FIRST. Youre ideas are asinine. I wish I knew which rock you were hiding under because I would leave you a live grenade as company.
SECOND. Obviously the reason these women got to the position they are in is because the Navy trusts the sub force, and that these women are career oriented and motivated individuals.
THIRD. Women have been on surface ships for years, working side by side with male Sailors and Marines without any sort of percentage being sent home instantly pregnant.
FOURTH. They know what theyre doing.
FIFTH. Your picture caption is nothing short of wrong. These women are clearly dedicated, selfless, and humble, things that got them into the Academy in the first place and things that allowed them to succeed there enough to be picked for such a prestigious assignment. Bragging isnt in that kind of persons vocabulary.
SIXTH. They know what theyre doing.
SEVENTH. Have you ever talked to anyone in the Navy that is currently on board a submarine and asked theyre opinion on women aboard submarines? Have you interviewed any of the selectees?
EIGHTH. Who cares about sex, in the Navy its about qualification. If youre qualified for the job, then who cares.
NINTH. They know what theyre doing, the Navy knows what theyre doing, and the Submarine for knows what theyre doing. Lets be a bit of a patriot and support our troops who work, fight, and die around the clock so that you can even voice your opinion like this without the secret police showing up at your door to drag you away for badmouthing the national government. Do us a favor and get a grip on the 21st Century.

TB: Wow, threatening my life. That’s a great argument . . . for nothing. These women are in the position they are in because of no other reason than that Barack Obama wants to extend left-wing feminism to every corner of military and national security policy where it does not belong. Period. DS

THEbaldman on May 12, 2010 at 1:25 am

It is funny to me that a woman who speaks and spouts the way DS does over feminism, doesn’t acknowledge that this exact movement is quite similar to one that happened way-back-when that inevitably changed society in order to allow her the right spew this crap.

Anon on May 12, 2010 at 1:40 am

Such threats are the only means of conveying my level of disdain, as there exists no single descriptors in the English language capable of fulfilling my literary needs. President Obama really had nothing to do with it. Big Navy did entirely. The NAVY clearly wanted the change, which was approved by the CNO, and then Congress made no move to deny the change. The originators of this change was not Obama, but successful, knowledgable, important and seasoned MILITARY MEN. They saw the world and the Navy fit and ready for the idea of women on Submarines, and they are clearly going about it in the right way, starting with officers. This is not part of some left-wing feminist agenda, but an attempt at expanding our front line’s knowledge and experience pools, while sticking to the same qualification standards as before. Why not bring more to the table to contribute to this great country’s defense?

THEbaldman on May 12, 2010 at 1:47 am

He!… I was a Naval Engineer and though they say even a thistle counts as a flower (if you happen to be in a desert) there’s no way I’d “do” any of the ladies in the picture.

Of course, this just means that they’re not my cup of tea so to speak. As to the issue itself, it’s ludicrous to suggest that a mixed gender environment is similar (let alone identical) to a mono gender environment. Just consider co-ed schools to single gender schools.

This is not to say that the fairer gender of the species is any less capable then the male part of the species. In fact, I’d say that quite a few females would be better at anything then quite a few males. Having said that, a co-ed crew would be more then just the sum of its parts. People being people there would be certain interactions that just wouldn’t exist in a single gender crew.

I, for one, remain far from convinced that this would improve the service…

Eliezer on May 12, 2010 at 6:07 am

One…why don’t you join the Navy and then tell me what you think is going to happen.

Two…Get your ass down to Annapolis and meet those women and then tell me what’s going to happen.

You don’t know anything about what is going on and you do not know these women. Instead of taking bets, which by the way is very unclassy on your part, just say that you don’t agree with it and be done with it. It surprises me that you would attack these specific women when you don’t even know them. If you don’t agree with it attack Navy policy. By the way, men get pregnant on Subs too.

So instead of bashing their character why don’t you just give them encouragement.

Common Sense on May 12, 2010 at 7:09 am

Seems Debbie Schlussel is only using her perspective and fantasizing about how she would behave in that situation.
Ignorance will do that to a person.
Assumption is also Schlussel’s crutch. That combination along with a desire to be a talking head seems she spends too much time behind a mirror and not looking out the window.
I’m wondering if Schlussel can even walk by a storefront window to gaze at her reflection?
I applaud the concept and personally know some of these women who have achieved their selection based on a few criteria.
1. Intelligence of an extremely high standard. 2. Patriotizm and a willingness to die for their country. 3. Vetted & scrutinized by a standard set by the Department of the Navy Submarine Service for mental condition for all officer selectees. This includes a security clearance background check where any suspicion of their honesty and patriotizm would eliminate them from selection.
I wonder how many of those criteria Schlussel would fail?
I would start with the question on Patriotism…

Coach Carrico on May 12, 2010 at 7:25 am

As a mother of one of these women I find your comments offensive. They are brillant young women, dedicated to serving their country. Perhaps you should try to learn more about their educational backgrounds, service records and years at the Academy before making a blanket statement about them and polictics.

Parent on May 12, 2010 at 7:54 am

It’s a policy and these women have volunteered for this assignment. If they had not volunteered someone else would have been assigned whether they wanted to serve on a submarine or not.

Attacking the character of these women is dishonorable on your part. These women have worked hard for the past four years to get where they are. They are a wonderful example of what American women should aspire to be. Instead of putting them down you should be pointing out all that they have accomplished and praise them for their patriotism and dedication. Shame on you!

Proud Mom of a Female Naval Academy Midshipman on May 12, 2010 at 8:10 am

Okay, so some split tails will be on a sub. BFD right?
As a veteran of NUMEROUS deployments, and recent U.S.N. retiree, who has several retired Naval officers in the family, a member at Pensacola going through flight training, and as one who has served with the Corps for 10 years; here’s my two Cents:
1. Most of the ladies I have served along side with are okay. However, the ones who are “good-to-go” were-let’s just say-weren’t heterosexual; sad but true.
2. Checking the right boxes in high school, and petitioning/visiting one’s sitting Congressman to obtain a prerequisite written reccomendation for the academy isn’t difficult, just an exercise in schmoozing-and having another “ring knocker” reccomendation is almost a deal clincher.
3. MANY many service members-to include women-have security clearances of ALL sorts; Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. As long as the Standard Form 86 (SF-86) is completed correctly, and the interviewer(s)-NCIS-find the references credible, one WILL obtain the appropriate clearance(s). MANY active duty schools require a “Secret” or “Top Secret” eligibility to attend. Stating that their-female Midshipmen-“credibility” is above another is just plain ignorance
4. In general, it is usually the enlisted female who “appear” to have issues with sexual acts while underway; not always. Reference a 2003 Menage a trois aboard the USNS Comfort-berthed in Baltimore-while supporting the initial push into Iraq, between three (3) Naval officers (3 Nurses((1M/2F)) {Didn’t hear about that on CNN eh??} Or the female Army officers, as well as Air Force officers literally selling “it” while deployed. {Didn’t hear about that either eh??}A fair amount of single, female Sailors mysteriously-immaculately-become pregnant usually about 18 months prior to their End of Active Obligated Service, and frequently just prior to an extended deployment. (Testing, Pre-Natal care, delivery/recovery, maternity leave, follow-up(s), then discharge soon thereafter.)
5. In all branches of service, women have different physical requirements; mostly due to biology, but sometimes politics blur the lines when agenda trumps reality. A kin to “firefighters” and Police officers. For example, why do female Marines, while at The Basic School (TBS) aboard Quantico, only required to “hump” 40% of the weight a male Marine “humps”? Aren’t they all Marines? While there is a difference between infantry and the Silent Service (SS), shouldn’t the physical requirements for each respective classification be the same? All for one, and one for all correct?
6. Whether Mullins says to do it or not is irrelevant, what matters is whether it is correct for the Navy or not. His position is one of appointment vice awarded/elected. Lest we forget, the current appointed NSA, former Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, and head of NATO, is Jim Jones. How did that “Jew” joke go again Commandant Jones…oops, I mean NSA Jones?
7. Just because one can make a rack tight enough to bounce a Quarter off of it, doesn’t always equate to sound judgement or impeccable credibility et al etc. To include driving the boat.
8. After the time at sea, and time at depth the “Bubbleheads” accrue, I’m not sure they would know what a female looks like (intraservice rivalry hahaha).
9. Can we say, “potential security liability”?
10. The above are educated opinions, but when I lay my head down, at night, I only want the sound security that one part of the Triad provide; locate, close with, engage, and KILL the enemy period. Get in, get out. Get special warfare to the correct Lat/Long recover them when appropriate, and ensure ALL come home…John Paul Jones did; expect nothing less from anyone else in command.
*10:1 that a “Tailhook” incident occurs in the SS sometime in the near future. Ol’ Rickover is turning in his grave. Also, remember a “Midshipman” is NOT an officer. They are students period.*
Marine= Men Always Riding In Navy Equipment.
Army= Ain’t Ready for Marines Yet.
Semper Fi!

Sick_Boy on May 12, 2010 at 11:08 am

Ms. Schlussel,

I just read your response to my first post, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner, I simply missed it.

No, that is not my logic. You can be against suicide or anything your heart desires, just like you can be against women on submarines all you want. Like I have said before, you are implying in your article that these women cannot handle themselves. Because you don’t know these women, you cannot possibly make a judgement on whether or not they have the self control to not engage in sexual activities while on deployment.

Also, because, as far as I can tell, you haven’t served, you don’t realize that this is simply about being qualified, not that the people selected are women. In the Navy, be able to do your job and you get the job. Plain and simple.

midn12 on May 12, 2010 at 11:40 am

Facts Life,

Actually, Ms. Schlussel makes no argument at all, just makes bets on her expected sexual promiscuity of women she has never met. Like I said though, she is entitled to whatever opinion she wants about the policy. However, it is unprofessional to speak of these outstanding ladies in such a negative tone.

midn12 on May 12, 2010 at 12:53 pm

Yukon1234 on May 11, 2010 at 9:08 pm

I will have to admit they have changed the PT standards since I got out. When I was in, they did give the women 5 more minutes but like with the Aviators, it looks like they have changed the standards.They still are giving them extra time,2:10, according the one of the students at the academy just not as bad as before.

The reason I cited the time is that I used to be an instructor and it made me sick.

It still does not convince me that women belong in most of the military positions. There is no rational for it besides being politically correct. Is the military that hard up for new recruits?

IFlyPlanesForALiving on May 11, 2010 at 9:08 pm

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

I did not say women could not fly, I said that they lowered the standards significantly for the female recruits that resulted in people getting killed, including one recruit.It was not just one pilot but all the female recruits. Do a google and read about it.

As an instructor, would you promote a pilot that was dangerous and lacked the proper skills to pilot an jet aircraft solely based on their sex?

Thankfully the instructors involved defended themselves in a lawsuit filed by one of the female pilots and won a decision in court that forced the navy to start evaluating female Aviators the same as male.

ScottyDog on May 12, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Debbie is correct, a fraction will get pregnant, a fraction will continue to have sex and not get pregnant and another fraction will be gay, not to mention the ones who will survive to be celibate. I saw interpersonnel relations between male and female service folks while in the AF and while stationed with Army feild units. It will happen in this case. The submariner commanders should know this.

Patrick Brownrigg on May 12, 2010 at 1:28 pm

Jarhead on May 12, 2010 at 1:30 pm

Believe me I know. I would be willing to bet the sexual harassment complaints will skyrocket too. This is based on my experience in LE when we started training and hiring women. Like I said in another post, we had more complaints in one year that we had in ten years with just the men. I processed some of the complaints and believe me they were nothing if pathetic.One women complained that a fellow officer was staring at her and she called that sexual harassment. I am not kidding.

Since the women all think they can do the job of a man, have the armed services ever really tested this contention. I say lets form a female group of 50 and male group of 50 and let them run war games to see who wins.

Any of you that are still in the armed forces see this ever happen to really test the idea that women are just as good as the male?

I know it will never happen, cannot have a real world test of the idea that women are just as good as the men in combat.

ScottyDog on May 12, 2010 at 1:52 pm

Such wonderment from posters who haven’t heard the klaxon sound. I remember growing tired of reading about the NJPs when women began to serve aboard combatant skimmers-specifically an aircraft carrier that ran from east to west through the ditch. Debbie’s words will prove to be true, just wait.

nadie on May 12, 2010 at 1:53 pm

“there’s no way I’d “do” any of the ladies in the picture.”

– All I know is that the second one in looks pretty cute, she can invade my sub any day of the week.

YH on May 12, 2010 at 3:06 pm

I myself spent a little bit of time in the Navy (24 years) so I think I might have something to add to the disucssion. I retired just before the Navy began putting female sailors on combatants such as Frigates which was my platform of choice. However on my last deployment onboard a Knox Class Frigate we did some tender availability time in the Persian Gulf with the USS Samuel Gompers. The Gompers had plenty of female sailors and they were mighty cozy with their male counterparts. Matter of fact on one of our last nights tied up alongside we had a boxing smoker onboard the Gompers. It was like the “Love Boat” with happy couples hand in hand strolling up to the makeshift boxing ring to see the matches. I can’t say how many women on the Gompers had gotten preggers but I’m betting it was alot. The Gompers is a hell of a lot bigger then any Sub. And Subs are much cozier. I’m betting that females sailors on Subs is a nice politically correct idea, in theory, but in practicality and reality is not going to work. It’s just the nature of the Submarine Service. I worked with plenty of female sailors at different shore commands, mostly overseas, and they were fine, hard working dedicated sailors. But even then we had more then just a few instances of our female sailors getting pregnant and then getting out.

kenny komodo on May 12, 2010 at 3:29 pm

Lots of heat and spume on this thread–amazing how many want to plunge in. I think ScottyDawg and Sick_Boy make some unrefutable points. Women in the service does not make sense. But we abandoned that long ago with our national PC agenda.

We will be able to see what happens here in the next couple years…I predict it will the same as for all the other females in the service:
double standards (lower for the women as documented amply above),
higher costs for putting them on the sub (already established at 300K per female sailor –and that’s before the harrassment charges are filed),
a couple preganancies, scandals kept hush hush and early discharges (in keeping with the rest of the armed forces enlisting females)
and military life for ever changed for the negative as we will have to maintain this PC insanity as long as we fund a Navy.

BB on May 12, 2010 at 7:50 pm

With the exception of the Gulf War, America’s wars have been in areas where there are prostitutes (Japan, Europe, Korea) but here we are in an area where there are no prostitutes. How does the military keep the troops happy? Enlist lots of women and then make sure birth control is supplied. I hate to think this, but I believe this is true.

MacRoni on May 13, 2010 at 12:17 am

As the mother of one of these fine women – get a clue – I’ll take your bet. These are smart, intelligent, professional women who have been living with men for 4 years at the Academy and so far they are still without child. Grow up and respect people, men or women, who are willing to put their life and their reputation on the line for our country.

mama on May 13, 2010 at 1:39 am

The fact that you are a woman pisses me off. These women are incredibly smart and have worked extremely hard to deserve this accomplishment! You might want to get your facts straight bitch because you don’t even have these girls named correctly in the pictures. My sister is one of these women who have been selected and she is a virgin! and is saving herself for marriage. How many partners have you had lady?? Your chances for getting pregnant are way higher than hers and maybe you should be more concerned about fighting for women’s rights and not about putting down other women. Obviously you are insecure and i feel sorry for you. My sister is the smartest,strongest, most respected PERSON i know. Not to mention she is ranked number one in the class of 2010!!

Megan on May 13, 2010 at 1:50 am

Former WM:
Whether the joke is old or not, it still gets service members excited, one way or the other…you will get over it. As far as taking exception to facts, I do not accept “Stress Cards.” Give it to your “Senior.” Here’s one for ya Marine; in the mid-1990’s, not long after Krulak was CG MCCDC, a female Marine-a Warrant-was on the USMC shooting team. She was an incredible shooter…to the point that the head shed gave her silicon breast implants (from an “A” cup to a “C” cup) because, “she doesn’t look feminine enough.” Now then Marine, is that “equal,” sexist, or luck? Oh yeah, she got the surgery on the outside…the Corps didn’t want any publicity-one way or the other. Furthermore, feel free to speak freely regarding different PFT standards-whether one is infantry or admin. Isn’t “Every Marine a Rifleman”? Shouldn’t ALL who chew dirt carry the same weight, be scored/weighted the same on FITREPS/Evals/promotions? Or, should we, as a society, expect the same STANDARDS from ALL who serve?
To the “families” of the Middies:
Do you honestly believe the Academy would allow, condone, accept ANY shinanigans from ANY student? Just because your daughter/niece/sister is NOT-to the best of YOUR knolege (sp?)-acting up does not mean opportunities have not presented themselves. That is to say, do you honestly think your family’s reputation-not to mention all which provided reccomendations-would NOT be tarnished/ruined if the girl(s) didn’t keep their noses clean while at the Academy? Think, think now…carefully…about how pawns are used to spearhead an attack-whether on a Chess board, or dare I say, to push an agenda…come on now. Rewatch “GI Jane,” just the Anne Bancroft parts…not the sci-fi training/operations parts…those are the Hollywood exceptions not the rules of reality. get rid of the emotional justifications in your arguments, look at it from a battle commanders point of view-not a politician’s (to include certain General/Admiral officers). A bullet-or torpedo for that matter-is not politically correct; it is biased and bigoted for the kill period. Don’t forget, the enemy just looooves U.S. female service members-just ask Jessica Lynch…WRAMC has loose lips. In the year’s since her traffic accident in Iraq, the TRUTH of her “heroism” has come to light. Does she still deserve her-what was it-Bronze or Silver star? Should it be revoked? It did NOT happen as the politicians and media would have you believe.
I wish ALL service members Godspeed and prayers; your Middies as well. I’ve done my time, I wish I had more.
…yes, I still hold/open at door for a lady. Courtesy is blind.

Sick_Boy on May 13, 2010 at 9:42 am

Oops, forgot to tell you this:
While I was in Dive School (NDSTC PanamaCity FL) the Commanding Officer was a FEMALE Navy Captain (O-6). As I remember her ALWAYS wearing a “Peacoat,” …in Florida…everyday. She got “bent” several years before, as I heard it, while doing some crazy deep dive for the Experimental Dive Unit (EDU). Her reputation commanded respect, not just because she was the CO, but because she was a diver vice a female Sailor who received benefits. Diving physics and STANDARDS are blind also. (shhh….another anecdote…she was a short grey haired lady with a masculine face…who NEVER wore a skirt.)

Sick_Boy on May 13, 2010 at 9:58 am

I thought it would benefit some of you by posting an article by Col David Hackworth on women in the Military. His bio is right here: http://www.hackworth.com/biography.html

Defending America
David Hackworth
23 September 1997

WOMEN AS WARRIORS

“Have sex and die.” was Yugoslavia’s Marshal Josip Broz’s (know to his followers as Tito) stern warning to his men and women partisan soldiers during WWII. They did, and many frisky couples went before his firing squads.

Tito beat the Nazis but he didn’t win over nature. Even the threat of death didn’t prevent his co-ed grunts from keeping one foot on the foxhole floor.

For 20 years the U.S. military has been engaged in the same battle with similar results: Sex 100, Pentagon O.

Millions of ‘thou shall not”, orders have been barked and hundreds of thousands of lectures given, but GI Joes and Janes always seem to find the time and place for doin’ what comes naturally.

Daily we are barraged with media reports about male and female service members being, sent to prison, booted out of the armed forces or investigated for playing footsie with a member of the opposite sex. Those accused have run from four star generals and admirals, to top non-coms, to rank and file grunts.

A lot of energy and a lot of dollars have been devoted to nailing the guilty parties, from a female B-2 pilot to the senior male admiral in the Pacific.

Sensitivity training has just about replaced combat training as the No. 1 priority. A Marine captain reports that his unit was scheduled to spend the day on the range. Instead of practicing their battlefield skills, however, they spent the day learning how male Marines should act around female Marines.

This forced sexual integration of the sexes is ripping apart our military. A cadet at West Point says that if a male cadet looks at a female cadet for “longer than nine seconds” it’s considered sexual harassment. Imagine the tension this creates not only at our gender sensitive service academies, but on every ship, base and battalion in our armed forces!

A full colonel who quit the Army in disgust in spite of an obviously brilliant future says he could never be alone with his female driver because “people would talk” or he would be “vulnerable to charges of sexual harassment.”

A climate of fear — both for males and females — now exists from boot camp to the highest jobs in the Pentagon. A look, an accidental touch, a misunderstood nuance can be read wrong, reported to the ever enthusiastic sexual political commissars, and the most perfect record can go up in flame.

Gender bender has become the rule. Many women are not strong enough to meet the minimum physical fitness standards that years of battlefield experience say are needed to survive the rigors of combat. So the bar has been lowered and lowered until the point where women are being held to a standard that’s as dangerous as it is insulting to women who are fit.

Enemy gunners don’t discriminate between men and women. On the battlefield the slow and the weak die. And if a woman medic can’t man-pack a wounded male comrade, so does he.

This terrible situation exists is because President Clinton has put politically correct civilian dorks in charge of the Army, Navy, and Air Force and then placed go-along-to-get-along lap dogs at the top of each service. Everyone of these self-serving four stars should be charged with dereliction of duty for not standing tall and sounding off about how this issue has crippled our armed forces.

Too, if our politicians would stop counting votes and ask the warriors, the truth would come out. But this discussion would have to be held away from the dorks and high brass, since if junior leaders come out in the open, it’s a total career killer.

It’s not going to get any better. If the services did nothing but give sensitivity training, install security cameras on each member’s helmets and issue chastity belts rather than armored vests, sex between consenting males and females would still happen.

Until science can develop a pill that will cause men and women from the ages of 13 to 81 — Anthony Quinn just fathered child number 13 at that age — to play scrabble rather than have sex, our politicians better have a hard look at what sexual politics has done to our nation’s war-fighting capability.

In a word, it’s in ruins.

The end

For those of you that would like to read more, I suggest these:
http://www.hackworth.com/25jan94.html
http://www.hackworth.com/22may01.html

ScottyDog on May 13, 2010 at 12:54 pm

As an ex-WAVE, Navy Petty Officer, I can say that this article is erroneous on many levels. Not only that but it perpetuates the myth that(and causes trouble for) the women in the military)that the women are “either whores or lesbians”. It takes the men for any of these women to get pregnant and yet nothing is said about them. The truth is, sub duty is extremely difficult and anyone selected has to pass rigourous training and psychological testing. That includes these women. They are fully aware that they are on the front lines to “prove” themselves and it’s people like you, Debbie, who make that even more difficult by assuming that a great percentage of them will end up pregnant! You ought to be ashamed of yourself!

Lonni on May 13, 2010 at 4:42 pm

As a fellow female Naval Academy midshipman, I am proud to say that I serve with these women. They are an inspriation more than you will ever be. They have dedicated their lives to something far bigger than you can even understand and I am personally offend by your attack on them. These are some of the most prestigious, smartest, career bound people (male or female) in the entire Navy and are well trained to do what they have now been asked to by the Navy. These are officers! People specifically trained to lead the young sailors and marines that join the military right after high school and we take out jobs seriously. DO NOT judge these people simply on the fact that they are female. They are qualified, they are dedicated, they are trained and they will do their jobs. I ensure you that every one of these women will take family planning into account when they are in that point in their lives. I am ashamed to say that an American woman wrote this article, if I were you I would be thanking these women. The ones who left their homes and their familes when they were 18 and fresh out of high school to give you the right to say these kind of things. So Debbie Schlussel, you’re welcome. I am glad I serve my country whether we have people like you or not.

Aubrey on May 13, 2010 at 10:30 pm

I am an active duty Chief Petty Officer with 18 years of active service on four ships and I have experience leading two divisions with co-ed crews on two of those ships. Currently I am stationed at a sub base on the West Coast. I am stuck between my belief that all Americans regardless of race, religion, gender are entitled to the same opportunity to achieve success in their chosen endevour.
and my first-hand experience of mixed crews. I face and experience everyday the consequences of young females and males working in stressful environment. It seems to me that every week I see another pregnant female checking into our command for LIMDU (limited duty) status b/c of the pregnancy. A high majority of these pregnant females are under the age of 23. These girls use pregnancy to get away from the commands and/or impending deployments. And there is no accountability for these acts because the Navy chooses to turn its proverbially head and think there is nothing wrong. Recently a young girl checked into my command for pregnancy from the last ship I was on. It seems odd the me that she is now pregnant considering that the ship’s operational tempo is pretty brutal right now as they have failed many inspections the last few months and the ship is getting ready to deploy again in July or August. This particular girl has barely been on that ship for one year. Her Chief and Divo were counting on her to be part of the team and she chose to get pregnant instead of following her commitment.
Here’s the point–young female and male sailors dont know how to control their hormones! It wont make a difference on these submarines if the females are officer or enlisted. On a big ship like a carrier or big-deck gator, losing one female to pregnancy isn’t all that consequential to the work load. On a submarine, losing one person is extremely significant to the work load. It won’t work. KEEP THE SUBS FREE OF FEMALES. The military is not a social engineering project.

D. on May 14, 2010 at 12:01 am

Here is an newspaper article about the coed Dutch Navy. Is this what the US Navy will look like in 10 years?

Dutch Navy frigate HMS “Bloys van Treslong”:

http://www.boostdam.net/stories/HMBLOYS.html

Here is another quote from Col. Hackworth; “My seven years of combat experience as an infantryman, from rifleman to squad and platoon leader to company and then battalion CO, screams that combat arms work isn’t for women. And my years of covering nine conflicts as a reporter reinforces this view — especially Desert Storm, where I saw women in all services fail the combat course. A study commissioned by George-the-Elder, then shelved when the Clinton gang put the woman vote over combat readiness, confirms my on-the-scene evaluation.”

“The distraction factor can’t be ignored, either. Unless you’ve been locked up in a prison all your life, you know that young men and women really lose it when they’re around each other. If joy-riding civilians distracted one of our sub crews to the point where they sank a Japanese ship off Hawaii, can you imagine the havoc female submariners could cause? If the dozens of 50-year-old generals and admirals who’ve been fired in the past decade alone couldn’t keep their hands off their female subordinates, what can we expect from the younger bloods?”

ScottyDog on May 14, 2010 at 12:38 pm

I guarantee that most of these women will have some sort of sexual relationship with another service member, though not necessarily at the same command or on the same vessel. On the enlisted side, I KNOW there will be lots of shagging that occurs! These are young men and women, pumped full of hormones, living in close quarters, under stressful conditions, and THEY ARE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX!!! I have been on the enlisted and commissioned sides of the fence and I can tell you that it happens every day and pregnant females is a norm. Putting them in even closer quarters for longer periods of time will definitely result in more pregnancies if not more sexual exploits than before. Look at deployments of the past where some females even prostituted themselves for monetary gain. This is not to say that this applies to all the women or even all the men serving together, who make up the majority incidentally, but something like this will foster more of these types of issues.

-been there, seen that…

Squid_Power on February 6, 2011 at 3:06 pm

I agree with you, Debbie. Alot of those gals will wind up pregnant. It has happened time and time again aboard Naval vessels, which means absolutely nothing to the morons and ignorant fools who are attacking you. And you heard that from a Veteran. I also agree with Squid_Power. The politically correct saps out there should pull their heads out of their rectums.

Libs&Rinosuk on March 11, 2011 at 11:23 pm