# When ya put boys and girls together in tight quarters..........



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

.......the boys are gonna end up acting like boys. :watching:

Female Officers Filmed for Year Taking Showers on US Navy Sub


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

They were doing research on the female form for the vessels art history class.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

What the hell did they expect. Trying to appease the radial femi-nazis has created an environment that both mocks and ignores basic human nature. It's just plain stupid to have women on any Naval vessel at sea or in foxholes or in combat conditions/situations.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

In the civilian world this is some serious stuff. If it had happened to my daughter it wouldn't be very funny in my opinion. This "Boys will be boys" shit doesn't cut it! They may be wrong to put females on the subs, but they damn well better look out for them while they are there.
Goldwing


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

goldwing said:


> In the civilian world this is some serious stuff. If it had happened to my daughter it wouldn't be very funny in my opinion. This "Boys will be boys" shit doesn't cut it! They may be wrong to put females on the subs, but they damn well better look out for them while they are there.
> Goldwing


I have two daughters so I don't take it lightly, either. But putting females on Naval vessels at sea is a recipe for folly and disaster. At one point around 25% of those woman wound up pregnant. Gotta keep the feminazis happy. They're dumber than a toilet seat if they think men and women are just alike.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Brings back memories of Tail Hook.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SouthernBoy said:


> What the hell did they expect. Trying to appease the radial femi-nazis has created an environment that both mocks and ignores basic human nature. It's just plain stupid to have women on any Naval vessel at sea or in foxholes or in combat conditions/situations.


Most important, it is suicidal insanity to put any part of society's breeding stock into danger.
One man can very quickly father an infinite number of children, each in the womb of one woman. But a woman can produce only one child in nine months, approximately once every two years.
In breeding terms, fertile women are therefore irreplaceable, while men are "a dime a dozen." A society can easily afford to put its men into combat, even when quite young, especially if each has already fathered at least one child. But it cannot afford to do the same with its fertile women.

Then there is the disparity of capability.
In general, men have superior upper-body strength, and most have stronger leg muscles. It is an unusual woman who can equal an ordinary man's physical capacity, given equal training.
Thus, if there is a woman in the combat team, her reduced physical capability must be taken into account when planning a combat task. Also, therefore, ordinary men and women cannot exactly share team responsibilities and tasks, since the women are probably less physically capable.

And finally, there is the disparity of temperament.
And, considering the subject matter of this thread, this requires no discussion in this post at all.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Regardless of whether females should be on Navy ships or in combat what was done is wrong and the person doing the filming knew it(if true)..........


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Cait43 said:


> Regardless of whether females should be on Navy ships or in combat what was done is wrong and the person doing the filming knew it(if true)..........


Yes it was. However, what did the idiots in positions to take these very important decisions expect? This was all done to appease, and was solely a political decision.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

There used to be a distinction made between being a dumbass jerk and 'manning up'. Still is, if maybe only in my head.


----------



## Smitty79 (Oct 19, 2012)

I have to weigh in on this one.

I am a retired Submarine officer. My last job at sea was Executive Officer of an Ohio class submarine, the same class these women serve on. I was a student at the Naval Academy when women first came there. I was also faculty at the Academy 10 years later. In shore operations, I have had female sailors under my command.

1. There are no jobs on a submarine that a submarine that women can't do.
2. I expect that the social dynamic on a submarine with a small number of women is very complex and difficult. It is especially difficult because there are a very few women on these ships.
3. This is more of a problem of transition, than steady state. When a military organization has enough women and has had them long enough, it becomes much more stable. There are still going to be problems that exist because of mixed gender "cultures". These problems are somewhat mitigated by the likelihood that mix gendered organizations tend to be more professional (My experience. I don't know if everyone would agree). The expansion of personal freedom inherent on opening all career fields to women that they can be successful in is also a good thing.
4. As long as the feminnazi's don't try to put women in jobs that a vast majority can't do, for example Navy SEAL, removing baseless limits on people is a good thing. I will even admit that there may be one or two women who could be adequate SEALs. But way out on the end of the "bell curve" of physical strength, the numbers would be too small to provide an adequate number in a unit ensure a stable social climate.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I had heard just a few weeks ago, that there is now a female Green Beret and a female Army Ranger. 

I went thru Army Jump School in Jan. of 1975. We were the first class in Army history to have females in it. From what I heard, there were a total of 7. None were in my company, but we'd see them here and there. 

Two dropped out within the first week. One dropped out the 2nd week. The remaining four received "special attention" to insure that they graduated. 

Two more dropped out later in the training. In the end, only two graduated and it was common knowledge that they were going to graduate whether or not they earned it. 

Funny thing is, they received their jump wings but could not be assigned to an airborne unit.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

What makes the difference if this happened in the confines of a naval submarine or a co-ed dorm, a gym, or any other place. Do people believe because this happened on a sub it is somehow ok or understandable? Like it or not the military is held to a higher standard as it should be people that can't deal with that should find another vocation.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> I had heard just a few weeks ago, that there is now a female Green Beret and a female Army Ranger.
> 
> I went thru Army Jump School in Jan. of 1975. We were the first class in Army history to have females in it. From what I heard, there were a total of 7. None were in my company, but we'd see them here and there.
> 
> ...


My wife worked for NavAir for 21 years. She was responsible for processing kits for naval aviators. She well remembers there being lowered standards and pressure to put through women and minorities as pilots and second seaters. That would infuriate me.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> I have two daughters so I don't take it lightly, either. But putting females on Naval vessels at sea is a recipe for folly and disaster. At one point around 25% of those woman wound up pregnant. Gotta keep the feminazis happy. They're dumber than a toilet seat if they think men and women are just alike.


Dang, yeah! Why don't we ship women out of the workplace, too? </sarcasm>


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> Dang, yeah! Why don't we ship women out of the workplace, too? </sarcasm>


Your sarcasm is misplaced.
Read what Smitty79 wrote, that there are no jobs on submarines that are beyond the physical capacities of the women assigned to them.

The problem with having women in the military's combat occupations hinges on only the particular woman's physical and intellectual capability, versus the demands of the job (reproductive issues aside).
Equally, in civilian life a woman who is intellectually, physically, and educationally suited to the job she seeks should be placed at no disadvantage, either in hiring or in placement. However, she should be required to control her attempts at reproduction, to meet the job's time commitment (or her male counterparts should be entitled to equal "paternity" leave).


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Your sarcasm is misplaced.
> Read what Smitty79 wrote, that there are no jobs on submarines that are beyond the physical capacities of the women assigned to them.
> 
> The problem with having women in the military's combat occupations hinges on only the particular woman's physical and intellectual capability, versus the demands of the job (reproductive issues aside).
> Equally, in civilian life a woman who is intellectually, physically, and educationally suited to the job she seeks should be placed at no disadvantage, either in hiring or in placement. However, she should be required to control her attempts at reproduction, to meet the job's time commitment (or her male counterparts should be entitled to equal "paternity" leave).


Methinks you misread my sarcasm if you think it misplaced, and then follow with those remarks.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

OK, I guess that I misunderstood (and still misunderstand) your point.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

I guess nature did not get the orders. What happened was wrong but when you mix genders in a confined space for prolonged period of time some one or ones are going to act improperly. Several countries have done studies where they intergraded military units The ones where the people were confined in close quarters or high threat levels there was a much bigger reports of improper conduct.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

No way in Hell could I have been a submariner. Not a big fan of confined spaces. Probably one of the reasons that I didn't pursue a life of crime. Being locked up in a 6x9 cell would drive me nuts. 

I went thru my entire military w/o any females being around, except for Jump School. Once at my permanent duty station, there were females there of course, but not in my unit.

Flame me if you want and call me politically incorrect, but I don't think that males and females should serve side by side in combat units. I do understand that there are plenty of occupational skills that can accommodate that w/o many or any issues. 

We do not need female Rangers or paratroopers. I'm only speaking for the Army mind you, but I'm quite sure that some of you can / will chime in as you see fit.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> No way in Hell could I have been a submariner. Not a big fan of confined spaces. Probably one of the reasons that I didn't pursue a life of crime. Being locked up in a 6x9 cell would drive me nuts.
> 
> I went thru my entire military w/o any females being around, except for Jump School. Once at my permanent duty station, there were females there of course, but not in my unit.
> 
> ...


I think you meant to say,* "but I don't think that males and females should serve side by side in combat units".*

The "not" needs to be removed.

And I surely stand with you on this one.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SouthernBoy said:


> I think you meant to say,* "but I don't think that males and females should serve side by side in combat units".*
> 
> The "not" needs to be removed.
> 
> And I surely stand with you on this one.


Thanks, I went back and corrected it. Sometimes, my brain thinks faster than my fingers, or, is it that my fingers type faster than my brain functions.

Oh well......it's one or the other.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> Thanks, I went back and corrected it. Sometimes, my brain thinks faster than my fingers, or, is it that my fingers type faster than my brain functions.
> 
> Oh well......it's one or the other.


I suffer from the same problem.


----------



## D-Ric902 (Jul 19, 2006)

Duty
Honor
Country

They forgot the middle one.
No matter what your opinion is about women in whatever unit.


----------



## Philco (Apr 17, 2012)

My wife worked with a young woman a few years ago who had served aboard ship in the Navy. She told my wife that any place where they could sneek in and be out of sight was utilized for sexual encounters aboard ship. She indicated this was common and no big secret. She made no mention of anyone being an unwilling participant.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Philco said:


> My wife worked with a young woman a few years ago who had served aboard ship in the Navy. She told my wife that any place where they could sneek in and be out of sight was utilized for sexual encounters aboard ship. She indicated this was common and no big secret. She made no mention of anyone being an unwilling participant.


My wife worked for NavAir for 21 years and she told me pretty much the same thing.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

There's a _huge_ difference between sneaking off to enjoy mutually-agreed-upon sex, and making intimate videos of people without their permission.

I condone the former, even if the Navy doesn't, as long as there really is mutual consent (not higher-rank predation).
But I condemn the latter. It's court-martial and dishonorable-discharge material.


----------



## Philco (Apr 17, 2012)

I don't disagree at all with your position. It's never right to spy on someone's private moments. 
I just posted what I did to convey that it's not just the guys who get a little frisky on those big ole boats.


----------

