• 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

iangb said:
This has been accepted. What you seem to be struggling with is that some females are stronger than most males, and you constantly resort to steriotypes in order to maintain this disbelief.
Click to expand...

This is absolute bullcrap.

"Under oath, Toffler also admitted that West Point has identified 120 physical differences between men and women, plus psychological differences. This, testified Toffler, has prompted West Point to make its physical training easier to accommodate women. According to Toffler:

Cadets no longer train in combat boots because women were suffering higher rates of injury; cadets now wear jogging shoes.

Women cadets take "comparable" or "equivalent" training when they cannot meet standards in some events. In practice this means that West Point males must do pull-ups while females merely do "flex-arm hangs."

The famed and valuable "recondo" endurance week during which cadets used to march with full backpacks and undergo other strenuous activities has been eliminated, as have upper-body strength events in the obstacle course.

Running with heavy weapons has been eliminated because it is "unrealistic and therefore unappropriate" to expect women to do it.

Where men and women are required to perform the same exercises, women's scores are adjusted to give them more weight.

Today's West Point males are not increasing their cardio-vascular efficiency as much as their predecessors did because they are insufficiently challenged by physical training standards geared to include women.

In load-bearing tasks (carrying and lifting), 50 percent of the women score below the bottom 5 percent of the men.

Peer ratings have been eliminated because women were scoring too low." - Women in Combat: Why Rush to Judgment?

The only people here struggling are the people who don't want to admit the fact about females in combat and ignore reality for some PC bull**** and call it "sexist."

The strongest female in the world is not "stronger than most males" absolute crap. As a man when I was younger I could dead lift as much as the female record holder. I am average at best.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
They are NOT forced. They WRONGLY chose to do that, in detriment to everyone in those fields of work. Different training requirements is wrong on so many levels and the people who came up with them are ****ing retarded. Those sexist requirements set women up for failure and create an additional burden on the men. They are unfair to EVERYONE



Two words: Birth Control

And no one person is equal to any other person, either. That's not the issue.


Then take it up with the ****heads who do that ****. Because that is flat out wrong and should be stopped immediately.


BC absolutely should be mandatory on a sub.


And?


Yeah, I know. Didn't ya hate when we forced our radical values and 'social experimentation' regarding blacks in the military too? :roll:



Because it IS sexism. Plain and simple. It really doesn't get any more simplistically sexist than what you and others are blathering on about here.
Click to expand...
Prove that women in the military can do everything men in the military can do. Prove it or move on.
 
American said:
Prove that women in the military can do everything men in the military can do. Prove it or move on.
Click to expand...

Prove that no woman in the military can live up to the same standards. Prove it, or move on.

And if the women in the military can't live up to the same standards the men have, that is no one's fault but the military. And the military needs to fix it by using one set of standards for everyone.
 
rivrrat said:
Prove that no woman in the military can live up to the same standards. Prove it, or move on.

And if the women in the military can't live up to the same standards the men have, that is no one's fault but the military. And the military needs to fix it by using one set of standards for everyone.
Click to expand...

So then I take it that you would turn a sub into a submerged brothel the same way our surface fleet has turned into a floating brothel? ;)

Seems to me that when we have people who are responsible for a small nuclear arsonal aboard there ship it may be prudent to not create a distraction with the men such as this. But then again when do Liberals ever choose a common sense option as opposed to a PC one?

BC absolutely should be mandatory on a sub.
Click to expand...
No.... there should be no monkey business on a sub at all and lets be honest, with Women aboard this will be difficult to enforce so why even go there?
 
Last edited:
Iron Yank said:
So then I take it that you would turn a sub into a submerged brothel the same way our surface fleet has turned into a floating brothel? ;)

Seems to me that when we have people who are responsible for a small nuclear arsonal aboard there ship it may be prudent to not create a distraction with the men such as this. But then again when do Liberals ever choose a common sense option as opposed to a PC one?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Calling me PC *and* a liberal in one fail swoop? You couldn't be further from the truth on either count. Since when is equal rights 'PC'?

Regardless, if the men currently in the military aren't capable of thinking with their big heads, then perhaps we should replace them with some who CAN.
 
rivrrat said:
Seriously? Calling me PC *and* a liberal in one fail swoop? You couldn't be further from the truth on either count. Since when is equal rights 'PC'?

Regardless, if the men currently in the military aren't capable of thinking with their big heads, then perhaps we should replace them with some who CAN.
Click to expand...

Don't forget it takess two to tango........just blaming it on the guys is not going to cut it...
 
rivrrat said:
And if the women in the military can't live up to the same standards the men have, that is no one's fault but the military. And the military needs to fix it by using one set of standards for everyone.
Click to expand...

That just does not work...

"Today's West Point males are not increasing their cardio-vascular efficiency as much as their predecessors did because they are insufficiently challenged by physical training standards geared to include women."

This is the way it is, not because of the military but the politicians telling the military what to do. Because this is what the people want, not saying it's you.

The problem is you are not willing to see the reality of the situation. You try and pass off some Utopian ideal that in reality will never happen.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
Don't forget it takess two to tango........just blaming it on the guys is not going to cut it...
Click to expand...

I must admit the rate of females being taken off duty because of pregnancy was ridicules.
 
Navy Pride said:
Don't forget it takess two to tango........just blaming it on the guys is not going to cut it...
Click to expand...
You'll notice that the post I quoted mentioned men specifically.

Iron Yank said:
Seems to me that when we have people who are responsible for a small nuclear arsonal aboard there ship it may be prudent to not create a distraction with the men such as this. But then again when do Liberals ever choose a common sense option as opposed to a PC one?
Click to expand...
 
rivrrat said:
Seriously? Calling me PC *and* a liberal in one fail swoop? You couldn't be further from the truth on either count. Since when is equal rights 'PC'?

Regardless, if the men currently in the military aren't capable of thinking with their big heads, then perhaps we should replace them with some who CAN.
Click to expand...

I apoligize for calling you a Liberal if you arent, I would be offended by that too. :mrgreen:

Honestly though riv, these boats stay submerged for months at a time and over that length of time...well men will be men & women I doubt would be saints either. Seems like a distraction that men with such a serious & dangerous mission dont need.

How about an all women sub.... would that work for you?
 
Iron Yank said:
I apoligize for calling you a Liberal if you arent, I would be offended by that too. :mrgreen:

Honestly though riv, these boats stay submerged for months at a time and over that length of time...well men will be men & women I doubt would be saints either. Seems like a distraction that men with such a serious & dangerous mission dont need.

How about an all women sub.... would that work for you?
Click to expand...

Why do you have such a low opinion of our military personnel? Do you really think that they would endanger their lives and missions needlessly? Screwing through GQ is highly unlikely.
 
Iron Yank said:
I apoligize for calling you a Liberal if you arent, I would be offended by that too. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I would have called you on labeling me a conservative too. ;) I am neither. And I'm sure as **** not PC. But I DO believe that all PEOPLE in this country should have the same *legal* opportunities. That means, that any black person should be allowed to TRY to obtain any job that a white person can. Ditto for men and women. Ditto for Asians, Muslims, Indians, whatever. We are NOT all created equal, but in the eyes of our government, we should be *treated* as such. The same doors that are open for men, should be open for women. I don't care if only a handful of women can actually make it through the door... it should at least still be open.

And, IMO, that means that both the men and women will have to accept certain restrictions, rules, and living arrangements. I think everything should be co-ed (in all aspects of the military). Separating folks only creates a division, an "us vs them". Not to mention an inequality. If men and women aren't okay with co-ed, then they need not volunteer.

I agree that there shouldn't be any hanky panky going on. But, in the likely event that it WILL be going on, women should be required to be on birth control. Preferably something that doesn't require any effort on her part, such as an IUD. If she doesn't want to do that, then she need not volunteer for the job.

There should be physical and mental requirements for any PERSON taking a job on a sub. Those requirements should be *one* set for ALL. Anyone not meeting not meeting any of those requirements doesn't go. Simple as.

How about an all women sub.... would that work for you?
Click to expand...
Not only would it work for me, I would imagine that an all female sub would solve just about all of the issues the men here are whining about.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I fail to see how allowing women who physically qualify to serve on a sub would result in military having to adjust their physical requirements for more women to serve. I think it's baseless paranoia more than anything. The only thing I see this doing is not allowing someone's sex to be a determining factor on whether or not they can serve on a sub and instead letting the physical requirements (which is truly the crux of what everyone is arguing here) be the determining factor.
Click to expand...

You saying it is baseless paranoia makes me think that you have never been in the millitary. Go to airborne school and than tell me if it is baseless. It is just like how women complained that they coudnt go to airborne school and so the Army lets them in. And guess what they will not be making any combat jumps since they are not in combat units. It scares me to think of how many millions of taxdollars have been wasted on that one example of the Army trying to be PC.
 
I think birth control should not only be mandatory for women on subs but anyone in the millitary who is in a deployable mos or postion. It is not right to make the other soldiers in her unit make up the work for a woman who choose to get knocked up either while on deployment or not. I also think that any woman who becomes preggers while on a deployment should be treated exactly the same as some one who on purpose does something to get themselves sent home. Shooting yourself in the foot screwes your unit over exactly the same as you going home with child.
 
bhkad said:
Can you say with equal certainty that women aren't allowed to take Ranger training?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, it's a fact that a female soldier has never attended Ranger training. The Ranger battalions are a combat arms unit. Females aren't allowed to serve in combat arms units.
 
To date, there have been no rapes aboard an American submarine. After females are allowed to serve in the submarine service and a rape occurs--and it will--I don't want to hear anyone crying about it.

Just for the record, this is a terrible idea.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I fail to see how allowing women who physically qualify to serve on a sub would result in military having to adjust their physical requirements for more women to serve. I think it's baseless paranoia more than anything. The only thing I see this doing is not allowing someone's sex to be a determining factor on whether or not they can serve on a sub and instead letting the physical requirements (which is truly the crux of what everyone is arguing here) be the determining factor.
Click to expand...

Define, "physically qualify". Are you suggesting that we suspend gender norming and force females to meet the same physical fitness standards as male service members?

I can agree with taht 100%, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
 
apdst said:
Define, "physically qualify". Are you suggesting that we suspend gender norming and force females to meet the same physical fitness standards as male service members?

I can agree with taht 100%, but I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what ALL of us in this thread have been saying. All of us on the side of equal rights, that is.

Different rules for different people only divides the group, sets women up for failure, and creates a burden on the men. It was retarded when they started it, and it's still retarded today.
 
braindrain said:
I think birth control should not only be mandatory for women on subs but anyone in the millitary who is in a deployable mos or postion. It is not right to make the other soldiers in her unit make up the work for a woman who choose to get knocked up either while on deployment or not. I also think that any woman who becomes preggers while on a deployment should be treated exactly the same as some one who on purpose does something to get themselves sent home. Shooting yourself in the foot screwes your unit over exactly the same as you going home with child.
Click to expand...

I can see it already: a female sailor shoves off on a 6 month cruise and 1 month into it she finds out she's 2 months pregnant.

What could go wrong?
 
rivrrat said:
Yes, that is what ALL of us in this thread have been saying. All of us on the side of equal rights, that is.

Different rules for different people only divides the group, sets women up for failure, and creates a burden on the men. It was retarded when they started it, and it's still retarded today.
Click to expand...

Well, it ain't gonna happen. The day that the military suspends gender norming they'll have a hundred thousand femi-nazis marching on The Pentagon screaming sexism, or dsscrimination, or whatever the hell else they can dream up to be pissy about.
 
apdst said:
Well, it ain't gonna happen. The day that the military suspends gender norming they'll have a hundred thousand femi-nazis marching on The Pentagon screaming sexism, or dsscrimination, or whatever the hell else they can dream up to be pissy about.
Click to expand...

So let them whine. Who gives a ****.
 
rivrrat said:
So let them whine. Who gives a ****.
Click to expand...

Who gives a ****??? Hello!?!?...:rofl

Let NOW raise a stink and you'll see all kinds of politicos givin' a ****.
 
rivrrat said:
Prove that no woman in the military can live up to the same standards. Prove it, or move on.

And if the women in the military can't live up to the same standards the men have, that is no one's fault but the military. And the military needs to fix it by using one set of standards for everyone.
Click to expand...
Typical, blame the military. The military never asked for you to be there, don't you get it? Damn! :doh
 
American said:
Typical, blame the military. The military never asked for you to be there, don't you get it? Damn! :doh
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the military's fault. They made the idiotic two different sets of qualifications. If women are weaker in the military, it is the military's fault for giving them lesser qualifications. Whose fault could it possibly be but the ones who made the lax and unfair qualifications?

They make two sets of qualifications that allow weaker women into the military and then bitch about weaker women in the military? ROFL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom