NAVY SUBMARINERS

Comment

Comment by Dan Hall on March 18, 2010 at 6:10pm

Correction: I meant my previous posting to be addressed to: "Kenorian"

Comment by Dan Hall on March 18, 2010 at 6:07pm

Leonard, Please forgive me for not responding to your previous message. I just saw your posting this evening. As for as my son's rate, I am not sure unless it is: SN/E-3. I will ask him next time he calls.

Comment by Leonard on March 1, 2010 at 7:36am

Congratulations to you and your son for his achievements. Encourage him to do his best at Sub School. The choice of which theater/port he will be assigned to are determined by the scores he achieves in A School. Top ranking grads get first choice.

Comment by Kenorian on February 28, 2010 at 9:43pm

Dan, all the best to you and your son. Living on Long Island, I was able to get to Groton a few times. What rate is your son going to be?

Comment by Dan Hall on February 28, 2010 at 8:35pm

My son has completed his second month at Submarine School in CT.

Comment by ctyankee on February 26, 2010 at 9:48am

I knew the debate has been going on for a long time. I was just wondering what the reaction to the "almost inevitable" outcome was going to be?

Why is the Congress meddling with the navy as a social experiment?

Just a thought, how would folks feel if a sub were to be "manned" {sorry} by a 100% female crew??? It would certainly create a significant number of opportunities, and the social cohesion might be instructive...

Comment by Kenorian on February 25, 2010 at 2:16pm

My neighbor was a submariner. He shared this:

Ken,
There's a flaw in this plan - 10,000 women in the Navy can demand the right to serve on subs just to support the 1 that really wants to and 9,999 will never have to serve on subs themselves because it's voluntary. There's no obligation tied to the privilege. It would be like women demanding to serve equally in the military but also being granted exemption from the draft.
The talents of women in the military should not be wasted but there have already been a lot of problems (favoritism in assignments, pregnancies and sexual harassment, for instance) on larger ships and shore facilities where separation is more easily achieved. Come to think of it, though, it might be better controlled on a sub where it's virtually impossible to do anything in private!
On the railroad, I was pleased to see that women were finally allowed to hold positions formerly allowed only to men and to see them promoted to supervisory and managerial positions as well. There were instances, though, when some of those women would claim hardship based on their sex (night shifts, physical inability, weather conditions, safety, etc.). What would really piss me off was when I would have to pick up the slack when their manager would defer to them.
Aside from that, I don't think that denying women the right to serve on subs would significantly limit their opportunities in the Navy. There are no enlisted ratings that are unique to submarines and there are almost unlimited command opportunities available to female officers. The only exception I can think of is nuclear training and there aren't a whole lot of civilian career opportunities in that field anyway.
I wish them (and the Navy) well and good luck.
On the lighter side:
"Hot bunking" takes on a whole new meaning.
If she were so inclined, a WAVE could make an awful lot of money on just one patrol!
They could create a new rating. On subs you could find an GT3 (SS). That's 3rd class Genital Technician. A
By now I'm thinking that Ken didn't expect to elicit this kind of response to the forwarding of a short article. Sorry I got so long winded. I'll just add the comments (below) from a former shipmate who is now a Commander in the reserves. See ya around the neighborhood.
-Ed
Ed,
I’m not in favor of it from a good order and discipline perspective. I subscribe to a Navy RSS (don’t know what that means but I get all kinds of Navy related news articles via email) and there are substantial number of sacking of CO’s and command chiefs for fraternization and sexual misconduct on board ships and on shore duty. Since January, there have been 12 CO’s canned for playing patty cake with the ladies in their command. While I know it’s the problem of the individuals involved, the sexual attraction is hard to eliminate especially when everyone thinks of themselves that they are invincible warriors. I saw a lot of this “dating” ritual stuff when I was in the middle east. Boys be boys and girls be girls. Plus, women can use pregnancy to get out of their duties and administratively discharged while they ruin the career of the man involved. When the woman goes home, the unit suffers loss of unity which was exactly what Gen McCrystal was saying about courts martial women and men who engage in sex in Afghanistan.

Comment by Leonard on February 25, 2010 at 1:42pm

Here's a link to a news article on the subject of women serving on submarines. I guess it's now up to Congress to decide. Do you have faith in our Congress to make the right decision? (Don't answer that!)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/24/congress-consider-women-...

Comment by Leonard on February 25, 2010 at 1:26pm

Ctyankee, that topic was discussed pretty thoroughly here:

http://www.navydads.com/forum/topics/females-on-submarines

As for me, I think the negatives outweigh the positives on this issue. I also realize that the current political climate made it inevitable. It is GOING to happen whether the submarine sailors like the idea or not. But, for the ones that I have talked to, to a man they think it is a bad idea.

Comment by ctyankee on February 25, 2010 at 9:53am

Any thoughts on the pending consideration of lifting the ban on female submariners? Inquiring minds want to know.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 22
• 23
• 24
• 25
• Next ›
• Page