May 11, 2010, - 1:17 pm

Taking Bets: How Many of These Women Will Be Pregnant by 2013?

By Debbie Schlussel

I’ve been telling you (over and over) about Barack Obama’s boneheaded decision to allow female sailors on Navy submarines a la “Operation Petticoat.”  Sadly, it’s not just an old, hoaky movie from decades past, but a reality that will cause a lot of problems . . . and, as I’ve been predicting, a lot of sailorettes sent home for getting pregnant.

womenonsubsjessicawilcox

Midshipman Jessica Wilcox & Fellow Sailoratrixes Brag About Invading Navy Subs

obamasmiling.jpgoperationpetticoat

Now, Associated Press is, predictably, getting in on the propaganda.  The news wire is touting the women who will begin training this summer to become submarine officers and report for duty on subs by 2012.

Above is a pic of some of the women, including Midshipmen Jessica Wilcox (the blonde with her mouth open), Misty Webster, Kristin Lyles, Kayla Sax,  and Laura Martindale.  AP reports that 11-20 women have been selected to participate.  How many of these women do you think will be pregnant by 2013?  I’m taking bets.  I say at least 6 out of the 20, but past experience–with female soldiers aboard ships–says that’s low and that it’s more like 8-10.

navysubfemale

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



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

114 Responses

Like, how about most or all of them?

ConcernedPatriot on May 11, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    I’m sorry, Ma’am, but unless you have been in the military and have known these ladies you have no right to judge them. I know most of them personally, and they are upstanding girls with high morals and high self-esteems. We in the Navy are more concerned with the work we do to serve our country, despite the fact that others seem to think that women will go after any man that simply speaks to them. Of course, I cannot account for every women, but seriously give them some credit. These ladies are some of the best at the Academy and it’s people like you who demoralize, degrade and portray them as promiscuous.

    M: Using your logic, since I’ve never been through suicide, I can’t be against that either. DS

    midn12 on May 12, 2010 at 12:01 am

Debbie, perhaps, you can get the British and Irish oddsmakers to make a line and, then, we all can bet on the over-under total!

BK on May 11, 2010 at 1:36 pm

HEY! What a woman does with her body is her business!
That’s what lefties tell me ad nausium

The number will be very low or nill of they are commissioned.

If enlisted, the numbers will be much higher.

Sam Adams on May 11, 2010 at 1:39 pm

Given the age of them, probably about half. Shockingly they may well get pregnant by their boyfriends or husbands while not at sea. Outrage!

Matt on May 11, 2010 at 1:41 pm

If we have the greatest military in the world, I do believe we do,why can’t you trust their decisions? It’s fine for Obama to say he wants women in subs, but it’s the generals who will have to work with these women. I’m sure just like anyone deployment they will pick people that they can trust and work with.

Why do you assume that they will get pregnant?

Pete Bone on May 11, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    For one thing, they have admirals in the Navy, and not generals. Also, shipboard pregnancies are not a hypothetical issue. You might try looking at some of the archived material here, including Debbie’s links on her present post. Confining people in tight quarters for prolonged periods of time has proven to be problematic on ships. Imagine that situation only intensified on board a submarine. Unless you have sexually segregated or aged crews, things will happen that will not be conducive to discipline(jealousy, harassment, etc). As for following orders, one only needs to look at what happens to sailors during shore leave, despite supposedly strict regulations. Brothels and other amusements do not cluster around naval bases for the view.

    worry01 on May 11, 2010 at 5:00 pm

What I’d like to know Debbie, is how you are going to work muslims into this story?

matt on May 11, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Muslims work their way into many things. Shall we name them? We could discuss Fort Hood if you like.

    worry01 on May 11, 2010 at 5:03 pm

Six out of twenty, ridiculus, I say 15 out of twenty. I’m a man and I have no desire to serve on a sub, it was bad enough on a aircraft carrier and when those women head out to sea and realize what they have to put up with they’ll grab the first man who shows interest which is all of them and its down the hatch babies on the way.

THE LORD THOR on May 11, 2010 at 2:07 pm

You can thank the femifascist globalists and groups like NOW and yes to an extent Planned Parenthood for the crap this country is in!

Bob Porrazzo on May 11, 2010 at 2:28 pm

I’m not so sure their will be more pregnancies than any other branches of the military which enlist women, but regardless this is a short-sighted policy. Women in most military roles is wrong too.

There will be issues. That is certain. The whole feminist credo that women can do anything men can do, equal rights, equal pay for equal work, etc is all short sighted. We devalue what used to be traditional marriage and motherhood for women to do all this stuff. Regardless that I will be seen as old fashioned or whatever, I think in this regard, we had it more right back in the 50’s before women’s lib.

Women have the right to vote, equal standing in court (perhaps more than equal in divorce court), etc. Yet some of the advances in the name of giving them equal rights have been devolutionary. This decision to put them on subs is just one more of those. I’m sure combat duty and more is coming next as some countries have already adopted.

BB on May 11, 2010 at 2:31 pm

This is wrong on several levels. Besides the pregnancies and general lower morale because of jealousy between men getting sexual contact and thoe who aren’t, there will be the problem of potential for the women to falsely claim rape if caught fraternizing (a common occurenece on land) or actual rape to take place.

DS_ROCKS! on May 11, 2010 at 2:39 pm

Well, durn it, I’d sure like to be all alone on a submarine with them gorgeous gals for months at a time.

But, then, I am a guy, after all.

John Robert Mallernee on May 11, 2010 at 3:03 pm

The Obami forget human nature. Men and women can be professional in the workplace but attraction will still develop between some of them. And that’s more likely given the loneliness of being at sea for months at a stretch. The outcome will be all too predictable. But we can’t ever have feminist ideology set aside for military needs. Too bad real life has no effect on how the Obama Administration is running the US armed services.

NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 3:33 pm

It looks like all of these Waves are officiers. That means no fraternization with the enlisted men. And since the male officers are officers and gentlemen, there should be no problem, right?

Jarhead on May 11, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    I think we could both laugh at that assumption. Discipline and good order went out long ago in most of the Navy. Also, the incentives to fraternize go up exponentially when you dealing with sexual matters.

    worry01 on May 11, 2010 at 5:06 pm

Just make condoms and the pill part of the standard mess kit for all submariners.

Kaiser Sozay on May 11, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    That’s right…. we need to accommodate the culture of no responsibility and no consequences that’s ruined a lot of lives in this country – in our military. And who will pick up the tab for affairs in the US Navy? That’s going to be the taxpayers.

    Let’s us give the sailors and sailorettes condoms and birth control pills and oops… let’s just pray that nature doesn’t take its course. But that would be in keeping with the Obama idea no bad things ever happen in real life, right?

    Hilarious!

    NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 3:52 pm

Jarhead… you don’t know how quickly things can turn personal between a man and a woman. And when two people are in love, the last thing they’ll be concerned about are regulations. And on a sub I would hazard a good guess the latter are made to be broken six ways from Sunday.

NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    NormanF – If you couldn’t tell, I was making a joke about all of these sailors not being able to curb their hormones. I know all about this – I have been on many deployments and have seen things that I could never write here without it turning into a rated X posting. To get right to the point, almost all of the men I served with would try to get a little somethin’-somethin’ whenever they can.

    As to what you wrote: “you don’t know how quickly things can turn personal between a man and a woman”, you probably could have written that differently. I’m a man, and I love women. Nuff’ said.

    Jarhead on May 11, 2010 at 5:18 pm

      I have nothing against men and women falling in love. I just think such fraternization isn’t a good idea in a situation where the stakes are literally life and death.

      NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 5:56 pm

If there was ever an executive decision that revealed the stupidity and lack of common sense in our president, this decision was it. Mr Obama has no vested interest in the welfare of this country and frankly would be perfectly content to see it fall into the Pacific Ocean while he is president. He would simply move to his boyhood neighborhood in Indonesia.
Stupid middle class voters who took the word of the main stream media instead of thinking twice before signing off on the ballots.

Tim on May 11, 2010 at 3:53 pm

I bet at least half will end up being pregnant.

I will also add that more than just a few will file sexual harassment lawsuits after they entice one or more of the officers to bed them. In addition, you can bet some of the women will bribe and or extort a promotion out of trading sexual favors too.

I was in LE back in the early nineties and observed all of the above in our department after we were forced to hire women under affirmative action guide lines. Until that time, we had maybe 3 or 4 female jail matrons and one or two in child abuse units, that was it. It turned our department upside down and it turned the workplace into a hostile atmosphere.There were more lawsuits and complaints filed in the first year than we had in ten years previously.

They will lower the standards or give them incentives to just get enough woman to apply to the subs so they can yell at the top of their lungs how successful it has been.

Don’t tell me that bringing women into a all male workplace does anyone any good. It is a bunch of PC nonsense that will destroy comradeship, esprit de corps and ruin the defense capabilities of the ships they are assigned.

ScottyDog on May 11, 2010 at 4:07 pm

I’d hazard to guess that a good percentage of US servicewomen who volunteer for hazardous duty are gay. No babies in them that hills! Just sayin’ is all. :)

Graty Slapchop on May 11, 2010 at 4:11 pm

The American submariner force is the greatest in world history-why tweak it? Thanks to PC, we’re just a “boner” away from another “Tailhook” scandal.

Patrick on May 11, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    Its a disaster waiting to happen… Sex, babies and sexual harassment lawsuits. But no one can say they weren’t warned. And the military was never supposed to be a coed institution.

    NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 5:12 pm

You people should be ashamed! You don’t know these women. They are wonderful and have worked way too hard to throw away their career on a fellow officer or enlisted sailor aboard their sub.

These women have achieved some of the highest honors both at the Academy and the other NROTC schools.

Debbie, your article sickens me.

midn12 on May 11, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    Yes, facts are sickening things, no? Try looking at the links provided, or archived material here. Or, if you want to find the material on your own, just google naval on duty pregnancies. The navy even has polices on removing women from shipboard service after the 20th week of pregnancy, and I do not imagine that such a policy would exist if there were not some fun going on. Also, the problem would be resolved if the units were not co-ed, but that option is not seriously considered.

    worry01 on May 11, 2010 at 5:12 pm

      You’re right… they’re not considering an all-woman sub crew, which would solve a lot of the issues there. Even the Israeli IDF is not and has never been a truly coed institution.

      NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 5:14 pm

midn12, you have too much faith in human nature. People will literally sacrifice their lives and ruin themselves for love. Its happened throughout history.

NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Well, calling it love is a bit of a stretch. It would be more accurate to call it bottled up lust without a normal outlet. Things will really get fun when DADT gets thrown out. There will be alot of snorkling, willing or unwilling, while at sea.

    worry01 on May 11, 2010 at 5:15 pm

NormanF,

Like I said, you guys don’t know these women. I do. I have less faith in humanity than you realize, but one thing is for certain, I have complete faith in the 11 women from USNA and the 2 others from NROTC.

For the 11 that will graduate next month from USNA, they have spent the last four years in an environment that is largely male, approximately 80%. Yet, none of them are pregnant or to my knowledge invovled in any sort of sexual harassment case.

I think you underestimate the ability of our Navy leadership to choose the appropriate women for the job.

midn12 on May 11, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    midn12 – and how do you pick the “Appropriate Women”? Are sexual preferences being taken into account? I could see this working if all these women were lesbos, but you cannot ask that question. Slick Willey took care of that, and now our Moron-In-Chief will try to make it legal for anyone of any sexual persuasion to join the military.

    Jarhead on May 11, 2010 at 5:41 pm

If you want people to take your article seriously, maybe you should learn how to spell. “. . . an old, hoaky movie”? I think you mean “an old, hokey movie”. This idea of having women on submarines was not Obama’s. This idea has been in the works for awhile now, and under Obama it has been implemented. If you want to critique Obama’s policies, why don’t you write about something that he actually had a hand in, like the economy or health care? Plus I hate to break it to you, but Australia has had women on submarines for almost ten years now. So having women on subs really isn’t a big deal anymore. It just shows how the United States takes longer than other developed nations to embrace equality. Which is embarrassing because isn’t this nation supposed to be the frontrunner in the realms of equality, freedom, and democracy? I’m surprised that you as a female promote an anti-female agenda. Maybe you should stop writing articles and go back to making sandwiches, because according to your article all women are good for is making babies.
And the comment about people sacrificing their lives for the woman in the foxhole over? Yeah, right. Like you’d have time to think if it was a man or a woman if there was a bomb coming. Our troops risk their lives to save one another, regardless of gender. A man would save a man. Plus, if a female wants to serve in the place of a man so he can be home with his family, then who are you to question that?

OurTroopsRock on May 11, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    Thank you for the ideological bombast. Did you actually read the article before commenting? Pregnancies are a real problem not just in the U.S. Navy, but in the other branches as well. Also, you cite countries, such as Australia, that have very small militaries that would be unable to take the lead in any conflict. We could also bring up the stellar service of Germany and the Netherland (duck, cover, and bribe) in the former Yugoslavia and more recently in Aghanistan. If you want your military to be a thinly disguised social program, you can follow their lead. However, that leaves the burden to others. To play with your silly nickname is quite easy. The troops would be rock bottom if your viewpoint prevailed.

    worry01 on May 11, 2010 at 5:48 pm

Jarhead,

Are you assuming that every Midshipman female is sexually promiscuous? I assure you, we are not. Sexual orientation is not at all a question here. Instead, the question is are these women going to be able to lead and do their jobs, casting sexual influences aside. The answer to that question is yes, they can.

The whole point of this article is questioning whether or not these women will be pregnant after less than a year on a submarine. What many fail to realize is that they will not be underway all of the time. Also, there is the matter of accountability to each other. I guarentee you that they will keep each other accountable. They have in a highly competitve male environment for the last four years.

midn12 on May 11, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    midn12 – I am not saying they are ALL sexually promiscuous, but saying that sex won’t occur on a sub is ridiculous.

    Can they do their jobs? Yes. But if they get pregnant, the Navy will need to get them off of the sub within a couple of months. The pregnant women that I have known stop lifting heavy things and stop doing very strenuous work once they get pregnant, which is usually doctor’s orders. That means that other men will need to pick up the slack.

    Jarhead on May 11, 2010 at 6:03 pm

      Correct. And a heavily pregnant woman is just excess baggage in such circumstances. Since she can’t pull her own weight, it leaves the remaining men placed in a position to work that much harder. It won’t exactly lead to increased amity between men and women in confined quarters, which is what it essentially is on a sub. It sucks in Hollywood and moreso in real life.

      NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    That is on land where the brass can be around to make sure inappropriate conduct doesn’t happen. They won’t be around to provide “parental supervision” on a sealed sub submerged in deep water for months at a time on which there is little to no real personal privacy. And unless the women have separate sleeping quarters, there is no way to prevent inappropriate sexual interaction with the men on board. The larger point is the military is not the place to conduct social experimentation that can place the lives of its servicemen and servicewomen at risk.

    NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 6:04 pm

Jarhead,

Well, at least you and I agree on something, they would be moved to shore duty as soon as possible. That does not mean that they were impregnated by a sailor on board. The exact same thing happens in the Surface community. Things on a submarine will be handled no different.

It should be obvious by my screenname and comments that I am a female Midshipman. I fully intend to spend my entire career in the military, and I would love nothing more to have a family. I can and will do both. No matter the community I serve in. Will that make me a bad officer? No. However, that is what this article is implying about these women, that they will break the regulations and be bad officers for the sake of a fleeting monent with another sailor. These women are much smarter than that.

midn12 on May 11, 2010 at 6:11 pm

Not all female officers are bad. Nowhere did Debbie say it. I think she said they should not be allowed to serve in certain environments. And military officers are married and that isn’t the point of this post she wrote.

NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 6:13 pm

Altho Im a little old-fashoned, Im strangely comfortable with this…I was thinking they could maybe help cook and clean up, things of this nature….maybe rub the soldiers shoulders to relax them before going into battle….

hill billy on May 11, 2010 at 6:29 pm

NormanF,

No, her point was that these women can’t handle themselves. It annoys me that she makes these claims in sucha deragatory manner when she clearly has no idea who these women are (as evidenced by her inability to correctly identify the Midshipmen in the picture she uses) or anything about the environment that they received their education.

That is what annoys me about this article and the people who doubt these women. This article may be backed up by statics from the Gulf War, but it attacks the women chosen to serve on submarines and their ability to control themselves while aboard.

midn12 on May 11, 2010 at 6:31 pm

    I’m all for equality and again that isn’t the issue here. This is a social experiment being carried out in the Navy with an outcome that can lead to no good and in a wartime situation, it could actually be dangerous, too.

    Because of those considerations, coed sub crews are a bad idea even if the young men and women on board are capable of holding back their human impulses in such confined quarters in which they have little to no real privacy. Its not even about character. The real issue is human nature.

    NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 6:38 pm

      NormanF,

      It appears to me that you feel I am upset by your words. That is not the case. This article is deragatory towards these ladies. While you make valid points, so do I. Your points however are not the purpose of this article. Ms. Schlussel is attacking these women, plain and simple.

      midn12 on May 11, 2010 at 6:48 pm

hillbilly, that will please the feminists – having women do the work for men women have done for thousands of years.

I don’t think that’s quite in mind with what they have for the sub assignments.

NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 6:32 pm

Ms. Debbie,
If you were in their shoes, would you be one of the ones to get pregnant? These women didn’t ask/petition for these slots on submarines; these women stepped up and volunteered when their Navy said they needed them there. Instead of bashing these innocent individuals, how about you focus on the general topic instead which is unarguably heated and controversial.

“Fellow Sailoratrixes Brag About Invading Navy Subs”
“Jessica Wilcox (the blonde with her mouth open)”
Those quotes just show you to be rude and boorish.

Yukon1234 on May 11, 2010 at 6:40 pm

Okay. I just figured it out. After reading all these comments, the solution is to provide on-sub daycare! Just make sure those little tikes don’t crawl near the nuclear reactor core! Oops! Someone spilled a juicebox on the missile tracking system! Oops! Someone’s loaded diaper is clogging the torpedo hatch!

DS_ROCKS! on May 11, 2010 at 6:47 pm

This country is becomming quite the joke. This is so retarded. Did any of these girls see “Das Boot”? Why would they wanna be on a stinky sub with men?

The feminists have sold a big LIE! Some jobs men can do better than females and some jobs females can do better than men. I hate this policy because females do NOT belong on the submarines (unless they are lesbionic) and just as I am against OPEN gays being in the military, I am against FRATERNIZING of ANY KIND in the military.

I saw those Swedish female cops in the attack video just posted and I kept thinking females ought, not be cops either. Sorry, but men are just stronger.

Skunky on May 11, 2010 at 7:06 pm

Actually yes, I did read the article. I found it to be rather assumptive, just like your points. Females do get pregnant. Shocking I know. Pregnancies do affect what types of jobs women can do, because obvioulsy we do not want to hurt the fetus. Clearly, you have not researched the issues of pregnancy in the military enough. I agree that there are times in which a woman may get pregnant on a deployment, but, most women actually get pregnant due to their husband/boyfriends while serving actively. This is a problem because you can’t tell someone that they can’t get pregnant, but at the same time, it is not fair to the men serving that women can get out of deployment and be put on shore duty.
On another note, I was citing the Australian Navy to prove how they are able to have 30-40 women on their submarines with the men. They clearly are able to do so without major problems, thus we should follow their lead and implement some of the policies they have found effective with integrating the submarine force.
But truthfully, this article does not even deal with pregnancies on an objective standpoint. It’s just an attack on these 11 females who want to serve their country by insinuating that they are sluts. Mid12 is right. If these women were sluts, they’d already be pregnant because they go to school and live in dorms 24/7 with a population that is over 80% male.

OurTroopsRock on May 11, 2010 at 7:10 pm

Sounds like a insecure-chick identity- crisis going on in here. You’ll calm down once you tidy a laundry.

Patrick on May 11, 2010 at 7:11 pm

I am a peer and personally know one of the talented young women named in the above article who have been selected to be among the first to serve on Submarines. You can take it from me that these women are smart enough to not let any unplanned pregnancies take place. They are leaders of character, career minded, have the right personality to get along with an overwhelmingly male crew in tight quarters, yet also tough enough to take on most men I know and win if it ever came to having to defend themselves.
Furthermore, since I’ve known these girls for 4 years, I can tell you that women on submarines was in the works before Obama was elected and was going to happen no matter who won. So trying to politicize it is pointless.

I’m ashamed of you Debbie; as a citizen of the United States, and as a woman for not being supportive of your sisters who have volunteered to protect this country by taking on one of the most challenging hardship tours the Navy has to offer.

IFlyPlanesForALiving on May 11, 2010 at 7:12 pm

midn12

You are typical of the feminists that join the military out to prove that you can do the job of the males. You get your underwear a wad because your in denial about the difference between the sexes.

Are you going to deny that there is a pregnancy problem on board our air craft carriers too?

Are you going to deny that the standards for women have been relaxed so they can compete with the men like the physical agility testing?

Just how are you going to have a family while in the military? Inquiring minds want to know.

Does your ship have daycare?

In addition you stated the following;”However, that is what this article is implying about these women, that they will break the regulations and be bad officers for the sake of a fleeting moment with another sailor.”

I recently watched a Discovery special program on women that serve on air craft carriers and that is exactly what is happening.

Don’t get me started about the female Naval Aviators that were passed even though their training officers objected to them being promoted in the flight program based on their performance. The Naval command ignored the training officers and one of the two went on to crash a jet aircraft on a carrier landing.

“Former Lt. Carey Dunai Lohrenz, who was one of the first two women trained to fly the F-14 Tomcat. In October 1994 her colleague, Lt. Kara Hultgreen, crashed and died while attempting to land on the carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Lohrenz was removed from carrier aviation in May 1995, due to flawed flying techniques that her superiors described as “unsafe, undisciplined, and unpredictable.”

I can, if you wish, cite many more examples.

ScottyDog on May 11, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    “You are typical of the feminists that join the military out to prove that you can do the job of the males.”
    Yes, you know her and her motivations that drove her to accept her military obligation. Quit attacking the person and instead attack the facts. Who is to stay she doesn’t have a family lineage of proud American veterans that she wants to stand proud amongst? Who says a female’s plight in the military has to be solely to prove she can best a man?

    “Are you going to deny that there is a pregnancy problem on board our air craft carriers too?”
    Pregnancies are not the only problems. What about STDs, hernias, sun burns and toothaches? All of these hinder the mission and require peers to pick up slack for others. However, it seems to be generalized that all pregnancies are from fellow ship-board sailors and that none of these women can be married.

    “Are you going to deny that the standards for women have been relaxed so they can compete with the men like the physical agility testing?”
    I’m guessing you’re referring to the Physical Readiness Test that all Navy members must take. This test is not to gather the absolute elite of the country. This is a test to make sure that every person in the Navy has maintained a certain degree of physicality and this level is naturally different between males and females. That is not relaxing a standard.

    “Just how are you going to have a family while in the military?”
    Are you saying that no person in the military can have a family at the same time? If you are, then you are just ignorant to all the means and methods our military has employed in order to allow such a thing to occur.

    Nice citation. You don’t think there are an equal amount of male aviators who have crashed? What about John McCain?

    http://nwotruth.com/mishaps-mark-john-mccains-record-as-naval-aviator/

    Yukon1234 on May 11, 2010 at 7:44 pm

      Yukon1234 – you wrote “it seems to be generalized that all pregnancies are from fellow ship-board sailors”

      If the sailor was pregnant while on the sub, how did she get pregnant? Was it an Immaculate Conception? Yeah, there will be a small percentage that may get pregnant a couple of weeks before deployment, but those would be very rare cases. Also, the Navy is not going to allow pregnant women on subs or other ships. If they were pregnant before getting on the ship and knew it without informing anyone, that would be a breach of orders. Again, how did they get pregnant?

      Jarhead on May 11, 2010 at 8:07 pm

        Jarhead,
        Think about what you would want to do before a 6+ month long deployment. You’d probably want to have sex. Lots and lots of sex. Why? Because you know that technically you are not supposed to do that while you are on deployment and in duty status. And I’m not saying that protection wouldn’t be used in these circumstances, but sometimes one slips past the goalie. You seem to question the integrity of these women when you say that a pregnancy resulting from this sort of incident “would be very rare cases.” Really? You have any numbers on that?

        You sound like you look at this situation from the standpoint that “You put women on subs, they will get pregnant by people they shouldn’t be getting pregnant by.”

        Maybe we should put some responsibility on the males that would be doing said impregnating?

        Yukon1234 on May 11, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    ScottyDog,

    I am far from a feminist, I don’t think women should be in all places in the military. For instance, I think a woman would make a terrible SEAL. Thanks for assuming though, it made for a good laugh.

    I joined the military because I wanted to serve, like my father, I wish to be a Marine. But, I’m a realist, I understand that my male counterparts would have a hard time seeing me get hurt on the front lines and that I may or may not see combat.

    As far as pregnancy problems go, this article is not about aircraft carriers, it is about 11 of my schoolmates making a huge step and them being ridiculed for it. You want to get rid of pregnancy problems, make every woman take the pill, see how long that one works, though I would like to point out that it takes two to tango. The male would be just as at fault. THe women selected to become submariners are the best of the best here, they know better. They are better.

    PRT, you had to go there… Let me enlighten you, since farther down in another post you made a gross error in your statement. To pass the physical readiness test here at USNA, a male must run a 10:30 1.5 mile. I would like to see many men do that. A female, must run a 12:40. Again, I would like to see many MEN do that. However, the women selected for submarines and even aviation do not just make the minimum requirements, they beat them significantly.

    My future family: frankly, it is none of your business, but since you must know, my fiance is also a Marine. Hopefully, we can work it out to where we have opposing deployments and one of us is able to stay home. The Marine Corps and Navy go to very long lengths to make families possible.

    I have to be honest, I don’t know that I would trust your sources. Seeing as how I’m right here, in the middle of a school who has the very first women submarine selectees, I think I might know a bit more about how they are “refitting” the submarines. In fact, they aren’t doing any “refitting”. Each sub will have 3 female officers that will share a room. Then the male and female officers will share a head. Let me point out, having been on a ship myself, that sharing of a head is not a big deal at all. the men and women will mot likely be on separate watch rotations and the vast majority of males will not be able to use these heads as they are enlisted.

    Jarhead,

    I in no way thought that you feel women in the military are sluts. That is the way this article, in its original published form without the comments, make it seem the writer feels. Not you.

    I WILL be an officer and I have spent time enlisted. Not every Midshipmen comes straight out of high school.

    Thank you to everyone who has engaged in this debate both on my side and against me. I can no longer continue as I, like every Midshipman, have final exams to study for before wishing 11 of my classmates a wonderful congrats for graduating as a potnetial submarine officer. Also, in case you were wondering, I’m giving the same congrats to the men who selected submarines too.

    midn12 on May 11, 2010 at 9:37 pm

midn12 – just to make it clear to you, I by no way meant to infer that all Waves and WMs are sluts. But there are certain places that they cannot perform as well as men or where they really don’t belong, like combat. Taking women into combat is like taking your girlfriend to watch football in your buddies man cave with the guys. It may seem OK at first, but after a while you just want her to go away.

Since you are a Midshipman, have you ever served on active duty? I have and I can guarantee you that many of them are not celibate. Since you may become an officer, you more than likely won’t see it as much. But among the enlisted ranks, there’s a lot more going on than you will ever know.

Jarhead on May 11, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    Jarhead,
    As a male instructor pilot for the Air Force I’d like to thank you for making me laugh. Your citation of the female who couldn’t fly was priceless. Priceless in it’s tunnel vision and flawed logic. There are many more males who can’t fly worth a hoot than females. I’ve seen it first hand. Anyone can pull examples of single people performing exceptionally well or poorly in order to support their position. One of my favorites is Kim Campbell, who won the Distinguished Flying Cross in 2003.

    I will agree with you that there are some jobs not all women can do. But those same jobs not all guys can do either. Not all men are fit for combat. It’s not like they are playing offensive tackle for the Patriots or charging a trench with bayonets. If the individual can prove themselves worthy of the position why not grant them the job?

    As for sex. Oh my god! Sex! At least it’ll be hetero right? eh eh? But seriously, your argument sounds like it’s coming from the 18th Century. Clearly your opinion is based on you not wanting women on any type of ship because they might invade your man space.

    You may have grown up in an age and environment that made you uncomfortable working around women. That’s too bad, because they are here and they are here to stay.

    IFlyPlanesForALiving on May 11, 2010 at 9:08 pm

      FlyPlanesForALiving – you wrote “Your citation of the female who couldn’t fly was priceless.” I did not write anything like that.

      As to women, I have worked with many over the years and have no problem with them. There are just certain circumstances where women shouldn’t be serving in the military. This aint G.I. Jane zipper head.

      Jarhead on May 11, 2010 at 9:48 pm

        My bad, that was scottydog with the completely flawed logic and hangups over a bad pilot from the early 90’s.

        As for your insisting you don’t mind working with women, I’m going to quote you:
        “Taking women into combat is like taking your girlfriend to watch football in your buddies man cave with the guys. It may seem OK at first, but after a while you just want her to go away.”

        IFlyPlanesForALiving on May 11, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    Jarhead, please see my previous for my response to your latest comment to me, I answered you and ScottyDog in the same post.

    Have a good night!

    midn12 on May 11, 2010 at 9:56 pm

I think its fantastic, are there any jobs going?

Mark on May 11, 2010 at 7:43 pm

well as the old recruiting slogan used to go, “join the navy and ride the waves”

gollyneds on May 11, 2010 at 7:46 pm

Doncha hate this political correctness crap? Where is your brain Obama? Gates, you should be fired for listening to these weenies.
This is demoralizing to the military. During Desert Shield it was unbelievable how many females were trying to get pregnant so they wouldn’t have to go to war.
Remember the USS Acadia? The “Love Boat” of the Gulf War.Over 10% of the sailors got pregnant – 36.
Remember the ole Navy Vet that said: “Before, We couldnt wait to get to port and get women.” “Now, the goverment supplies the women right aboard ship.” It’s great!

Clark Kambrick on May 11, 2010 at 8:34 pm

Yukon1234 on May 11, 2010 at 7:44 pm

I’m guessing you’re referring to the Physical Readiness Test that all Navy members must take. This test is not to gather the absolute elite of the country. This is a test to make sure that every person in the Navy has maintained a certain degree of physicality and this level is naturally different between males and females. That is not relaxing a standard.

Since running is an aerobic capacity test of physical fitness why do they add 5 minutes to the 1.5 mile test for women? Men and women are about equal in running but they give the women 5 extra minutes for the run.

Sorry that is relaxing the standard and your statement “that is naturally different between males and females.”
BS that is called relaxing the standard so women can be in the military period.

Nice citation. You don’t think there are an equal amount of male aviators who have crashed? What about John McCain?

What about him, if his father was not an admiral he would have been thrown out of the navy after his first crash.If I remember correctly he crashed 5 jet aircraft one after running out of fuel and another running into power lines 30 ft off the deck…and one other after falling asleep. So what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

Actually, I can produce some more on the Naval Aviators standards that were at first ignored to allow more women into the Aviator program. Because the navy training officers won in court, this no longer happens.
“The controversy began in 1994, when one of the women’s instructors, then-Lt. Patrick (Jerry) Burns, expressed his concerns to local commanders about the women’s safety and competence. In the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal, Burns and other instructors were told that the women were going to graduate to the fleet, “no matter what.”

“Navy public affairs officials led the nation to believe that Lt. Hultgreen’s death was primarily due to engine failure, rather than pilot error. At that point Burns called and then sent a signed letter to Donnelly, asking for her assistance in informing high-level officials of special concessions in training that may have contributed to the death of Hultgreen.”

People like you will go to the end of the earth to defend the concept of feminism. The plain fact of the matter is they do not belong in the military in some roles that are dominated by men. The officers that allowed Lt. Hultgreen to continue in her career because she was a women endangered the lives of all the sailors that served on that carrier and should have been charged with manslaughter.

I just did some research on this issue and it has been said that it will cost the navy 300,000 for each female post per submarine for the conversion of the fleet. Are we that hard up for Submariners that we need to have conduct this experiment is social polisies?

ScottyDog on May 11, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    “Since running is an aerobic capacity test of physical fitness why do they add 5 minutes to the 1.5 mile test for women?”

    Males 17-19 must run: 8:15 to get ranked as Outstanding
    Males 17-19 must run: 12:30 to get ranked as Probationary
    Males 45-49 must run: 9:33 to get ranked as Outstanding
    Males 45-49 must run: 16:08 to get ranked as Probationary

    Females 17-19 must run: 9:29 to get ranked as Outstanding
    Females 17-19 must run: 15:00 to get ranked as Probationary
    Females 45-49 must run: 10:58 to get ranked as Outstanding
    Females 45-49 must run: 17:23 to get ranked as Probationary

    Where is the five minute spread that you are talking about? I think you must be misinformed on this matter as this information is from http://www.navy-prt.com/

    John McCain
    John McCain is relevant to the subject at hand because he was a male who was deemed reckless and was still allowed to fly because someone high ranking him wanted him to. This is the exact same thing you cited in your examples. That females who should not have been allowed to fly were because high ranking people wanted them to. I am in complete agreement that this is not right. Not in the least. I’m bringing up the point that there are equal problems involving both sexes.

    “The plain fact of the matter is they do not belong in the military in some roles that are dominated by men.”
    That is why SEALs are males. That is a physically dominated career that women cannot compete in. Females currently have to meet the same requirements as males in order to become pilots, COs and XOs of ships and so forth. This may not have been true when the roles were first opened up to the, but that is not the blunder I am arguing over.

    You may be right that it costs $300,000 to do conversions. But that is not $300,000 for every single female that will serve on a submarine, ever. Of course there are going to be costs involved in making changes. But once these changes are made, things are good to go. This may not be the best financial time for our Nation to be making this decision but that is not at the fault of these women. Just because crews were all male in the beginning, does not mean that it was meant for crews to be all male forever. That is why we are an evolving society.

    Yukon1234 on May 11, 2010 at 9:08 pm

I’d warrant a guess that most of you have never served in the military, nor do you have personal relationships with any women who are. Specifically these bright young women. They deserve your respect not your negative stereotypes.

annie on May 11, 2010 at 8:39 pm

No one is denying their character. That doesn’t mean they can serve in all environments. It does sound terribly sexist coming from a man but in this case its a woman’s opinion.

NormanF on May 11, 2010 at 9:07 pm

First off, how can anyone on here who doesn’t know these women have the right to even assume this ridiculous notion. That is my biggest issue with this entire article and every person who thinks they are able to make the assumptions against these women without even knowing them. I personally know most of these ladies and they would never put their careers in jeopardy by doing something they have easily been able to avoid for the four years at the academy.
Additionally, Debbie, I also concur with the notion that until you put your self in the driver’s seat and experience what they have, don’t even try to start acting like you have a clue what goes on in the military and how life functions. Sure you may have your opinions and you may hear things from certain polls and statistics, but the people I have had the pleasure to work with are moral, loyal, and outstanding individuals who I know would never and have not gotten themselves into the situation you so casually decided to bet on like a damn game.

midn11 on May 11, 2010 at 9:33 pm

you’re an idiot…and a crappy blogger at that.
first off–misty webster is no where to be found in that picture. good job, genius.
second–they’re young adults…word on the street is that’s when most couples start having babies…crazy, right?
third–just because you have a job doesn’t mean that you automatically surrender your right to be a wife or a parent
fourth–shouldn’t you be getting out of your shoes and back into the kitchen?? that meatloaf isn’t gonna cook itself.
oh, and one more thing…you and ann coulter should get together…i’m sure you guys could cook up some more articles to keep women in the dark ages–thanks for setting us back a few centuries!
tootles!

CC: Hmmm . . . I’m an idiot for printing a name that was in an AP article as being one of these women selected for the subs? Is it a lie? If so, tell it to your buddies at AP, Misty. DS

Captain Crunk on May 11, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    Ms. Schlussel,

    Since you have taken to responding to a few posts, I would like to inform you that Captain Crunk is not MIDN Webster, who I know for a fact does not get involved in such arguments due to the likely impossibility of changing such negative opinions.
    These women are intelligent enough to realize that the proof is in their actions, not their words and affirmations. Arguing and lashing out at ill-founded and petty insults is not worth their time, nor will it necessarily change what others think.

    And, Captain Crunk was simply calling out a misprint in your article as you said MIDN Webster is in the picture.
    “Above is a pic of some of the women, including Midshipmen Jessica Wilcox (the blonde with her mouth open), Misty Webster, Kristin Lyles, Kayla Sax, and Laura Martindale.”

    midn12 on May 12, 2010 at 12:48 am

Ma’am,

If you had bothered to do your research before writing this ‘article,’ you’d have found that all of these women have been attending a school for the last four years composed of 70% males, and, low and behold, none are pregnant.

Unlike you, they value professionalism.

A: My research didn’t tell me that they’ve been attending school for the last four years under water in close quarters with men for months at a time. I must’ve missed that part. Please show me where it is. DS

Aviator on May 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm

NormanF. i know, i was just having some fun with a stereotype i know incenses women…in this particular photo i think one three and five will go 3 for 3 in the knocked up dept., 2 and four look to have that sort of lesbian twinkle in their eye so i’ll count them out from monkey-bumpin with the swabbies…good to th infantry, rotten to th corps…

hill billy on May 12, 2010 at 12:33 am

You did print a name of someone going subs, but she’s not in the picture. Next time, double check your facts. Maybe they didn’t go to school underwater, but they do go to school where the liberty is restricted, as in freshman year, only being allowed out in town for 12 hrs. The other hours of the week? At school, which is 80% men, living in close quarters. At a school where women initally weren’t allowed to attend. At a school where now Senator Jim Webb wrote that having women attend would be “a horny man’s dream”. Are they pregnant? No. I’m just really surprised that a woman of your educational background would write an article like this.

OurTroopsRock on May 12, 2010 at 12:42 am

When I was on Camp Stanley in the Republic of Korea, the few girls on the base were referred to as “Queens for a Year” because no matter how unattractive they were, the simple fact they were an American girl guaranteed they would have a plethora of other soldiers taking them out, buying them dinner, buying them drinks, etc, etc. The exact same thing WILL happen on the subs, and officer vs. enlisted won’t mean a thing.

I served, and served with a lot of women, and not a single one belonged anywhere other than personnel/admin positions that do not deploy. I knew more than one that got knocked up simply to avoid a deployment.

If we have to have women in the military, they belong in admin/personnel roles that don’t deploy. Nothing else.

Matt on May 12, 2010 at 1:05 am

Some “patriot” you are, Ms. Schlussel. Your slurs against these fine women are despicable. I don’t know all of them, but the ones I do know will quite possibly make better submarine officers than I will ever be. We should all sleep more soundly, not less, knowing that they will be standing the watch in places you will never hear of.

NJ: It’s not about them. It’s about the policy. If you personalize everything, we will never get anything done. The fact is, this is a bad idea, no matter how fine they are. It’s not a slur. It’s reality. Some of them will get pregnant in this atmosphere, probably a high percentage. It’s called, “human nature.” Deal with it. Ignoring it is a disaster. DS

Nub JO on May 12, 2010 at 1:16 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field