Report: Mullen Backs Women Serving on Submarines

Fox News ^ | 24 Sept 2009 | Unattributed

[Ben Mugged]

Sure I do. If it's moving, salute it, if it's not moving, paint it. What else is there it know?

I take it back. You are obviously well schooled in military law.

[rottndog]

One of the first female Prospective Commanding Officers for submarines, Commander Sarah Bentworth, is eager to get started. She spend two tours aboard the USS Virginia in order to prepare for her first sub command.

I would not serve on any boat commanded by an officer who hasn't been through the entire training process for submarine service, from Ensign all the way up through Commander. Anything less is simply unqualified. I don't care how many tours Commander Bentworth has been on....she's NOT qualified for the job.


“If history and social progress are any measure, this rule keeping women serving their country in submarines, one of the last forms of discrimination, is not tenable,” says Rachael Perperam.

This proves my point that this is completely political. It has absolutely nothing to do with putting the strongest most capable submarine force out to sea. The ONLY measure that matters is warfighting readiness.

Mark my words....this lunacy will get people killed.

[YankeeReb]

I can tell you one thing,” Lt. Bright says, “we may or may not have a woman president this time next year, but we will have women submarines at sea. Move over, sailor.”

If Uncle Hymie were still alive this would kill him.

[sport]

crew moral and efficiency would go into the toilet.

That is the purpose of it.

[Night Hides Not]

On another note, it’s been a while since I’ve seen anyone use REMF! LOL!

REMF is the worst perjorative in my dictionary (and I have plenty of 'em!). Unfortunately, I've had to deploy it quite a bit over the past 9 months.

I'd rather we completely leave Afghanistan if the REMFs in the Pentagon and the White House continue the current feckless strategy and rules of engagement.

[MSF BU]

How about having them meet the same height/weight/fitness standards as men do. That might be a good start, then they can worry about submarines.

[MSF BU]

I doubt the wives of submariners will have any more influence than the wives of surface guys.

[bmwcyle]

Just another target sailor. He does not know the any thing about submarines.

[MSF BU]

Bob Dornan tried to get these statistics service wide; he was stonewalled and at this point they may not exist at all. From personal experience, I can tell you that the 7th Transportation group had upwards of 100 women either pregnant or post partum carried as nondeployable througout the 60 months I was familiar with the situation. The figure was static, some go, some leave and some get pregnant again.

[MSF BU]

That’s interesting; I’ve found the lowered standards accomodate shortcomings that the private sector would not tolerate. My experience is that the most grueling jobs (in the private sector) have no females or have females only on government funded progects where ‘diversity’ is mandated.

[OldDeckHand]

"But Federal law allows all sorts of damages for female and other-than-white complaints, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if some sort of personal suit was finagled against a captain. "

Actually, federal law specifically disallows any such claims by our uniformed members of our armed forces. There's a number of relevant laws and Supreme Court decisions to include, The Feres Doctrine and The Federal Tort Claims Act.

There are some limited exceptions to the Feres doctrine - most of them having to do with violations of the Privacy Act of 1974 - but, even in the wake of the Navy's Tail-hook scandal, the court's were reluctant to indulge such lawsuit over cases of sexual harassment in the military.

[Talisker]

There are some limited exceptions to the Feres doctrine - most of them having to do with violations of the Privacy Act of 1974 - but, even in the wake of the Navy's Tail-hook scandal, the court's were reluctant to indulge such lawsuit over cases of sexual harassment in the military

I had Tailhook in mind when I posted, and I was theorizing. I still think that if the accusations are extreme enough, sexual harassment suits will follow. In any event, laws supporting female accusations - alone - against men are so absurd and unbalanced anymore, I just think women on subs would be a legal nightmare for any man on the boats.

[OldDeckHand]

"I still think that if the accusations are extreme enough, sexual harassment suits will follow. In any event, laws supporting female accusations - alone - against men are so absurd and unbalanced anymore, I just think women on subs would be a legal nightmare for any man on the boats."

I'll have to disagree with your first sentence. The law is fairly well-tested in this regard. And, it's hard to imagine anything worse than Tailhook. I know, because I was an active-duty Navy JAG at the time.

With respect to the other problems that stem from women on a sub, I agree with your second sentence. When command is investigating and deciding the disposition of a sexual harassment complaint, one of the likely courses of action is to remove either the victim or the accused from the unit - either permanently or in some other more limited way. When you're at a depth of 400', it's tough to remove anyone from anything, let alone an accuser from the accused.

I know for a fact that these are arguments that have been made about this issue. But sadly, the current of political correctness is much stronger in the Navy (and probably the other branches of service as well, than the forces of logic and common sense.

[Political Junkie Too]

-PJ

[BertWheeler]

I think women on subs is a good idea. Women are smaller and can more easily fit into the very tight compartments. Plus, the men will be glad to have them.