April 26, 2010, - 3:12 pm

With Women, Obama Turning U.S. Navy Into “Village People’s” Navy

By Debbie Schlussel

Several months ago, I told you about Barack Obama’s boneheaded plan to put women in Navy submarines, where there are very close quarters, and thus, sanitary and sex issues.  It’s not a good idea.  And as I noted, when women were put on ships, it immediately resulted in many of them getting pregnant, with many of them having to be sent home during the first Gulf War on one ship alone.

obamasmiling.jpgoperationpetticoat

navysubfemale

But logic, facts, and consequences aren’t important to the Obama administration, especially not as important as pleasing special interests, like the feminist crowd.  So, the Obama-niks okayed it, and women are now being phased into Navy subs.

And the Obama people are declaring victory, no problems, everything’s a success.  Obama’s Navy Secretary Ray Mabus says  he’s getting “little or no resistance inside the Navy” since announcing he’s letting women serve aboard.

PUH-LEEZE.  Imagine you are an officer in the Navy, perhaps a commanding officer of many troops, maybe even a high-ranking Admiral.

Are you going to get on the bad side of the Obama people and speak your mind on women in the subs, when the Obama administration has already declared this is the policy and that it will work.  Are you going to risk your career to speak out or even say a word against this?  Are you going to risk charges of disobeying orders, insubordination, and dereliction of duty?

Absolutely not.

So, for the Navy Secretary to say he’s getting little or no resistance means nothing.  Except that people in the Navy are scared and worried about keeping their jobs.  They have families to feed, careers to finish out, pensions to collect, and healthcare to be covered.  They aren’t going to risk losing those things to say anything.  There is little free speech in America’s military ranks, by design.

And Secretary Mabus and his boss, Barack Obama, know that.  Trust me, plenty of sailors on subs don’t want women there.  And, still others, want them there for easy access.  Either way, there is no truth to Mabus’ hallucinations.

Women on subs will be a huge headache.  It’s only just starting.  Periods and pregnancies do not belong on Navy submarines. How many women on subs will get pregnant?  And who will end up paying the tab for sending them home?  You will.  Social experiments in the military are always a disaster.  And the U.S. taxpayer is always the loser.

Sadly, in this case, so is national security.  You can’t run an effective Navy operation with women having to be flown home.  That’s gonna happen.  Good luck with it.

Operation Petticoat doesn’t even work in liberal Hollywood’s movies.  It won’t work in real life.

***

By the way, here’s a little music video about what Barack Obama is trying to do to the U.S. Navy . . .


Village People - In the navy (version originale)
Uploaded by scorpiomusic. - See the latest featured music videos.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

84 Responses

An excellent article and well said too. Some things arent meant to be. Suddenly the US Military is all about equality. If Obama is so set on this new sub policy. Then why doesnt he (Obama) allow woman to serve on the front lines in a striker brigde or doing recon missions. The reason a woman will never serve in a combat unit. Is because of the public outcry when a woman is killed in a combat mission or while on patrol. All this political posturing is ridiculous and unwarranted. I am al for equality for both sexes. But, there are some things in which either sex shouldnt be in certain situations. This just makes for an uncomfortable environement for many. All this will achieve is people making mistakes, because they dont want to step on other peoples toes. And when national security is at stake, we cannot afford to take stupid risks.

Liberals are destroying our great nation and doing it rather quickly. But, like Debbie said, who is going to risk saying some thing when their careers would be in jeporady. America has remain because of a strong economy and military. And Obama seems hell bent on taking those things away. So America becomes like any other nation out. I personally believe Obama and his cronies are conducting treason. And the sooner theyre gone the better. Before you know it, we`ll be just like europe and look at the state of affairs those nations are in.

RIck on April 26, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    Actually, women in the US do serve in combat units and one got captured. Just wait til our daughters are brought home in body bags. The US has gone further in that respect than even Israel, where women are not not allowed to fight at all.

    NormanF on April 26, 2010 at 3:51 pm

      No, women do not serve in combat units. They serve in units that “support” combat units.

      Tim on April 27, 2010 at 9:35 am

Its about running the US Navy as a social experiment. And people wind up paying the price. The ones conducting the experiment won’t because they’re not going to witness it up close, at first hand.

NormanF on April 26, 2010 at 3:49 pm

And what’s next? Will they make it mandatory for muslim (aka terrorist) translators, doctors and psychiatrists to serve on our subs? Nothing could go wrong with that, right? Our Terrorist-In-Chief just continues right along with destroying our military. I wonder if the Obastards are as bad as the Clintons were in their treatment of the military personnel that guard and protect them.

Jarhead on April 26, 2010 at 3:50 pm

When I was a cadet at Texas A&M we faced a similar issue. The two commandants that served while I was a student (Generals Hopgood and Van Alstyne) both wanted all 28 outfits to be integrated. Since there were so few women in the corps anyway, this often resulted in an outfit that consisted of 30-50 guys and only one woman. All this did was create awkward situations for both male and female cadets. If an outfit had just one female, she would be required to have one out of the two bathrooms in the hallway all to herself, and she couldn’t have a room mate. Much of the training also consisted of uniforms be closely inspected, which couldn’t be done because the touching required to do so would be inappropriate. Upperclassmen would also routinely go into underclassmen’s rooms unannounced for inspections, etc. but you would have to knock and ask permission from your underclassman if you were a different sex. My outfit was all-male, and every year the administration would come down with sanctions like not being able to drink alcohol or being excluded from winning any awards until they finally disbanded us completely.

Hopewell on April 26, 2010 at 3:54 pm

Jarhead, given the denial of Islam in the US government, that day is not too far off. The sky’s the imagination with changing the US military from an institution that guards country into one that shows off its “social diversity.” And the Obami are not going to fight a real war anyway, any time soon.

NormanF on April 26, 2010 at 3:55 pm

You know one solution that several of my friends in the Navy mentioned isn’t even being discussed. Why not have all male and all female crews ??? That way you wouldn’t have to alter the subs at all and all of the problems with fraternization and pregnancy disappear.

Most subs have a Blue and a Gold crew. Make the Gold crew all female and problem solved.

But, this really isn’t about equality—-it’s about messing up the military and turning our warships into love boats.

jimmyPx on April 26, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Agreed. In the IDF, gender segregation works quite well. The women now run the computer banks in the IDF’s Cyberwarfare division. That means the men can do better what they’re trained to do: fight a war. But American feminists are less interested in maintaining the military esprit d’corps as they are in breaking it down together. There’s a reason for demanding a coed military and it has nothing whatsoever to do, as the old saying would have it, with the “discipline of the service.” Far from it.

    NormanF on April 26, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Obama is going to push his leftist agenda to the max on a daily basis then be voted out after one term in office. He will make millions (outside of the USA) on the lecture circuit, trashing the America that he attempted to destroy.

The idea of women on a submarine is beyond insane. Unlike aircraft carriers, which have NCIS agents on board, submarines have no criminal investigators living below the surface. Nothing good can come of this experiment. But then again, BO has no redeeming qualities. Everything he does is detrimental to our country. I have come to expect BS like this from him on a daily basis.

BonzerWolf on April 26, 2010 at 4:19 pm

Why would anyone think that coed crews being underwater in a nuclear sub for 6 months would create any problems?

Just curb libido in the male crews by giving them black licorice supplements or soy products. Soy contains phytoestrogen, which is the plant world’s version of estrogen. Just like the human hormone estrogen, phytoestrogen can decrease your libido. Soy is available in a variety of forms, such as tofu, soy nuts, soy nut butter and soy milk.

Or give the females a good supply of “morning after pills”.

/sarc off

ebayer on April 26, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    Or we could just spay the females. What kind of mothers would they make anyway?

    mk750 on April 27, 2010 at 5:00 am

A couple things: There are no Brigadier Generals in the Navy. A one star admiral is called a Rear Admiral (Lower Half), with a two star being called Rear Admiral (Upper Half). More importantly, the idea that the military, and the Navy in particular, is new to social experimenting, is just not accurate. The military has led the way in our society since 1948 with social experimentation. At that time, it was the integration of blacks into the service. Next, it was integrating women into the services. Now the fight is to be able to be a homosexual and serve openly. Women on subs is just the latest in a long line of social changes instituted in the military. Some were undoubtedly positive, such as having all races able to serve, as well as women. But, the main points of this article being nothing more than the administration bowing to special interest groups are entirely valid. This will not be a positive thing.

J: Oops on the General thing. Fixed. DS

Joe on April 26, 2010 at 4:50 pm

Having women on submarines would make it just like the Village People.

Yup. Nothing loony about that logic.

I bet the brigadier general is laughing his butt off at this latest example of conservative wit.

Hoosier X on April 26, 2010 at 5:42 pm

I understand what you’re saying about military members not wanting to challenge the secretary of the Navy–but actually a number of military officers spoke out against the proposed reversal of “don’t ask don’t tell” — so actually the lack of criticism from within the military might mean you are wrong, and the military actually DOESN’T think it’s a problem to have women on subs

GMX on April 26, 2010 at 5:56 pm

The military has incorporated changes in social attitudes towards race and gender more smoothly than virtually any other aspect of society.

Debbie, the only question you should ask is, are military brass OK with this? And they are, because they know the history. I don’t see why you think you have the expertise to question them.

And I don’t know if you’ve met any of our female soldiers, but all the ones I know can handle their business quite well, thank you.

And the male ones… well, why don’t you think about how a group of Navy men would treat a guy who raped one of their own? On a ship several days out of port?

I think you are showing a pretty myopic and elitist attitude towards the men and women who serve in our military here. Contrary to what you (and the far left) believe, they’re not all savage Neanderthals.

casey on April 26, 2010 at 5:57 pm

Why are some commentators saying “nothing good can come from this experiment”? Maybe there are some really smart, really talented women who would make excellent sub commanders or officers? Wouldn’t that strengthen our national defense?

GMX on April 26, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    You might try reading the article again. This is not a new idea. It has been going on on ships since Gulf War I. You wound up with more than a few onboard pregnancies and subsequent evacuations of female personnel. If you were talking about non-coed units, that would be another matter, but that is not what is being contemplated here.

    Worry01 on April 27, 2010 at 12:12 am

What is the navy good for? When’s the last time they’ve actually been involved in conflict? It seems like a great place for poor people to join and get welfare, get more money by having kids and not being involved in conflict. This has been going on for a long time, I wonder how many women have gotten pregnant while serving.

tyler on April 26, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    tyler – you couldn’t be more wrong about the Navy, coming from someone who served under the Dept. of the USN in the Corps. First of all, what do you think those big floating citys with fighter and bomber aircraft do? They don’t just float around doing nothing, they get our aircraft very quickly to many combat zones, and stay there until needed elsewhere.

    Also, how do you think the Marines get to their destinations? The Navy gives them a lift. Have you ever heard of Marine Expeditionary Units?

    Jarhead on April 26, 2010 at 7:22 pm

Here is what I say to those people who do not want this to happen…

JOIN THE OATHKEEPERS!

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Bob Porrazzo on April 26, 2010 at 6:27 pm

No resistance in the Navy? What are the guys supposed to do, jeopardize their careers?

Little Al on April 26, 2010 at 6:41 pm

Aren’t there narrow passage-ways on submarines? Hypothetically, could Pam Anderson squeeze by Dolly Parton?

Patrick on April 26, 2010 at 7:21 pm

We hear a lot about teabagger anger. What about teabagger stupidity? They are very closely related. Being angry about things that are false–that is not a recipe for leadership, by the way.

Stupid list, this post and comments alone:
1. the village people? Really? That’s all you got?
2. one of the dumbasses above said:

“Actually, women in the US do serve in combat units and one got captured. Just wait til our daughters are brought home in body bags.”

Total as of 12/10: 101 dead women in combat in Iraq. One guess as to how many of those died under a Republican administration.

3. that “little or no resistance within the Navy,” by the way, includes deep review over a long period of time by NAVY policy makers–that would be NAVY officers. This is what the brass wants. If you have evidence of any of your claims, please offer it. This is not evidence:

“And Secretary Mabus and his boss, Barack Obama, know that. Trust me, plenty of sailors on subs don’t want women there. And, still others, want them there for easy access. Either way, there is no truth to Mabus’ hallucinations…”

We do not trust you, because you are not trustworthy; because your entire post is a tissue of ungrounded assertions; and because you do not really care about the navy or submariners or, most of all, women. You are aware that they are volunteers, right?

4. “Sadly, in this case, so is national security. You can’t run an effective Navy operation with women having to be flown home. That’s gonna happen. Good luck with it.”

Women being flown home…you mean, like the several hundred women wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are the wounded in action women different from the immediately-gonna-get-knocked-up women? Have you reviewed, perhaps, the figures for decorations for women, the re-up rate, the promotion rate? Women are superior soldiers in many ways. (small sample size, admitted. Few direct combat berths yet, correct. But as far as conduct is concerned, they are equal to or better than men on the average.) Are you aware that Republican recklessness with the military has created a serious shortage of manpower, both because a lot of our soldiers are wounded or dead, a lot of them are disillusioned, and a handful of good-riddance soldiers are refusing orders based on birther idiocy? What do you think does more damage to the military: women on a sub, or large-scale deception coupled disastrous mismanagement of two wars? Thought so.

6. What is a sanitary and sex issue? Is that a delicate reference to menstruation, or perhaps to other bodily functions? And sex issues…does that mean that there are no sex issues on subs when there are no women? Please, please say yes.

7. Oh, and a bunch more. Dumb, dumb people.

ice9

ice9 on April 26, 2010 at 7:46 pm

Debbie I served in the Navy for 24 years, not on submarines but on what the bubbleheads like to call skimmers, and what we call “Sub Busters”…heh heh…Anyway I have a pretty good idea of what the living conditions on a submarine are like and women will be a distraction and nothing else. On a surface ship there’s enough room to segregate men and women, in theory, at least, although when I was in the Gulf we did a tender availability with the USS Samuel Gompers which we nicknamed “The Love Boat”.

Secretary Mabus is also getting ready to name the newest Navy Amphibious ship LSD-26, the USS John Murtha. I’ve already written to my congress critters as well as to Mabus about what I consider an outrage and insult.

One last thing Debbie. I read today that a Navy flier, Lt. Miroslave Zilberman, was killed when the aircraft he was piloting went down in the N. Arabian Sea. He was lost at sea but due to his action the three crew members on his aircraft survived. Lt. Zilberman was an immigrant, from the Ukraine whose parents fled the Soviet Union more then twenty years ago and came to America. He was a Jew, an only son and left a wife and two young children behind. Wonder what the Jew basher Matthews has to say about him?

kenny komodo on April 26, 2010 at 8:03 pm

Wait a minute — women in submarines are going to turn sailors gay? You do understand the not-very-deep subtext of the Village People, right?

ps on April 26, 2010 at 9:06 pm

Maybe ice 9 is in CAIR. Would make sense, because they want our fighting forces to be weakend, and of course women on subs would accomplish this.

Obscenity gives a shallow forcefulness to comments that their content alone cannot give; thus the obscenity in ice9’s post.

What’s wrong with ‘Village People’? Remember Shrillary’s “It Takes a Village? All one community, and so on?

I regret any combat deaths, but for a logical person the fact that women died is a non sequitor. It does not have a direct bearing on the discussion of women in subs. Also a non sequitor which administration they died under. Both JB and BO want to increase the role of women in combat situations they have no business being in.

If you had a brain it would be axiomatic after witnessing the contrived and senseless trials of military servicepeople in Iraq who were just doing their job shows the spirit of PC that permeates the Armed Forces. People challenge it at their peril. If you are in the Armed Forces and you look at a Muslim wrong you get courtmartialled these days. And you really think that people will speak their minds?

O I get it, you may not be a Muslim; you may be an official with the Navy. If so, it is sad to see the state to which the Navy has sunk (no pun intended).

So what if women are volunteers? How is that relevant to whether they should be on subs?

ice9’s real agenda comes out in the next paragraph; maybe she is a Muslim after all; excoriating our policy in Iraq, and in a more general sense any fighting at all; and evade the issue of women’s disruptive pregnancies by making attacks on general policies that are irrelevant to the theme of the article. Typical liberal argument; they can’t answer something so they say “well what about….” and try to change the subject.

Re menstruation, another attempt to divert discussion by this ‘frank’ discussion of sexual functions. Just what we need in the Navy; discussion about women’s sexuality. But why not? We teach 6-year-olds how wonderful gay people are.

And of course virtually no factual data and no sources for the few ‘factual’ assertions made.

But I think there’s a non-so-hidden agenda in ice9’s comments’ this person is clearly opposed to the United States’ actions to fight terrorism, and probably believes that an increased number of women in the armed services will decrease military reliability. And this lowlife is probably right. Just as women are more anti-military than men in general.

Little Al on April 26, 2010 at 9:13 pm

If you’re not a satirical website, you should be. The Onion should sue!

Regards,
Paco (yeah her’s my ID, let me unzip it for you man!)

cokie on April 26, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    No, it seems that you are unable to really put forward a genuine argument, which is the real joke. Also, what is with your nickname? Are you referring to Cokie Roberts on NPR, or simply your cocaine addiction by the choice of nickname?

    Worry01 on April 27, 2010 at 10:14 pm

None of you know what you’re talking about. You sound like the Iranian cleric who claimed that women cause earthquakes. Try living on an aircraft carrier for a week and then get back to me with how village people-esque it is. I guarantee it’s more professional than male and female coworkers in a civilian office. This whole thing makes me want to roll my eyes. ::rolls eyes::

KMR on April 26, 2010 at 9:58 pm

I know of a retired Senior Chief Petty Officer, former sub sailor, who has all the documentation against women on subs, health studies, everything the navy is denying! He also has a petition, open for comment, against lifting the ban. There is more to this than the sexual issue. There are real health concerns for females aboard subs. Issues of readiness and national security are just some of the points. These are the navy’s own studies.

Its worth the read to learn the facts and sign the petition!

http://www.14olcott.net/index.php?option=com_mad4joomla&jid=3&Itemid=64

Dean on April 26, 2010 at 10:55 pm

I’m the SC Dean mentioned above. Thanks Dean. The link Dean provided will take you directly to the petition where you have a chance to voice your opposition. For active duty, there is a disclaimer available and NO personal information is being published. Please visit the petition and make your thoughts know. Response is running high since the Washington Post article that was published on Thursday. Here’s a direct link to all of the information we’ve compiled. Links to articles, studies, documents, etc. They are all here. Any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me directly. V/R ETCS
http://www.14olcott.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=17&Itemid=23

John A. Mason on April 26, 2010 at 11:13 pm

Why not check out what is already well known on this topic:

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/reports/1997/02/a970213.7.html

Here is another from a female perspective: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/152878/t/Re-USN-strives-to-retain-Pregnant-Sailors.html

Even though this is a more sympathetic view of the matter, it really does beg the question of how valuable are these women anyway? I am not including the ones who do not get themselves impregnated in that category.

From the second article:

“Nevertheless, women assigned to ships do get pregnant, though at a slightly lesser rate than those on shore duty. When pregnant sailors are reassigned, shipmates must shoulder their workload until a replacement arrives, often months later. Inevitably, sailors grumble about women getting pregnant to avoid deploying.”

“Lt. Stephanie Miller , chief of women’s policy for the chief of personnel, acknowledges, ‘there probably are women who do do it intentionally.”

I would imagine so. It is a nice way to get out of being deployed without having to go through a court martial or dishonorable discharge.

Worry01 on April 27, 2010 at 12:35 am

    Hey, if they’re getting THEMSELVES impregnated, they’re pretty valuable. I would think there were plenty of scientists that would want to get their hands on a woman that could do that.

    PS I’m so sorry – it appears that no one has explained this whole “birth control” thing to many of you. I won’t take the time to do it here, but there are plenty of useful websites you can look at – just google it, and you should get a pretty basic idea of how it works.

    It’s called “being responsible” – both in not doing things that would compromise the security of your unit in the first place (having sex onboard), and in protecting yourself if you choose to (using birth control/condoms). I have enough respect for our military to presume that they are professional and capable enough to BE responsible – both the men and the women. Don’t you?

    hellcat on April 27, 2010 at 10:50 am

Is there ANY way the next president can REVERSE this insanity starting January 20, 2013?

Jon on April 27, 2010 at 2:59 am

    Jon, get used to the idea that there will be no “next” president. Hell, there’s not even going to be a “next” presidential election. I am so very sorry for your Country. It’s gone. It’s certainly not the one I grew up in.

    mk750 on April 27, 2010 at 5:13 am

      As far as the vast majority of people I know are concerned we do not have a president now. no one I know refers to Hussein as President.
      I refuse to do anything this wannabe dictator says. My money has been mostly converted into gold and silver because paper money is a joke now. I fired everyone who did work for me so now I cut my own grass, clean my own house, wash my own cars, and I do not go to resturants or movies. I am keeping every dime I have out of the economy and out of the Governments reach. the more people who do this the faster we will get this war over with and reclaim our Nation

      martin fee on April 27, 2010 at 8:01 am

Norman F
The women that were captured in Desert Storm were in support units. One was a cook and the other a mechanic. Women are not curently serving as infantrymen in or as Special Forces A teams nor do they man Tanks or Artillery units. But people in close support units do get killed and wounded I am not by any means denigreating there service just being factual. These women that were captured are not what is referred to as trigger pullers.

Jack Hampton on April 27, 2010 at 7:55 am

Next step — women SEALs. But lowering the requirements so that the women can “equally compete” won’t adversely impact the Teams. No, not at all… As a former enlisted Marine and retired Naval Officer (SEAL/Intel), I think I retired just in time. As I said at my retirement: when I joined the military, it was illegal (for a male) to suck d&*k; now it’s optional; I’m retiring before it becomes mandatory”.

BTR on April 27, 2010 at 7:55 am

Since the goal is the destruction of the armed forces, this makes perfect sense.

JeffT on April 27, 2010 at 8:38 am

So Debbie, how much do you want to bet the cases of pregnacy on subs, the sex scandals, the prostitution, the decreases in efficiency will not be made public? It’s a shame that I have to say this, but… I am not denigrating women in the military, many perform at very high levels, but, at 18-22 yrs old, in close proximaty to men of the same age for months at a time at sea, seriously?

Tim on April 27, 2010 at 9:47 am

You know how as you get older and you approach old age, you hope that you die in your sleep or die of a heart attack, even an aneuyrism, rather than getting a cancer or going senile or left paralysed from a stroke, dying slowly and painfully? Well US of A, this is really sad and pathetic, it’s like the nation is going senile, it’s slow and agonising, it’s painful to watch this national dementia, please just end it quickly. Somehow I don’t know how. As Mark Steyn has put it, it’s lights out, just like in Europe and the UK. This is the way Western civilisation ends, not with a bang, but a whimpering and a whining.

Larry70 on April 27, 2010 at 11:24 am

Wondering if Malia and Sasha will serve one day and be “easy access”……….NOT.

hermster on April 27, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Wow, out of line. No matter how much I disagree with you, I would never imply that your prepubescent daughters would grow up to be whores. Way to keep it classy.

    hellcat on April 27, 2010 at 3:36 pm

I think that women on submarines is a horrible idea. You can argue all you want about equality, but women and men ARE different…HELLO! Being thrown into such close quarters for an extended period of time…well how can you not expect some type of relationship to form between the female and another male? Of course this is not going to happen on every sub, but it WILL happen. I saw it while I was in the Army. I served as a medic in a support battalion during Desert Storm. Trust me, my unit full of young women was quite a distraction out in the field. While we were in Iraq a few of the female soldiers hooked up with some British soldiers we were working with. Yes we did our jobs and went on with our missions, but it DOES happen. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete moron or a total liberal (same difference). A final thought…why is it that the women libbers who bitch about and demand these equal jobs in the military are the ones who would never think of joining the military themselves? Liberals are the biggest hypocrites and have the least amount of respect for our military.

Angela04 on April 27, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Angela, I actually have enough respect for our military to assume that people who are joining will be able to control themselves and not compromise the integrity of the unit, but apparently you don’t.

hellcat on April 27, 2010 at 1:45 pm

Fraternization is almost out of control in the navy. As a 20 year retired vet, I continue to read the official publications, and well as Navy Times etc. Senior positions, Commanding Officer, senior enlisted, are being fired for fraternizing with women on the ships. Ships they command! This is a failure of the entire navy system. There is a ton of evidence showing this wont work, fraternization is just one facet!

Men will be men, and women will be women, and put together to work side by side…..sex happens! Its not self control, its human nature!

Dean on April 27, 2010 at 2:19 pm

There is far more politics in the Military than you may want to know about.

Officers that make flag rank (Admiral & General) are first approved by civilian policians.

Hence there is too much PC BS in our military.

S Adams
MSG, USA (Ret)

Sam Adams on April 27, 2010 at 2:24 pm

It’s also human nature to avoid situations where you might be killed, but we expect them to put that instinct aside and put their very lives in danger for the greater good – and they do, on a daily basis. So why do we think that they’d be unable to do the same thing with sexual urges – an urge that is, hopefully, much less strong than one’s will to live, right?

It’s not asking so much to request that people don’t have sex with each other when in close quarters – many religious conservatives ask unmarried people to do it, spouses ask each other to do it while living apart, I don’t get why you all seem to think that military people are incapable of it. I tend to think better of them then that.

hellcat on April 27, 2010 at 2:29 pm

contiuned…..also remember that working on a ship is very different than being a sub crew member. First, there is no place to isolate a ‘problem’ being medical or disciplinary, there is no provisions and/or space. Next, when a woman has to be replaced on a ship, within a short period of time a replacement can be brought in. Subs have each person individually ‘qualified’ for the job they do. The qualification process can take a year or more for that job, on that sub. There is no ‘replacement’ for that job. Most ‘jobs’ try and have 3 people ‘qualified’ for those specific jobs. Watch rotation would then be 6 hours on and 12 hours off on the sub. When one person is ‘removed’ unexpectedly, the other 2 have to pick up the slack! Imagine the mental work load of working 6 on 6 off 24/7 for 6 months! This is just the example of removing one person from the sub. It effects everyone. Now imagine that at the time ‘she’ has to be off the boat because 4 weeks after getting underway she tests positive pregnant (doesnt matter planned or unplanned, the navy cant tell you not to). Only, its you and her are the only ones ‘qualified’ and the third person is 6 months away from getting qualified. Now it you, and you alone ‘qualified; to do the job, and an ‘apprentice’ who could help out, but can not stand watches etc.

This is the reality of how subs work. Each and every member must contribute their portion or someone else has to pick up the slack.

People, please sign this petition and stop this PC nonsense before it gets out of hand!

http://www.14olcott.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=17&Itemid=23

Dean on April 27, 2010 at 2:36 pm

Commanding Officers of navy ships, senior enlisted, Command Master Chiefs (E-9), are being removed….fired, because they cant control their hormones while serving with women on an ships! Have you ever seen the inside of a modern nuclear sub? You can not pass another person in a passageway (hallway) with out both turning sideways and sliding past one another. Physical contact is required to move about the sub!

There are 4 commodes and 3 showers available to the crew. Men must sleep ‘hot rack’. 3 men are assigned to 2 beds. One person will always be on watch (working) while the other 2 are studying, or sleeping. There is no physical space on board for anything that remotely resembles privacy.

Men sleep in drawers and tee shirts. When the alarm sounds its not uncommon to grab your coveralls and slip on your boots and report to your station, then get dressed. Subs have no fire department. Every crew member is required to respond NOW in the case of a fire! Everyone is trained to be every position on the fire dept.

Military people ARE capable of abstinence. Put a few safe guards in place, set a good example, and it can be done. Most comply! But after 3 months without seeing the outside world, rubbing up against one another just to get from one end of the sub to the other, no contact with home, something is going to happen…..these guys arent Monks!

Dean on April 27, 2010 at 2:52 pm

Hellcat…I do have an enormous amount of respect for the military, I even served. I come from a family of veterans. Guess what…fraternization happens! I saw it from basic training and throughout my four years of active duty. Now the majority of us went about performing our jobs, and the same goes on today. However, for you to expect that nothing will happen…EVER…well you are just naive. Like Dean said – it is human nature. You just proved my point about liberals. By the way…have you ever served in the military? I prefer my real life experiences as a female soldier than your statistics pulled from your a**.

Angela04 on April 27, 2010 at 3:36 pm

And I still maintain that, if it has to happen, there are condoms, birth control, all kinds of protection out there to prevent the baby boom you seem to fear so much. Even if you don’t think everyone’s capable of abstinence, you would at least expect that they would use protection, right? After all, they are supposed to be responsible adults and role models, not lust-crazed children.

hellcat on April 27, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    Yes, and it does happen. Your opinion is really not based upon anything, and that is the problem. Try reading the article and the other links posted on this thread, if you want to your claim to be more credible than someone’s alien abduction fantasy.

    Worry01 on April 27, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    To those believe sailors should just be professionals is to deny that they are humans. Most are professional and are able to control themselves. However we all have ‘primal instincts'; to deny them is foolish and irresponsible. The Navy and Marine Corps acknowledge that sexual responsibility is an important aspect within the service. They currently have a program called ‘Sexual Health and Responsibility Program (SHARP)’ in place to try and effectively deal with these very real human issues.
    Here’s a link to the 2009 SHARP report: http://www.nmcphc.med.navy.mil/downloads/sexual_health/promote_sex_health.pdf

    Here’s an excerpt taken from gage 4 of that report:
    Unplanned pregnancies among active duty Sailors continue to be of concern. From a 2008 SHARP report (freely available when searched for on the Internet). “2 of 3 (64%) pregnancies among surveyed enlisted female Sailors were unplanned. In other words, only 36% were intended. The national Healthy People 2010 objective is to increase the proportion of pregnancies that are intended to 70%. In 2005, 35% of surveyed male enlisted Sailors and 18% of female Sailors said “when a birth control method is not available, I believe you just have to take a chance and hope a pregnancy does not occur”. Lost duty days for unintended pregnancy health care, post-delivery convalescence and separations due to pregnancy have not been calculated. The presumably stressful impact of single parenthood on active duty members, families and Navy and Marine Corps commands has not been quantified.”

    There are more reasons why a pregnant woman is unfit for submarine duty. Indeed even now the navy acknowledges that submarine duty and pregnancy are incompatible. PLEASE READ THE LAST SENTENCE AGAIN. There WILL be pregnant women on submarines. Example: a female sailor has sex with her spouse the night before getting underway. Five weeks later, while on patrol, with six weeks, left isolated and a thousand miles away from anywhere she finds out she is pregnant. From a medical aspect, potential damage to the fetus is already a factor. Tubal pregnancies come into play. It will only take one pregnancy under the polar ice or in some other isolated region to wreck havoc with our submarine’s operational requirements. It will happen. It is happening now… in our current navy.

    I can go on and on and on, providing specific quotes and information from reports and studies relevant to this issue. For those of you that believe this is only a liberal vs. conservative issue, I beg to humbly disagree. I am an independent that leans left. Reason must prevail and when you place relevant facts in front of me, I’m going to pay attention, even if it goes against my desire to render ‘fair, just, and equal’ to all people. To assume that women should be able to do everything a man can do, and vice-versa is simply foolish. The sexes are different for very good reasons, and viva-la-difference. It’s simply human nature.
    V/R John A. Mason

    John A. Mason on April 28, 2010 at 8:45 am

Angela, I don’t believe that I listed any statistics – just my opinion. As for fraternization NEVER happening, please refer to my last comment.

hellcat on April 27, 2010 at 3:49 pm

Hello.
This is the United States of America.
If you don’t like the way it is or the way it is progressing, you have the freedom to LEAVE!
And don’t let the door hit your a$$ on the way.
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT.

Randy Jones on April 27, 2010 at 4:05 pm

How is having women in the submarines going to turn the sailors gay? That does seem to be the point you are making with the whole “Village People” theme, right? Wouldn’t having women around have the opposite effect? Sorry, I shouldn’t bring logic into this.
Do people really take you seriously, Ms Schlussel?

Professor Chaos on April 27, 2010 at 5:22 pm

Ummm…you DO realize that the Village People would be quite happy without any women on a submarine, don’t you?

Bert Frach on April 27, 2010 at 6:06 pm

The ‘pregnancy issue’ is just one facet of this! Birth protection isnt an issue, really. Once a female is assigned to the crew, and is qualified to do her job, she is now part of the sub. An integral part of a great machine. If she ‘chooses’ to get pregnant, she is still gone! The navy doesnt require her to ask permission to have a baby, and they shouldnt! But, her choice either by planning, or ‘not’ planning, the net effect is the same! Someone has to do her work, there is no one to replace her. Subs are a very unique working situation that has no other parallel.

Even so, men and women working together in close quarters, like a sub, causes complications and petty jealousy. By itself, who cares, work place romance happens, right? Well take the ‘office’ and close to doors, shutter the windows, disconnect the tv/radio/telephone/internet/cell phone, all outside communication! Lock the doors and stay there for 3, 4, 5 months. Divide everyone into 3 groups. Tell one group to go to work. Group 2, go to sleep. Group 3, study the wiring and plumbing diagrams of the building you are in. Commit those plans to memory, to the point you can draw the wiring and the plumbing in such a degree as to know each and every light switch, outlet, etc. Now every 6 hours rotate. Group 1, time to study. Group 2, time to work. Group 3, sleep. Do this 24/7 for 90 days at first. This is how a submarine works!

I realize most folks dont have a clear idea about sub life. Most see this as just another ‘equality’ issue. But I challenge you to look for gender bias in your own community. Its pretty much right in front of you! Mens and womens restrooms! Why do we need that? Sororities and Fraternities. Boy Scouts & Girl Scouts. You see, it isnt hard to find! It is part of our society, most cases for a reason!

On the other side, I dont believe it will have an influence in anyway of turning a guy gay or not.

Dean on April 27, 2010 at 6:57 pm

Gays in the military are far worse and teh whole liberal notion of “inclusion”. in this case women on subs, is bad.

Gays’ preferred sexual object is their own sex, so allowing them to shower, toilet and sleep with their expressed desires of love is terribly wrong.

DS_ROCKS! on April 27, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    Is this because of the well documented fact that every gay man wants every man within reach?

    Nope, just your own self absorbed paranoia.

    Pete Bone on April 28, 2010 at 9:56 pm

Not that it matters but I am a disabled vet..my wife is a disabled vet..(Army Nurse in Nam)
Let these brave women be honored
Afghanistan:

1. Marine Sgt. Jeannette L. Williams, 25, KC-130 crash in Pakistan mountains, Jan. 9, 2002

2. AF Staff Sgt. Anissa Shero, 31, loadmaster, MC-130H, crash on takeoff of Special Operations mission, June 12, 2002

3. AF 1st Lt. Tamara Archuleta, 23, co-pilot Pave Hawk helicopter, crashed while picking up two injured Afghan children, Mar. 23, 2003

4. Sgt. Maj. Barbaralien Banks, 41, Chinook crash, Apr. 6, married, one son, 19, Apr. 6, 2005

5. Spec. Chrystal Stout, 23, Chinook crash, Apr. 6, 2005

6. 1st Lt. Laura M. Walker, 24, IED attack on Humvee, Aug. 18, 2005

7. Sgt. Wakkuna A. Jackson, 21, IED attack on convoy vehicle, Aug. 19, 2006

8. Reserve Sgt. 1st Class Merideth L. Howard, 52, suicide car bomb attack on Humvee, Sept. 8, 2006

9. Spc. Ciara Durkin, 30, gunshot wound, investigation in progress, Sept. 26, 2007

10. Sgt. Simone Robinson, 21, IED attack in Kabul on Feb. 28, single mother of two year-old daughter, Mar. 1, 2009

11. Navy Lt. Florence B. Choe, 35, killed by insurgent dressed as an Afghan soldier, Camp Shaheen, Mazar-e-Sharif, 3 year-old daughter, March 27, 2009

12. Air Force Lt. Roslyn L. Schulte, 25, IED hit on vehicle near Kabul, May 20, 2009

13. Air Force Senior Airman Ashton L.M. Goodman, 21, IED hit on vehicle near Bagram AFB, May 26, 2009

14. Staff Sgt. Tara J. Smith, 33, non-combat related incident under investigation, mother of two boys, 8 and 6, August 4, 2009.

15. Sgt. Eduviges G. Wolf, 24, RPG attack on vehicle, wife and mother of two girls, ages 3 and 1, October 22, 2009.

Iraq:

1. Pfc. Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, captured, died in captivity, Mar. 23, 2003, two children, 4 and 3, Mar. 23, 2003

2. Sgt. Melissa Valles, 26, non-combat gunshot wound to abdomen, cause unknown, July 10, 2003

3. Spc. Alyssa Renee Peterson, 27, gunshot wound to head, cause unknown, Sept. 15, 2003

4. Pfc. Analaura Esparza Gutierrez, 21, RPG attack on supply vehicle, Oct. 1, 2003

5. Spc. Tamarra J. Ramos, 24, non-combat injuries, armor medical company, Oct. 1, 2003

6. Pfc. Rachel Bosveld, 19, MP, attack on Baghdad police station, Oct. 26, 2003

7. Pfc. Karina Sotelo Lau, 20, Chinook crash, under fire, Nov. 2, 2003

8. Spc. Frances M. Vega, 20, Chinook crash, under fire, Nov. 2, 2003

9. Chief Warrant Officer Sharon T. Swartworth, 43, CWO, JAG Corps, Blackhawk downed under fire, Nov. 7, 2003

10. Sgt. Linda C. Jiminez, injuries following a fall in Baghdad, Nov. 8, 2003

11. Staff Sgt. Kimberley Voelz, 27, explosive ordnance disposal expert, bomb exploded, died in soldier husband’s arms, Dec. 14, 2003

12. Capt. Kimberly Hampton, 27, helicopter pilot, downed under fire, Jan. 4, 2004

13. Sgt. Keicia M. Hines, 27, MP, struck by vehicle, Jan. 14, 2004

14. Pfc. Holly Jeanne McGeogh, 19, vehicle hit by IED, Jan. 31, 2004

15. Pfc. Nichole M. Frye, 19, Civil Affairs Reservist, vehicle hit by IED, Feb. 16, 2004

16. Capt. Gussie Jones, 41,non-combat death (surgical nurse, possible heart attack), Mar. 7, 2004

17. Spc. Tyanna Avery-Felder, 22, shrapnel wounds, Apr. 4, 2004

18. Spc. Michelle Witmer, 20, Wisconsin NG MP, killed by small arms attack (one of three sisters in the Army), Apr. 9, 2004

19. Spc. Isela Rubalcava, 25, hit by mortar round to Stryker brigade, May 8, 2004

20. Pfc. Leslie D. Jackson, 18,vehicle hit by IED, May 20, 2004

21. Pfc. Melissa J. Hobart, 22, collapsed while on guard duty, mother of 3 year-old, June 6, 2004

22. Spc. Julie R. Hickey, 20, Civil Affairs Reservist, died in Germany after complications from non-combat related illness, July 4, 2004

23. Sgt. Linda Terango-Griess, Ordnance Company Reservist, 33, vehicle hit by IED, July 11, 2004

24. Sgt. Tatjana Reed, 34, vehicle hit by IED, July 22, 2004

25. Sgt. Shawna L. Morrison, 26, IL NG, 26, hit by shrapnel when barracks mortared, Sept. 5, 2004

26. Spc. Jessica L. Cawvey, 21, vehicle hit by mortar, single mother of 6 year-old, Oct. 6, 2004

27. Sgt. Pamela Osbourne, 38, three children, ages 9 t0 19, Oct. 11, 2004

28. Sgt. Cari Anne Gasiewicz, 28, convoy vehicle hit by grenade, Dec. 4, 2004

29. Sgt. Tina S. Time, 22, vehicle accident, Dec. 13, 2004

30. Sgt. Jessica M. Housby, 23, IL NG, hit by IED near truck convoy, Feb. 9, 2005

31. Spc. Katrina L. Bell-Johnson, 32, truck overturned, cause unknown, mother of 1 year-old, Feb. 16, 2005

32. Spc. Adrianna Salem, 21, vehicle rolled over, unknown cause, Feb. 21, 2005

33. Pfc. Sam W. Huff, 18, IED attack on Humvee, April 18, 2005

34. Spc. Aleina Ramirez Gonzales, 33, Puerto Rico, April 15, mortar attack on forward operating base, Apr. 29, 2005

35. Spc. Lizbeth Robles, 31, vehicle accident, Mar. 1, 2005

36. Spc. Carrie L. French, 19, bomb hit on convoy, June 5, 2005

37. Marine Lance Cpl. Holly Charette, 21, attack on truck convoy in Fallujah, June 23, 2005

38. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Regina Clark, 43, 1 18 year-old son, Fallujah attack on truck convoy, June 23, 2005

39. Marine Cpl. Ramona Valdez, 20, Fallujah attack on truck convoy, June 23, 2005

40. Staff Sgt. Tricia L. Jameson, 34, medical specialist, Army NG, IED explosion while responding to a casualty incident, July 14, 2005

41. Pfc. LaVena L. Johnson, 19, non-combat related injuries, July 19, 2005

42. Spec. Toccara Green, 23, IED explosion, Aug. 14, 2005

43. Airman 1st Class Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 21, IED explosion, Sept. 28, 2005

44. 1st Lt. Debra A. Banaszak, 35, non-combat related injuries, Oct. 28, 2005

45. Sgt. Julia V. Atkins, 22,IED attack near Humvee, Dec. 10, 2005

46. Sgt. Regina C. Reali, 25, IED attack, Dec. 23, 2005

47. Sgt. Myla L. Maravillosa, 24, RPG attack on Humvee, Dec. 24, 2005

48. 1st Lt. Jaime L. Campbell, 25, helicopter crash, Jan. 7, 2006

49. AF Senior Airman Alecia S. Good, 28, Gulf of Aden helicopter collision, Feb. 17, 2006

50. Pvt. First Class Tina M. Priest, 20, gunshot wound to the chest, unknown cause, Mar. 1, 2006

51. Pfc. Amy Duerksen, 19, of injuries suffered in Iraq, Mar. 11, 2006

52. Spc. Amanda Pinson, 21, mortar attack while waiting for bus transport, Mar. 16, 2006

53. Marine Lance Cpl. Juana Navarro Arellano, 24, of wounds received in Iraq, April 8 , 2006

54. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Jaime S. Jaenke, 29, Humvee struck by IED, Iraq, mother of 9 year old girl June 5, 2006

55. Pfc. Hannah L. Gunterman, 20, mother of a 2 year-old boy, killed by a fellow soldier in a vehicle accident in Taji, Iraq, Sept. 4, 2006

56. 2nd Lt. J. T. Perez, 23, IED explosion near Humvee in Al Kifl, Iraq, Sept. 12, 2006

57. Sgt. Jennifer M. Hartman, 21, suicide bomber attack on West Baghdad Substation, Sept. 14, 2006

58. 1st Lt. Ashley (Henderson) Huff, 23, suicide attack on convoy, near her Humvee, Sept. 19, 2006

59. Sgt. Jeannette T. Dunn, 44, of non-combat related injuries, Nov. 26, 2006

60. Maj. Megan McClung, USMC, 34, IED attack near Ramadi in the Anbar province, Iraq, Dec. 6, 2006

61. Maj. Gloria D. Davis, 47, gunshot wound in a non-combat related incident, Dec. 12, 2006

62. Senior Airman Elizabeth A. Loncki, 23, ordnance disposal team targeted by car bomb, Jan. 7, 2007

63. Command Sgt. Maj. Marilyn L. Gabbard, 46, Black Hawk helicopter crash near Baghdad, Jan. 20, 2007

64. Spc. Carla J. Stewart, 37, transportation convoy vehicle rollover, Jan. 30, 2007

65. Marine Cpl. Jennifer M. Parcell, 20, female suicide bomber attack at checkpoint in Anbar province, Iraq, Feb. 7, 2007

66. Marine Capt. Jennifer J. Harris, 28, helicopter crash due to enemy action in Anbar province, Iraq, Feb. 7, 2007

67. Sgt. Ashly L. Moyer, 21, IED detonation near her MP vehicle, Mar. 3, 2007

68. Pfc. Katie M. Soenksen, 19, IED detonation near her MP vehicle, May 2, 2007

69. Spc. Karen Clifton, 22, RPG attack on her vehicle, near Baghdad, June 21, 2007

70. Sgt. Trista L. Moretti, 27, indirect fire during an insurgent attack, June 25, 2007

71. Spec. Michelle R. Ring, 24, mother of two young boys, mortar fire attack in Baghdad, July 5, 2007

72. Capt. Maria I. Ortiz, 40, indirect fire attack in Baghdad, July 10, 2007

73. Staff Sgt. Alicia A. Birchett, 29, non-combat related accident in Baghdad, mother of 3 young boys, Aug. 9, 2007

74. Sgt. Princess C. Samuels, 22, indirect fire near Taji, Iraq, Aug. 15, 2007

75. Spc. Zandra T. Worthy-Walker, 28, indirect fire near Taji, Iraq, Aug. 15, 2007

76. Spc. Kamisha J. Block, 20, non-combat “friendly fire” incident, MP battalion in Iraq, Aug. 16, 2007

77. Spc. Marisol Heredia, 19, injuries suffered from a non-combat related incident, July 18 in Baghdad, Sept. 7, 2007

78. Capt. (Dr.) Roselle M. Hoffmaster, 32, Kirkuk, Iraq, non-combat related incident under investigation, Sept. 20, 2007

79. Spc. Rachel L. Hugo, 24, IED and small arms attack on MP unit, Bayji, Iraq, Oct. 5, 2007

80. Staff Sgt. Lillian Clamens, 35, RPG attack near Baghdad, mother of 3 young children, Oct. 10, 2007

81. 2nd Lt. Tracy L. Alger, 30, IED attack in Shubayshen, Iraq, Nov. 1, 2007, while serving in a forward support company (FSC) attached to the 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment. (All soldiers in the war are “in harm’s way,” but Direct Ground Combat-collocated support units at the battalion level are required by DoD regulation to be all male.)

82. Staff Sgt. Carletta S. Davis, 34, IED attack in Tal Al-Dahab, Iraq, mother of three sons, Nov. 5. 2007

83. Spc. Keisha M. Morgan, 25, non-combat related cause under investigation, Feb. 22, 2008

84. Marine Lance Cpl. Casey Casanova, 22, IED attack in Iraq, May 2, 2008

85. Spc. Mary J. Jaenichen, 20, non-combat related injury that is under investigation, May 9, 2008

86. Cpl. Jessica A. Ellis, 24, IED attack on her medical vehicle, near Baghdad, Iraq, May 11, 2008

87. AF Tech Sgt. Jackie L. Larsen, 37, non-combat related natural causes following non-hostile action, Balad AFB, July 17, 2008

88. Pfc. Jennifer L. Cole, 34, non-combat related incident, under investigation, Bayji, Iraq, Aug. 2, 2008

89. Lance Cpl. Stacy Ann Dryden, 22, non-combat related incident under investigation, al-Asad Air Base, Iraq, Oct. 19, 2008

90. Spc. Jessica Y. Sarandrea, 22, mortar fire on forward operating base near Mosul, Mar. 3, 2009

91. Staff Sgt. Army C. Tirador, 29, non-combat incident near Kirkush, Nov. 4, 2009.

92. Pfc. Adriana Alvarez, 20, MP, injuries sustained supporting combat operations, Feb. 20, 2010.

93. CWO2 Billie Jean Grinder, 25, hard helicopter landing, Feb. 21, 2010.

94. Spc. Lakeshia M. Bailey, 23, vehicle rollover in Al Kut, Iraq, Mar. 8, 2010.

95. Pfc. Erin L. McLyman, 26, mortar attack on base, Balad, Iraq, Mar. 13, 2010.

nogo postal on April 27, 2010 at 9:02 pm

Of course this is just a list of the dead..may I suggest a visit to your local V.A. and visit the waiting area. Women with artificial limbs..women with PTSD..etc
This article and comments demonstrate an ignorant level of disrespect to women who have served and are now serving in areas subject to attack. They are a critical part of our Armed Forces.
They are brave and competent. If they choose to serve on a Sub?
Why Not?

nogo postal on April 27, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    What was the point of your list? Did you actually read the article? Were you truly trying to make a point, or did you just have a tantrum? Do you really think that there is nothing different about serving on a ship or sub from other activities? Spamming, which you did with those casualty figures, really does not make a case.

    Worry01 on April 27, 2010 at 10:02 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field