• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Navy will soon let women serve on subs

To be honest, if I put most of the guys in this thread arguing against women being allowed on a sub in a situation where they had to be in direct combat with Tashah, I'd put my money on Tash.

Just sayin'. ;)

Tashah is NOT your ordinary woman.....

Hey, we already have gay men on subs, why not women?
I was on a Fast Attack back in the late 60's. Just among the Reactor Operators there were 3 or 4 who liked to play grabass....
 
Tashah is NOT your ordinary woman.....

Hey, we already have gay men on subs, why not women?
I was on a Fast Attack back in the late 60's. Just among the Reactor Operators there were 3 or 4 who liked to play grabass....
Did they have permission?
 
I do not mean to sound sexist but I do not think women could pass the training Navy SEALS go through. I really do not. The difference between a SEAL and everybody else in the Navy is the difference between you riding your bike and Lance Armstrong riding his bike. It is not the same thing. At all. I mean you're both doing the same thing. But you're really not.

Of course women would pass the training the men go threough to become a SEAL. The military would be forced to lower the requirements until women could pass.

They did it with the firemen, they did it with the cops. They'll do it with the SEALS if they get a chance.
 
We need to separate the conversation slightly...

Women on subs is a "housing" and sex issue.

A Los Angeles class submarine has one head on the Foward Compartment Lower Level, and a bunk room for 21 men. The head has one toilet, one rain locker, one sink.

The Forward Comparment Middle Level has two connected bunk rooms where the rest of the enlisted bunk. The connection is the head. This head has one urinal, three toilets, two showers, three sinks.

The Chiefs are also on this level. The Goat Locker has twelve bunks, one head with one toilet, one shower, one sink.

The junior officers bunks and Wardroom are on this level, they share one head, with one toilet, one shower, and I can't recall if their two-man bunkrooms have sinks or not.

The XO and the CO are berthed in staterooms just forward of the Control Room.

Over 100 men, E-6 and below, share four toilets, one urinal, three showers and four sinks.

There ZERO facilities for split-tails.

Got it, people?

Women in the infantry, et al is a physical issue.

Nah, there's the sleeping and hygeine issues there, as well.
 
A Los Angeles class submarine has one head on the Foward Compartment Lower Level, and a bunk room for 21 men. The head has one toilet, one rain locker, one sink.

The Forward Comparment Middle Level has two connected bunk rooms where the rest of the enlisted bunk. The connection is the head. This head has one urinal, three toilets, two showers, three sinks.

The Chiefs are also on this level. The Goat Locker has twelve bunks, one head with one toilet, one shower, one sink.

The junior officers bunks and Wardroom are on this level, they share one head, with one toilet, one shower, and I can't recall if their two-man bunkrooms have sinks or not.

The XO and the CO are berthed in staterooms just forward of the Control Room.

Over 100 men, E-6 and below, share four toilets, one urinal, three showers and four sinks.

There ZERO facilities for split-tails.

Got it, people?



Nah, there's the sleeping and hygeine issues there, as well.

Thanks for the education...I have a little better understanding of what you are dealing with now. Agreed.

Goddamn, how the hell do you guys not get stir-crazy in there?
 
Of course women would pass the training the men go threough to become a SEAL. The military would be forced to lower the requirements until women could pass.

They did it with the firemen, they did it with the cops. They'll do it with the SEALS if they get a chance.
The EFFECTIVENESS of the military is entire irrelevant. The important things are diversity, fairness, open life-styles and feelgoodness.
 
Females cannot do the same physical job as men in most cases. Military life aggravates this difference. Actual ground combat aggravates it to the breaking point.

Then per your examples, your gripe is with your employers for having such sexist attitudes and failing to hold female employees to the same standards as male employees for a particular job.

As to the military, all standards within any given MOS should be the same regardless of gender.
 
Then per your examples, your gripe is with your employers for having such sexist attitudes and failing to hold female employees to the same standards as male employees for a particular job.

As to the military, all standards within any given MOS should be the same regardless of gender.
Sure, there's only one Field Manual right? Does everyone apply it the exact same?
 
Who's fault is it if someone with substandard scores is placed into that MOS?
I don't know, but you shouldn't make it all sound so simple. I don't care, in general, if women work on subs. But we should impliment a policy to satisfy the PC crowd. Damn it, this is our national security.....life and death. You don't cross the line on that.
 
I don't know, but you shouldn't make it all sound so simple. I don't care, in general, if women work on subs. But we should impliment a policy to satisfy the PC crowd. Damn it, this is our national security.....life and death. You don't cross the line on that.

It is that simple - one job, one standard.
 
I get a kick out of this whole argument.......I have never served on a submarine but I have spent time aboard them both Nuclear and Diesel operated....I actually spent one day aboard a diesel sub underway when I was in the Navy.....

90% of you people have never been close to a sub let alone been aboard one...You have no clue what its like......These fast attack and trident submarines are the backbone of our defense against countries like Russia and China from ever attacking us.....They are not there as a social experiment to see if women can successfuly serve on a sub......There are so many reasons against it at the moment that it would take and hour to list them all....Unless you build new subs with accomadations for women (and that is not going to happen) or put all females on a sub this is not going to work........

Again its not going to affect me....Its not the same as DADT because it be said the guys on the subs would love to see women on board............I know I would..............
 
I get a kick out of this whole argument.......I have never served on a submarine but I have spent time aboard them both Nuclear and Diesel operated....I actually spent one day aboard a diesel sub underway when I was in the Navy.....

90% of you people have never been close to a sub let alone been aboard one...You have no clue what its like......These fast attack and trident submarines are the backbone of our defense against countries like Russia and China from ever attacking us.....They are not there as a social experiment to see if women can successfuly serve on a sub......There are so many reasons against it at the moment that it would take and hour to list them all....Unless you build new subs with accomadations for women (and that is not going to happen) or put all females on a sub this is not going to work........

Again its not going to affect me....Its not the same as DADT because it be said the guys on the subs would love to see women on board............I know I would..............
You are correct, and I'm one of them.
 
Then per your examples, your gripe is with your employers for having such sexist attitudes and failing to hold female employees to the same standards as male employees for a particular job.

As to the military, all standards within any given MOS should be the same regardless of gender.


No, the gripe is with the laws demanding equal pay for equal work, and then not requiring that equal work actually be equal work.
 
I get a kick out of this whole argument.......I have never served on a submarine but I have spent time aboard them both Nuclear and Diesel operated....I actually spent one day aboard a diesel sub underway when I was in the Navy.....

90% of you people have never been close to a sub let alone been aboard one...You have no clue what its like......These fast attack and trident submarines are the backbone of our defense against countries like Russia and China from ever attacking us.....They are not there as a social experiment to see if women can successfuly serve on a sub......There are so many reasons against it at the moment that it would take and hour to list them all....Unless you build new subs with accomadations for women (and that is not going to happen) or put all females on a sub this is not going to work........

Again its not going to affect me....Its not the same as DADT because it be said the guys on the subs would love to see women on board............I know I would..............

I drived a rowboat once on a raging lake :mrgreen:
 
Then per your examples, your gripe is with your employers for having such sexist attitudes and failing to hold female employees to the same standards as male employees for a particular job.

As to the military, all standards within any given MOS should be the same regardless of gender.

But they are not, and never have been. Did you skip my comments about the military? Did you ignore the comments about Fire and Police departments reducing the standards for females?

I hope that if I am ever unconscious in a building, a female firefighter does not find me or anyone else over 150lbs.

I don't even think the employer was being sexist. April, looked like a little electronic parts put in the box person. I looked like the strapping the Bobcat front end guy. Men and women are different, This is NOT sexist, this is the point I was making.
 
Last edited:
Blame the employer for not upholding such laws.
The trouble with these PC fairness policies is that they ignore obvious human nature. No male supervisor is going to put Scarecrow in a cushy chair and put a frail 105 lb woman out digging ditches. It is not going to happen. Accept it and move on.
 
But they are not, and never have been. Did you skip my comments about the military? Did you ignore the comments about Fire and Police departments reducing the standards for females?

I hope that if I am ever unconscious in a building, a female firefighter does not find me or anyone else over 150lbs.

I don't agree with reduced standards - one job, one standard.
 
The trouble with these PC fairness policies is that they ignore obvious human nature. No male supervisor is going to put Scarecrow in a cushy chair and put a frail 105 lb woman out digging ditches. It is not going to happen. Accept it and move on.

How did that frail 105 lb woman pass the physical test?
 
Blame the employer for not upholding such laws.

No, I'll blame the stupid feminazis for deliberately pretending they didn't know they didn't define what the word "equal" meant in the law.

I'm not going to blame the employer who's stuck with a lawsuit if he doesn't pay the flagwaving broad on the road crew the same as the man up to his waist in **** digging out the clog in the ditch, and faced with a lawsuit if he gives the broad a shovel and tells her to dig or get out.

I'll blame the source of the problem, the lawyers, the politicians, and the truly stupid people who think it's their business to set the wages employers must pay.
 
How did that frail 105 lb woman pass the physical test?

They use double standards, or they reduce the standards so unqualified males can also pass.

Either way, the standards are lowered to satisfy not job completion requirements but job quotas, at the expense of performance.
 
Back
Top Bottom