Skip to comments.
Navy smart to sink sexism
Boston Herald ^
| February 27, 2010
| Bonnie Erbe
Posted on 02/27/2010 9:04:30 AM PST by ConservativeStatement
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-78 next last
To: ConservativeStatement; Travis McGee
this writer-harridan is such a fruitbat she thinks Michelle Obama is a Stepford Wife
amazing...a product of Barnard
hard to believe one of my life’s loves taught there when we did the big city thingie
21
posted on
02/27/2010 9:25:53 AM PST
by
wardaddy
(I'm waiting for Epic Beard Man the movie.)
To: ConservativeStatement
22
posted on
02/27/2010 9:26:17 AM PST
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
To: Cheap_Hessian
Come now, there’s a perfectly good method already: throw the moms in the Momsen hatch. .
23
posted on
02/27/2010 9:26:17 AM PST
by
Salgak
(Acme Lasers presents: The Energizer Border: I dare you to try and cross it. . .)
To: ConservativeStatement
More idiocy from the social engineers.
I hope they're around to accept responsibility for their policies when the wheels come off.
24
posted on
02/27/2010 9:26:50 AM PST
by
skeeter
To: ConservativeStatement
I live right next to Fort Knox Ky and its almost automatic when you see a female in uniform you see an expectant mother. I really wonder how they will fit all those female sailors in the subs. It is after all common knowledge that every female in the military counts as a half soldier just like female half cops. Every time things go bad they call in male backup.
25
posted on
02/27/2010 9:27:00 AM PST
by
cquiggy
To: Travis McGee
So says DACOWITS.. really DACO-TWITS.
26
posted on
02/27/2010 9:29:33 AM PST
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
To: ConservativeStatement
Yeah Bonnie, roger that, IDIOT! Like many FReepers, I’m ex-Navy, was on two aircraft carriers and one destroyer and while the carriers are literally floating cities, the quarters are CLOSE and privacy? You’re still stacked in there.
We have some sub drivers on FR, they know...
27
posted on
02/27/2010 9:29:33 AM PST
by
brushcop
(SFC Sallie, CPL Long, LTHarris, SSG Brown, PVT Simmons KIA OIF lll&V, they died for you, honor them)
To: demkicker
Last night, I went to MSNBC by mistake (I wanted to watch the Olympics on CNBC — the channels are side by side on my system).
I came across Rachel Maddow and I heard her praise San Francisco (on an issue, though I switched the channel almost immediately) and then she said “Opponents are afraid to see how good things are when liberals are in charge.”
Don’t liberals run such havens as Detroit?
To: Sprite518
Only a liberal would think this is a good idea.
&&
Of course. Only a policy that negatively affects military readiness is improvement according to their world view.
29
posted on
02/27/2010 9:32:23 AM PST
by
Bigg Red
(Palin/Hunter 2012 -- Bolton their Secretary of State)
To: rwa265
Your post is wildly and dangerously inaccurate.
To: Raycpa
Hopefully she married a Sailor who has morals so she does not have anything to worry about. Everyone is over 18 afterall and should act like adults and be professional.
To: rwa265
Ah, a little advice, in the future with regards to threads that are military in nature, please do not post your comments . You sound ridiculous.
32
posted on
02/27/2010 9:39:13 AM PST
by
central_va
( http://www.15thvirginia.org/)
To: ConservativeStatement
This idiot is on one of the reasons for the death of Newspapers. Her stupidity is truly breathtaking. She has demonstrated that she doesn't just not understand the role of the military but also doesn't understand ships and especially submarines. The woman thinks the purpose of the military is to engage in social policy and not protect the country. This is stupidity at level so profound that it can literally kill you. She's as dumb as a box of rocks.
33
posted on
02/27/2010 9:41:37 AM PST
by
truthguy
(Good intentions are not enough!)
To: cquiggy
that makes me NUTS! They should not have maternity camoflauge( iam sure that is mispelled!)
34
posted on
02/27/2010 9:42:10 AM PST
by
ronniesgal
( I miss George Bush. Hell, I miss Bill Clinton!!)
To: Castlebar
35
posted on
02/27/2010 9:43:11 AM PST
by
rwa265
(Christ my Cornerstone)
To: ConservativeStatement
Women on submarines...here are my questions:
1. Will there by gynocologists on board?
2. Will the medics exam table be fitted with stirrups?
3. Will the sub's sewage system handle "pads"?
4. If she "starts" in her sleep, will her 'hot bunk' partner have to sleep in the mess?
5. Will the commander feel ok about radioing HQ that they must break off the mission to deliver a preggie to the surface?
6. How will the 7-day cycle of bloating and moodiness effect the rest of the crew in such close quarters?
7. If they make "accomdations" for women, how will it be divided? Half women, half men?
8. If the gender ratio changes, will the sub have to return to port each time for a sleeping quarters retrofit?
9. Will the "heads" be co-ed?
10. How will the "submarinettes" husbands feel about her on 6-month deployment with all those guys in close quarters?
Just a few questions that occured to me; they may be moot in some cases as the closest I've see a submarine is in the movies, but inquring minds want to know.
36
posted on
02/27/2010 9:43:26 AM PST
by
FrankR
(Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
To: ConservativeStatement
This is one more step forward for women in the military, although the ban on females serving in certain combat positions still remains intact.This may very well be a step forward for some women. But it is several steps backward for military efficiency and effectiveness. Has anyone run the numbers for the cost of pregnancies? What are the statistics for pregnant sailors on board ships? What is the cost of the pre- and post-natal care? What is the cost of interruption of operations to evacuate the women?
What percentage of dissonance involve women, especially on board ships? I would guess close to 100%.
What is the historical and anthropological basis for women being banned from ships in the days of sailing vessels?
Why do Democrats avoid common sense when it comes to the military? Why do Democrats dangle funding threats to ensure that their pet social experiments come about? These programs have proved to be inefficient and ineffective, yet the Democrats keep pushing them.
37
posted on
02/27/2010 9:43:34 AM PST
by
olezip
To: central_va
38
posted on
02/27/2010 9:45:14 AM PST
by
rwa265
(Christ my Cornerstone)
To: rwa265
From somebody who is ex-navy, please shut up.
39
posted on
02/27/2010 9:46:15 AM PST
by
central_va
( http://www.15thvirginia.org/)
To: SandRat
40
posted on
02/27/2010 9:46:53 AM PST
by
stephenjohnbanker
(Support our troops, and vote out the RINOS)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-78 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson