The downside of women serving alongside men in fighting ships, subs, squadrons, etc.

[A4sForever]

....I get that you'd rather not have those "complications" that come with men and women serving side by side. But given the alternatives, would you really flip that switch if you could?

Men & women have ALWAYS served in the U.S. military ... 'side by side' on a regular basis ... just not in combat/deployable units. What's so hard to understand about this ... ???

"... given the alternatives, would you (me-- A4s) REALLY flip that switch ... "

I give up. I don't know ... now, which switch would that be ... ???

 

[Cleonard19]

You make it sound like it's a good thing. Willful ignorance of the law (even civilian ones) is...well, illegal. I don't think you should be so enthused by that.

I'm not enthused by it, I'm frankly appalled by it, but it happens.

Ever occur to you that pretty much everyone in the military has to comply to certain physical standards, that pretty much negates the need for ADA-compliant facilities? Last I checked, there aren't a lot of blind, deaf, or disabled people in this particular line of work.

This perfectly illustrates my point sir. When we don't feel its necessary, we ignore these congressionally mandated guidelines. Just because those serving don't need them doesn't mean a contractor won't, or that someone on active duty will be injured and WILL need them.

Can you tell me ANY civilian law that the military as a whole willfully ignores? I'd be willing to bet if you can find such a law, it's addressed in the UCMJ.

See above. ADA mandates 100% with newly constructed or renovated buildings. (While federal buildings are not explicitly covered, they fall within the realm of "State Government" within the bounds of the ADA. Therefore, title 1 and 2 apply, especially in facilities hiring contractors.) We are most certainly 100% compliant. And I'm not even talking about warships, my examples are CONUS shore facilities with more contractors than military personnel attached to them.

 

[magnetfreezer]

Can you tell me ANY civilian law that the military as a whole willfully ignores? I'd be willing to bet if you can find such a law, it's addressed in the UCMJ.

Ask one of your instructors what "due regard" and "MARSA" mean. FAA violations against mil aircraft are sent to the head of the service concerned (CNO, CSAF, etc) who then sends it down through the chain. While most flight violations are considered bad according to military regs as well and appropriately hammered by the CoC, if any level of command determines the rules violation was in the interest of mission accomplishment, etc. they can stop the violation at their level. BTW that's why they tell (or should be telling) you as SDO to not give out any aircrew names over the phone since the FAA likes to poke around to get names so they can take action against civilian certificates.

 

[nittany03]

BTW that's why they tell (or should be telling) you as SDO to not give out any aircrew names over the phone since the FAA likes to poke around to get names so they can take action against civilian certificates.

This is also why you NEVER give aircrew names out over the phone when filing with 1-800-WX-BRIEF. SNFOs, take note; this is a piece of info which doesn't seem to get passed down like it did on the pilot side. It ain't your butt on the line, but still.

 

[magnetfreezer]

This is also why you NEVER give aircrew names out over the phone when filing with 1-800-WX-BRIEF. SNFOs, take note; this is a piece of info which doesn't seem to get passed down like it did on the pilot side. It ain't your butt on the line, but still.

This. Always used my last name (very common, and I don't have any certificates to risk) until I found out that they would accept "on file" too.

Same thing goes when reserving VR/IR low level entry times - pilot is always "on file" (most of the time with the schedule coming out late you probably don't know the pilot/MC name anyway).

 

[Derf]

Complete bullshit. I also have 'first hand' experience w/ the subject when it 'became a subject' in the NAVY and the individual failings and weaknesses that led to fraternization/inappropriate sexual relations had NOTHING TO DO WITH 'LEADERSHIP'. If something is 'wrong' (women in men's combat/deployable units), then it's just wrong ... no matter whether or not it's 'here'...

Why not give women their OWN fucking ship?? Top to bottom, manned (now what WOULD you call it, anyway, were it 'manned' w/ women .... ???) only w/ women. From the CO to the lowest bilge rat -- you know, all women -- ESPECIALLY if they want to compete on an 'equal' footing ... ???

So ... just for you ... I'll say it AGAIN: KEEP THE F'IN WOMEN OUT OF THE F'IN MENS' COMBAT/DEPLOYABLE UNITS !!!

Frat problem over, for all intents & purposes. What they do on their 'own' time, on the beach, is another matter and another subject, of course.

Game, set, match.

When I was on the Lexington in the dark ages with Brownshoe, moving through the ship was tough enough as it was. Hatches secured, had to move through birthing areas, most Heads secured during flight quarters, I could go on. I guess they got the travel route figured out today so you don't run across a naked Wave. I remember once an old salty Chief was talking about having a field day because of open house. He he. He said "Men, watch your language this weekend because we're gonna have cunt aboard. And no snot on the handrails". And he was serious. I love it...

 

[FlyingOnFumes]

Exodus Chapter 20, KJV:

"Thou shall not kill ..."

I always thought that was a translation error from the original. I've been told that the word "kill" actually should have been "murder" ("Thou shall not murder") but got mistranslated a long time ago.

From www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou-shall-not-kill-mean.html:

Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13).

Oh BTW, looks like that ADULTERY is a crime punishable by capital punishment as well according to the original texts....

 

[A4sForever]

I always thought that was a translation error from the original.....

Very true ... that's why I chose the KJV for my 'example' ...

 

[BusyBee604]

Wow!

had to move through birthing areas

Gosh, it's gone further than I thought!

*Welcome back Derf.
BzB

 

[kito]

By all means, lets follow the example of our more progressive brethren. The Germans couldn't take down a high level Taliban commander in Afghanistan because they weren't fired on first (lovely ROE)
...
But by all means, we need to focus on what's important and make sure that everyone gets some playing time. Apparently the whole "there is no substitute for victory" has been replaced with "there is no substitute for participation and trying your best".

I think you've missed the point of what I was saying there. That is exactly the opposite of how the germans have handled things. They're saying "you're welcome to come try, but if your best ain't good enough, we're going to keep looking."

I'll admit that there are a lot of things that hamper the Bundeswehr, and hell, from where I stand, I've got to say that we (the US) are lucky to even have them in theater at all, considering how most of my neighbours here feel about their country's presence in afghanistan. But I sincerely doubt that the very fact that all billets are open to women is a leading driver of failure to achieve mission goals.

My point being, there's a difference between being invited to try out for the team, and being guaranteed a starting position on the team. One may or may not hamper effectiveness, the other almost certainly does.

 

[CalamityJean]

I think you've missed the point of what I was saying there...They're saying "you're welcome to come try, but if your best ain't good enough, we're going to keep looking."

Amen, exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.

 

[Derf]

Gosh, it's gone further than I thought!

*Welcome back Derf.
BzB

Thanks Hugh,

Looks like I put the wrong vow in berthing. I can see it now though. If we had had females aboard ship in the 60's, Lt. Mike F. wouldn't get much flight deck duty being that he would be spending more time in the "birthing" area. he he.:tongue2_1

Fred

 

[CommodoreMid]

I love the notion that not being able to suppress the instincts that have developed over a few millenia is a matter of leadership. Take a look at the average FRS and try to find one that doesn't look like a maternity ward.

God forbid, these women have done the responsible thing and waited to get to a non-deploying squadron to start having a family. How dare they.

 

[jollygreen07]

God forbid, these women have done the responsible thing and waited to get to a non-deploying squadron to start having a family. How dare they.

I think it was said earlier in the thread that the FRSs are the place that they send folks who get pregnant, be that their tour or not.

 

[EM1]

I touched on this a little bit in another thread here, and I think villanelle touched on it a little bit here too.
We don't have enough people in the submarine force.
I don't know if it plays out the same in the surface fleet, but, we were 90 short for officer ascesions last year. They made up some of it by really torquing some people and forcing them to go nuke, and made up some more with NUPOCs, but last I checked NR still wanted another 15 O's for last year, not even addressing this year yet. That's just the officer side. I know they're still paying some zone B and C nukes 100K to reenlist, so I doubt the enlisted side is doing much better, at least in the engine room. I'm all for sending whoever you can that can do the job and support the watchbill, hotdog or taco. I'd bet a lot of people who have been that port and stbd watchstander for half an underway would agree too. Either you integrate or start forcing men to do our crappy jobs, draft or otherwise, I don't see any other way. Even with all the frat problems of integration, I bet politically its easier to integrate to fix manning problems than to push for a draft.