Navy will soon let women serve on subs

bhkad · Feb 23, 2010

The Navy would begin by phasing in officers aboard the larger ships, which are easier to retrofit for coed quarters. Females would also not be allowed to serve alone; at least two women would be required to be on board. It would take about a year before the first women would board a sub, due to the amount of training need. ABC News says that the Navy hopes that 12-18 ROTC or Naval Academy graduates will enter submarine training.

Pentagon to Allow Women on Subs | News | Advocate.com

The subs would be retrofit to accommodate women.

rivrrat · Feb 23, 2010

Hatuey said:
Women on a sub is a housing issue. Regardless of how you feel on the matter, having women on a submarine would create the problem of "where to put them". On a sub, all the guys use the same bathroom gay or straight. The need to create a separate bathroom(and once again, regardless of how you feel about it - it would have to happen as our military is not co-ed as far as those facilities are involved) would create an ergonomic issue for submarines that is simply more of a trouble than simply not letting women go on subs. It is not as simple as 'let the ones who want to do it, do it' because that is not how the military works. You have to change rules, regulations, see how those rules and regulations will affect others, etc etc etc. It is the reason Obama simply can't say "let gays serve". The courts have already ruled that it is not that simple.

No need for a separate bathroom. Either both genders accept co-ed, or they don't serve on a sub. No reason to change any rules or regs at all.

rivrrat · Feb 23, 2010

kansaswhig said:
Yeah, that about sums it up.

Women as Green Berets? They just can't hack it physically. Even if there was one woman who could, why change everything just for her?

Change what?

Hatuey · Feb 23, 2010

rivrrat said:
No need for a separate bathroom. Either both genders accept co-ed, or they don't serve on a sub. No reason to change any rules or regs at all.

Did you not read a thing I said? In the real world, you know, the one most people live in? It is not as ****ing easy as waving some stupid wiccan wand and saying "Bam! Changed!" Rules and regulations can't be scrapped because of how some moron without a single clue of how a submarine actually works thinks it is unfair. Seriously, if you're not going to make an effort to read what is being said to you, why don't you leave the thread? You'll be doing everyone here a huge favor. Or at the very least, try to make some sort of point other than 'IT ISN'T FAIR THAT I HAVE A VAGINA!'

rivrrat · Feb 23, 2010

Hatuey said:
Did you not read a thing I said? In the real world, you know, the one most people live in? It is not as ****ing easy as waving some stupid wiccan wand and saying "Bam! Changed!" Rules and regulations can't be scrapped because of how some moron without a single clue of how a submarine actually works thinks it is unfair. Seriously, if you're not going to make an effort to read what is being said to you, why don't you leave the thread? You'll be doing everyone here a huge favor. Or at the very least, try to make some sort of point other than 'IT ISN'T FAIR THAT I HAVE A VAGINA!'

I read it.

It IS pretty easy. How hard is it to say 'co-ed'? I mean, seriously. If the men and women don't want to serve on a co-ed sub, they don't have to. How difficult is that? Pretty ****ing easy.

Seriously, I'll show you how easy it is:

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/23/Pentagon_to_Allow_Women_on_Submarines/

BAM. Ban lifted. Oh noes!

Hatuey · Feb 23, 2010

rivrrat said:
I read it.

You obviously haven't because you're still repeating the same stupid **** you've been trolling about for 5 pages now. The fact that your vagina doesn't get accommodated everywhere at any time and place.

It IS pretty easy. How hard is it to say 'co-ed'? I mean, seriously. If the men and women don't want to serve on a co-ed sub, they don't have to. How difficult is that? Pretty ****ing easy.

Seriously, I'll show you how easy it is:

Pentagon to Allow Women on Subs | News | Advocate.com

BAM. Ban lifted. Oh noes!

You're either a completely illiterate or you simply chose to read the sources which invalidate your ridiculous point. Not sure which is worse. Here, I'll explain why it is not that easy to say "co-ed". From your source:

Submarines are the only craft in the Navy on which women are restricted from serving, due to close quarters, which could make coed service difficult to manage, according to the Associated Press. The change comes during the ongoing challenge to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," the law barring gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

The Navy would begin by phasing in officers aboard the larger ships, which are easier to retrofit for coed quarters. Females would also not be allowed to serve alone; at least two women would be required to be on board. It would take about a year before the first women would board a sub, due to the amount of training need. ABC News says that the Navy hopes that 12-18 ROTC or Naval Academy graduates will enter submarine training.

So from the get-go we now know the Navy will actually have to retrofit its ships to accommodate women. So much for "co-ed".

Secondly :

Defense secretary Robert Gates notified Congress of the proposed change in a letter. Congress members have 30 days to respond.

30 days to respond. No. The ban is not simply lifted. Congress has to approve of it and to some extent so does the CinC and JCS. That takes months for minor changes and for changes such as this, years. Finally :

This rule against women serving on subs is not written into law, unlike the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which was passed into law by Congress in 1993.

Now because of women a completely new set of rules, training manuals and courses on sensitivity will have to be created for men inside submarines to deal with women. Obviously in the real world, it is not as easy as you paint it though.

rivrrat · Feb 23, 2010

Hatuey said:
You obviously haven't because you're still repeating the same stupid **** you've been trolling about for 5 pages now. The fact that your vagina doesn't get accommodated everywhere at any time and place.

I don't require being 'accommodated'. That's what you don't seem to get. And how the **** have I been trolling? Stating my ****ing opinion is trolling, now?

You're either a completely illiterate or you simply chose to read the sources which invalidate your ridiculous point. Not sure which is worse. Here, I'll explain why it is not that easy to say "co-ed". From your source:

So from the get-go we now know the Navy will actually have to retrofit its ships to accommodate women. So much for "co-ed".

I never said they WERE going to do co-ed. Could you point me to where I did say that? I said they SHOULD. All you crybabies whining and crying about how 'hard' it would be to let women on a sub and yet... they're doing it. You're saying it's impossible, yet... well, you saw the link.

Secondly :
30 days to respond. No. The ban is not simply lifted. Congress has to approve of it and to some extent so does the CinC and JCS. That takes months for minor changes and for changes such as this, years. Finally :

Oh, they have to sign a bill. Gee... that's soooo ****ing hard, isn't it? I think I'll go cry for all of the hard work entailed. :roll:

Now because of women a completely new set of rules, training manuals and courses on sensitivity will have to be created for men inside submarines to deal with women. Obviously in the real world, it is not as easy as you paint it though.

No. Not because of women. Because of ****tard, PC ****heads.

Yes, it IS as easy as I paint it. It's ****tards that do everything they can to make it as difficult as they can.

Signing a ****ing bill to lift a ban isn't hard.
Retrofitting a sub isn't necessary. Are they doing it? Yes. Is it necessary? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. Neither is all other ****ing bull****.

EDIT: And are you seriously going to sit here and argue the position that women shouldn't serve on a sub because it'll be too much paperwork? That too many people will have to read things and sign things? Is your position really that weak, that's what it boils down to? Too much paperwork?

CrusaderRabbit08 · Feb 23, 2010

If women can be astronauts and serve on cramped space ships, then they can do the same on cramped subs.

Black Dog · Feb 24, 2010

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
If women can be astronauts and serve on cramped space ships, then they can do the same on cramped subs.

Not even remotely the same.

You are dealing with a crew of seven on a MUCH smaller vessel.

Common Sense people. :roll:

CrusaderRabbit08 · Feb 24, 2010

Blackdog said:
Not even remotely the same.

You are dealing with a crew of seven on a MUCH smaller vessel.

Common Sense people.

Why, because they're officers and gentlemen; and know how to exercise self-discipline? Whereas enlisted personnel are the opposite and a bunch of uncouth scum with no self-disciple whatsoever?

Hatuey · Feb 24, 2010

rivrrat said:
I don't require being 'accommodated'. That's what you don't seem to get. And how the **** have I been trolling? Stating my ****ing opinion is trolling, now?

When your opinion is not based on reality or facts? Then yes. It is most certainly trolling. You're one level bellow Scarecrow_Akbhar. Mostly because at the very least he manages to actually know a thing or two about what he is talking about once in a while. Instead of relying on their personal experience like it actually means anything to anybody.

I never said they WERE going to do co-ed. Could you point me to where I did say that? I said they SHOULD. All you crybabies whining and crying about how 'hard' it would be to let women on a sub and yet... they're doing it. You're saying it's impossible, yet... well, you saw the link

And yet you still prove you have not a single clue what it is you are talking about. The fact that they should do co-ed has nothing to do with reality.

Oh, they have to sign a bill. Gee... that's soooo ****ing hard, isn't it? I think I'll go cry for all of the hard work entailed. :roll:

Are you really this ignorant of the military? It is not just signing a bill. Read what I actually said instead of pretending you did more than look at the cool little letters :

30 days to respond. No. The ban is not simply lifted. Congress has to approve of it and to some extent so does the CinC and JCS. That takes months for minor changes and for changes such as this, years. Finally :

Now because of women a completely new set of rules, training manuals and courses on sensitivity will have to be created for men inside submarines to deal with women. Obviously in the real world, it is not as easy as you paint it though.

No. Not because of women. Because of ****tard, PC ****heads.

Do you even know what Politically Correct means? The politically incorrect stance on this matter would be to keep things as they are and not letting women go on subs. Or is it that you, like MSgt, throw out the word "PC" whenever you're losing the argument?

Yes, it IS as easy as I paint it.

As your own article demonstrates, it is not.

It's ****tards that do everything they can to make it as difficult as they can.

Take it up with the Navy. Where people who know what words like "ergonomic" and "politically correct" mean.

Signing a ****ing bill to lift a ban isn't hard.

If that were the only thing necessary you'd be right. But it is not. Then again, you wouldn't know this because you think all it takes is signing a bill.

Retrofitting a sub isn't necessary.[ Are they doing it? Yes. Is it necessary? NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. Neither is all other ****ing bull****.

But it will happen regardless. Thanks to women like you. Who complain whenever they don't get their way.

EDIT: And are you seriously going to sit here and argue the position that women shouldn't serve on a sub because it'll be too much paperwork? That too many people will have to read things and sign things? Is your position really that weak, that's what it boils down to? Too much paperwork?

No. I am arguing from a purely ergonomic perspective. A submarine is a cramped space as it is. Having to completely remodel our submarines, because women like you think that all it takes is signing a bill is quite ridiculous and a huge waste of money. But please, attempt to actually learn how to read sometime so we can debate this in words that do not involve "should, could and would".

rivrrat · Feb 24, 2010

Hatuey said:
When your opinion is not based on reality or facts? Then yes.

Uh huh. And what 'reality' exactly is it that my opinion isn't based on? The reality that women can and do serve on subs in other countries? The reality that women can and do perform the physical tasks that men do? The reality that men and women can and do live in co-ed quarters in countless other situations?

And yet you still prove you have not a single clue what it is you are talking about. The fact that they should do co-ed has nothing to do with reality.

Should has everything to do with it, since we change laws and rules to coincide with what we think people SHOULD do.

Are you really this ignorant of the military? It is not just signing a bill. Read what I actually said instead of pretending you did more than look at the cool little letters :

I did read it.

Do you even know what Politically Correct means? The politically incorrect stance on this matter would be to keep things as they are and not letting women go on subs. Or is it that you, like MSgt, throw out the word "PC" whenever you're losing the argument?

Really? So those 'sensitivity classes' you were bitching about aren't PC, huh? :roll:

Take it up with the Navy. Where people who know what words like "ergonomic" and "politically correct" mean.

I would if I could. But as it is right now, we're having a discussion HERE. And if you don't like what I say, then PLEASE put me on ignore and stop responding to me. I promise my feelings won't be hurt in the slightest.

But it will happen regardless. Thanks to women like you. Who complain whenever they don't get their way.

I know! Damn us people who want equal rights! Damn us all to hell who complain when we aren't given equal rights. We suck as bad as those pesky blacks who refused to sit at the back of bus.

No. I am arguing from a purely ergonomic perspective. A submarine is a cramped space as it is. Having to completely remodel our submarines, because women like you think that all it takes is signing a bill is quite ridiculous and a huge waste of money. But please, attempt to actually learn how to read sometime so we can debate this in words that do not involve "should, could and would".

No remodeling is required.

Black Dog · Feb 24, 2010

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Why, because they're officers and gentlemen; and know how to exercise self-discipline? Whereas enlisted personnel are the opposite and a bunch of uncouth scum with no self-disciple whatsoever?

Yes a small percentage are just that, as well as officers. Your comparison is naive at best. That is besides the point though.

We are waisting time and effort on something that is not necessary and will end in just like it did for the Russian and Israeli military, and most other military organizations in the world who no longer or never did allow females into combat positions. The fact is they are not really built for it mentally or physically. Again not sexist, mother nature and a fact.

Hatuey · Feb 24, 2010

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Why, because they're officers and gentlemen; and know how to exercise self-discipline? Whereas enlisted personnel are the opposite and a bunch of uncouth scum with no self-disciple whatsoever?

No. It has to do with working conditions. People who work in the space station do not have to deal with ergonomics on the same level as submarines. Submarines are already cramped for room because of the simple fact that they usually need more food than they can actually carry. Secondly because the firepower they carry, takes up a ****load of room. Thirdly because they need to keep walking space to an absolutely minimum. Finally and conclusively because they are made so that very little room is wasted. Having to add women on a submarine now adds the extra problem of accommodating them. Regardless of what people who know nothing of the Navy think, it is not that easy to do but yet has to happen. Why? So a few women can shove their political correctness down our throats.

Kali · Feb 24, 2010

This is a good thing but based on this thread? I see sexism is still alive and kicking in this Good OLD Boy Country!

Black Dog · Feb 24, 2010

Kali said:
This is a good thing but based on this thread? I see sexism is still alive and kicking in this Good OLD Boy Country!

I tell you what. The day you can kick my ass, you can call me sexist, OK?

In fact the day you can carry the same load, run 10 miles as fast etc. Then and only then can you call me sexist.

CrusaderRabbit08 · Feb 24, 2010

Blackdog said:
Yes a small percentage are just that, as well as officers. Your comparison is naive at best. That is besides the point though.

We are waisting time and effort on something that is not necessary and will end in just like it did for the Russian military and most other military organizations in the world who no longer or never did allow females into combat positions.

From my experience in the Army, it's more than a small percentage.

It wasn't necessary to integrate blacks into the military either. We won WWII without doing so, yet we did it anyway ..why?

The not necessary bit doesn't fly, because that's not an excuse to continue policies that discriminate against qualified individuals on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.

Black Dog · Feb 24, 2010

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
From my experience in the Army, it's more than a small percentage.

Welcome to the military.

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
It wasn't necessary to integrate blacks into the military either. We won WWII without doing so, yet we did it anyway ..why?

Since they are both male it was quite different.

Apples and oranges.

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
The not necessary bit doesn't fly, because that's not an excuse to continue policies that discriminate against qualified individuals on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.

It is nothing but PC bull**** as the military does not need females to do the job a man needs to be doing, period.

Your argument has yet to show how a space shuttle crew compares in any way whatsoever to a submarine crew. In fact now you are trying to use race. Stick on track.

Hatuey · Feb 24, 2010

rivrrat said:
Uh huh. And what 'reality' exactly is it that my opinion isn't based on? The reality that women can and do serve on subs in other countries? The reality that women can and do perform the physical tasks that men do? The reality that men and women can and do live in co-ed quarters in countless other situations?

And yet our fleet of submarines would sink their entire navies. Your argument is silly. Our Navy makes The Australian Navy look like a few boats in the ocean from a purely numeral perspective. The fact that now every single submarine we have will have to be retro-ed at the expense of taxpayers just so a few people can feel good about themselves is ridiculous.

Should has everything to do with it, since we change laws and rules to coincide with what we think people SHOULD do.

And yet there are laws we simply do not change because it would cost more economically and from a purely utilitarian perspective. This is one of those things.

I did read it.

Good. Then you can admit you're wrong now and we can all move on.

Really? So those 'sensitivity classes' you were bitching about aren't PC, huh? :roll:

LMAO so let me get this straight. You support the PC that gives us women serving on submarines but you do not support the PC classes that come as a result of it? Let me introduce you to the word: Inconsistent

I would if I could. But as it is right now, we're having a discussion HERE. And if you don't like what I say, then PLEASE put me on ignore and stop responding to me. I promise my feelings won't be hurt in the slightest.

I'd rather show you for the complete ignoramus that you are. It's fun to bring people to the real world when they get too sucked up in MMORPGs.

I know! Damn us people who want equal rights! Damn us all to hell who complain when we aren't given equal rights. We suck as bad as those pesky blacks who refused to sit at the back of bus.

Which equal rights are those? Gays serving openly? Sure. Blacks & Women in the military? Sure. All of those are rights. Women on submarines? That is a demand. Not a right.

No remodeling is required.

But it will happen. Thanks to your political correctness. :2wave:

rivrrat · Feb 24, 2010

Hatuey said:
And yet our fleet of submarines would sink their entire navies. Your argument is silly. Our Navy makes The Australian Navy look like a few boats in the ocean from a purely numeral perspective.

The number of ships is irrelevant to the discussion.

The fact that now every single submarine we have will have to be retro-ed at the expense of taxpayers just so a few people can feel good about themselves is ridiculous.

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

And yet there are laws we simply do not change because it would cost more economically and from a purely utilitarian perspective. This is one of those things.

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

Good. Then you can admit you're wrong now and we can all move on.

Wrong about what?

LMAO so let me get this straight. You support the PC that gives us women serving on submarines but you do not support the PC classes that come as a result of it? Let me introduce you to the word: Inconsistent

Equal rights isn't PC.

I'd rather show you for the complete ignoramus that you are. It's fun to bring people to the real world when they get too sucked up in MMORPGs.

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

Which equal rights are those? Gays serving openly? Sure. Blacks & Women in the military? Sure. All of those are rights. Women on submarines? That is a demand. Not a right.

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

But it will happen. Thanks to your political correctness. :2wave:

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.

CrusaderRabbit08 · Feb 24, 2010

Blackdog said:
Since they are both male it was quite different.

Apples and oranges.

I see; just a different kind of discrimination

What changed in the military during the late 40's to warrant overturning discrimination on the basis of race? Did white soldiers become more enlightened? Did someone discover that blacks were actually capable of doing jobs other than personal aids and truck drivers?

I always find it comical to watch how people rationalize their own bigotries and justify discrimination on that basis.

Kali · Feb 24, 2010

Blackdog said:
I tell you what. The day you can kick my ass, you can call me sexist, OK?

In fact the day you can carry the same load, run 10 miles as fast etc. Then and only then can you call me sexist.

Is that a challenge? You do not know me nor do you know what I can or cannot do. Til then? You can shut your face.

Captain America · Feb 24, 2010

Navy Pride said:
Nah, if it make you feel good go for it but there will be no women seals....take that to the bank,,,,,,,,

We can all agree that it would be GREAT if there could be. But it ain't NEVER gonna happen. Never. UNLESS, they are like some kinda super-brain runnin' the intel, from a safe place, far removed. Up close and personal, though, ain't never gonna happen. Blame God if you have to. :roll:

I love women. They certainly are NOT the WEAKER sex. In fact, the opposite might be true. I have seen a 100 lb. women take a cockstrong, 220 lb. man, to his knees in heart break. They got the power, fo' sho. But in a S.E.A.L.'s type of operation, there aint no place for a woman, unless she is in a safe place, calling the shots.

dirtpoorchris · Feb 24, 2010

MrVicchio said:
Stupid, dumb, misguided and bad.

That's what this idea is.

Subs are small, their crews, smaller. What happens when they lose a gal cause she's pregnant? Eh? Say... 2 weeks before deployment? Hard to replace her with a well trained person ready to go. Happened on the Inchon quite a few times, we'd deploy and have departments and divisions short manned cause of this. And now we'll lift the ban on SUBS!

Oh screw reality, readiness and all that mean evil ****, let's be PC!!!

Whatever, glad I'm out and more so glad I ain't on subs, this would just piss me right the **** off.

"We're sorry Petty Officer Vicchio, you're just gonna have to do more work and work harder cause Seaman Jones and White are both pregnant and can't deploy with us. We'll TRY to get someone on in Hawaii and you'll have plenty of time to train them up. I know I know, ya'll have 8 people and just lost 2, but hey we're a diverse Navy that doesn't discriminate, change your attitude mister!"

Sometimes, I REALLY hate people.

When I was a small child my grandma sat me down and explained to me many of the harsh realities of the world. One of which was:

Women are crueler. The only reason why men wage war better than women is because one man can impregnate many women. And men don't get pregnant when raped.

Captain America · Feb 24, 2010

impregnate

Dude. Please. Now I gotta wiki? :roll:

Oh......

Nevermind. :3oops:

I get it. :doh

Navy will soon let women serve on subs

Goddess of Bacon

Goddess of Bacon

Rule of Two

Goddess of Bacon

Rule of Two

Goddess of Bacon

King Of The Dog Pound

Rule of Two

Goddess of Bacon

King Of The Dog Pound

Rule of Two

Stigmatized! End R Word!

King Of The Dog Pound

King Of The Dog Pound

Rule of Two

Goddess of Bacon

Stigmatized! End R Word!

Jedi Master

King of Videos

Jedi Master