. The culture of masculinity within the military is a breeding ground for a rape culture that is running rampant in the ranks and sometimes is giving credence to those who would have us believe that women don't belong in uniform to begin with.

Military Culture Punishes Rape Victims instead of Rapists | Women's Rights | Change.org

It's conduct like this, by men!, that shines a light on just one major problem with our military. This is from the top on down. And anybody who has ever served knows it.

Navy will soon let women serve on subs

Goddess of Bacon

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Goddess of Bacon

Goddess of Bacon

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

Goddess of Bacon

Goddess of Bacon

Jedi Master

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Jedi Master

Trump Grump Whisperer

Goddess of Bacon

Rule of Two

Goddess of Bacon

Rule of Two

Liberal Fascist For Life!

King Of The Dog Pound

Sporadic insanity normal.

King Of The Dog Pound