OT: Women on subs

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

...it won't take long for them to be sent to the Ranger School and Q-course. It all a matter of time.

In view of the probable existence of the Funny Platoon in Delta, I'll bet that's already happened -- or some Delta analogue of those schools.

[Matt Wiser]

There was a book a while back called Imperial Grunts (I think that was the title) where the author looked at the Army's experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He visited the 5th SFG's HQ, and found out that the SF liked having women be "attached" to their units for searching local women, talking to them (they got quite a bit of intel that way), and so on, and that the then-CO of 5th Group was already reccommending that SF find a way to get its own females, as units that had women "borrowed" for the SF complained about the poaching, and that the women were needed in their regular jobs! The females who had been borrowed, to the last woman, enjoyed their time with SF, and most wanted to join full-time, despite the prohibition. Even the current Army Chief of Staff has called for a review of the ban on women in combat units, and probably before the current president's first term is over, it will probably be gone.

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

There was a book a while back called Imperial Grunts (I think that was the title) where the author looked at the Army's experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He visited the 5th SFG's HQ, and found out that the SF liked having women be "attached" to their units for searching local women, talking to them (they got quite a bit of intel that way), and so on, and that the then-CO of 5th Group was already reccommending that SF find a way to get its own females, as units that had women "borrowed" for the SF complained about the poaching, and that the women were needed in their regular jobs! The females who had been borrowed, to the last woman, enjoyed their time with SF, and most wanted to join full-time, despite the prohibition. Even the current Army Chief of Staff has called for a review of the ban on women in combat units, and probably before the current president's first term is over, it will probably be gone.

I understand that women could be very useful at times, but I don't think them just hanging out with a Special Forces unit and doing what they do is the same thing. They would make great cops and interrogators when it comes to dealing with other females, but I can't see them carrying 150 pounds rucks. Maybe they could be used in the bravo teams, but I can't see them running around on the ground with a Special Forces A-team. As for them liking to hang out with Special Forces, well everyone does. They are not as anal and your not going to do what they do.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

I think having women working besides you in a infantry unit atleast, would be dreadful. Dudes would be always trying to get laid instead of focusing at their job.

To me that sounds quite like there is a general lack of professional discipline, which isn't saying much about the unit. If that's the case, then having females in their ranks is probably not their most burning issue that needs to be addressed.

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

To me that sounds quite like there is a general lack of professional discipline, which isn't saying much about the unit. If that's the case, then having females in their ranks is probably not their most burning issue that needs to be addressed.

Maybe so, but all dudes talk about is sex, especially when they aren't getting any. Plus, you have to remember some of these girls that where average in the real world now can become the bell of the ball. Maybe it's just my view, because I never had to work with them directly. I stupidly chose to be part of a CJT(REALLY BAD IDEA!) and had my first semi dealing with them and it was not good. But, these people were the bottom of the barrel.
One time we had this female first sergeant call us to attention and we all burst out laughing and chuckling. Later she went around and took down all our t and a pictures. Then there was one that told people she liked getting it on with other girls, a captain and a corporal that hung out all the time until someone final mentioned it, and this one captain dressed up for the Christmas party with a outfit that showed off her tramp stamp and her ass crack. A male 1st Lt and female 1st Lt got sent home for getting it on. It was a joke of a task force, a total disgrace. More shit went on, but that will take too long to cover. I'm just saying what I have seen was not a pretty picture.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

To me that sounds quite like there is a general lack of professional discipline, which isn't saying much about the unit. If that's the case, then having females in their ranks is probably not their most burning issue that needs to be addressed.

I agree to that. I also agree with W4S about the sex issue, especially as we are forced to send kindergarten kids to first line duty (no offense, I'm nearing 40 and if you were forcing me to do what these boys and girls do, I'll simply end up shooting a bullet in your back ). However, what the F... if they get laid down from time to time?

The problem is when it goes too far. I have recently read that 7 women soldiers in Iraq got pregnant and were, off course, thrawn out of the army. However, I also read that the commander in chief back up and finally decided not to court martialed them and renounced to ask for prison time. That, IMO, is a huge mistake on the part of US command. As long as getting pregnant is against rules they should have been court martialed and punished along with the men who had slept with them (provided they were soldiers of course! If they were civilians, the fault lies entirely on the women's shoulders). Did I understood well or am I wrong?

[headquarters]

females serve along side our guys in all arms/branches in half a dozen overseas missions and in our forces on hometurf .

Sexual harassment,illegal pregnancies and failure to cooperate are minor issues if any at all .

In one engagement against Afghan insurgents a female CV-90 gunner recieved commendations for having engaged and "neutralized" 25-30 enemy.

Thats not to say there couldnt be problems - just saying that we are a western ,modern army ,we deploy to Afghanistan,Tchad,Somali waters/Aden bight,been to Iraq,Bosnia,Kosovo,kongo,Lebanon etc etc for over 30 years with women troops intermixed with the guys.

I had girlie -squaddies in two of my squads -one who deployed overseas with us .Pretty good with the .50 cal actually and the HK 40 mm GL

Yes - there were a few incidents of someone messing up with the girls in our battalion.But mostly the chicks were soldiers and treated as such -as well as acted as such.

I do realize that everyone takes different views though .I see it as working with our forces-some else might not agree when recollecting his own experiences.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

The problem is when it goes too far. I have recently read that 7 women soldiers in Iraq got pregnant and were, off course, thrawn out of the army. However, I also read that the commander in chief back up and finally decided not to court martialed them and renounced to ask for prison time. That, IMO, is a huge mistake on the part of US command. As long as getting pregnant is against rules they should have been court martialed and punished along with the men who had slept with them (provided they were soldiers of course! If they were civilians, the fault lies entirely on the women's shoulders). Did I understood well or am I wrong?

Am I following this correctly? The US Army puts women in jail for getting pregnant?

That surely can't be right?? Or have I misunderstood?

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

In view of the probable existence of the Funny Platoon in Delta, I'll bet that's already happened -- or some Delta analogue of those schools.

Oh I am sure the women of the Funny Platoon are going through some of the most grueling training to make sure they are up to it.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Am I following this correctly? The US Army puts women in jail for getting pregnant?

That surely can't be right?? Or have I misunderstood?

Welcome to the military ...

Military justice is primarily concerned with maintaining good order and discipline. Anything that threatens those two things is punished.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Am I following this correctly? The US Army puts women in jail for getting pregnant?

That surely can't be right?? Or have I misunderstood?

Actually it not too far fetch in the Zero Tolerance social club of the US Army. With that aside, they tend frown upon you doing things that make you none deployable or cause you be expedited out of combat zone.

What is sad in the military all females are lump together in trying to get out of duty. Even if some of the may have sent over pregnant, without realizing or showing on tests at the time. There have been enough female troops and officers who have went out of their way to become pregnant so they could have free pass to stay home, while these women are in the minority. Yet, there enough to led some to paint with broad brush. As for the one who have gotten into the situation while base overseas, well it is one of the issues that units have to deal with.

Well as far as sex goes. Many of the women I had met in the military, they weren't actively looking to sleep with everyone. Yet, some of these issue that crop up are due to reflection of how they view society outside of the Military. It part of the culture why they have been kept out of so-called combat unit, and the t and a picture only keep the caveman mentality in some of those units.

I agree it lack of professionalism if all either a male or female troop was looking for was getting laid. On the other hand, I do understand that being human sometime you can't help/stop needs and urges with mix troops in such close quarters.

[Rainbow Six]

Thanks for the clarification guys...I can fully understand how a unit commander might be pissed off if someone either a) can't deploy or b) has to be sent home.

But to send someone to jail for getting pregnant...wow...

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Am I following this correctly? The US Army puts women in jail for getting pregnant?

That surely can't be right?? Or have I misunderstood?

No actually it didn't. They got pregnant while on duty. Of course, that is forbidden by the rule, for obvious reasons.

From what I understood they were thrown out and that's it (kind of in formal way). The commanding general, for a time, talk about court martialing them and putting them in jail. I agree that putting them in jail might be a little too much.

However, not pursuing them at all is as stupid. I'm more than supportive of women in armies but an army is in no way a democracy. I find perfectly understandable for women in the field to be forbidden of getting pregnant. Therefore, if they don't follow the rule they should be prosecuted as any soldiers. In that case along with the men as women hardly get pregnant by themselves. Then, I agree with rainbow, putting them in jail would certainly not be the best of choice. Nevertheless, I would find normal for the men to get some times in jail. Women in armies don't have to get a favored treatment.

However, another solution would be to allow them pregnancy at will. Still, that could quickly become a funny issue in a nuclear submarine, undersea for 6 month in a time like that of T2K.

One last think, I understand Rainbow but, in that case, these troopers are simply not doing their jobs. And I'm including the male with the female. Don't they ever here of condom, pills, abortion... Of course, they might be against these for religious reasons but, then, they belong to church and not to the army.

Here is the article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34524436/

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Don't they ever here of condom

Yeah, it's what you use to keep water out of your rifle barrel.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by copeab

Yeah, it's what you use to keep water out of your rifle barrel.

LOL . And what you use to split that same water on the passing general???

[perardua]

I would like to say that at no point did someone I know, whilst on stag, manage to engage in a sexual act with a US servicewoman over the barrel of a .50cal. Furthermore, this act did no take place literally opposite the medical centre which had condoms readily available, nor did the servicewoman concerned become pregnant. These are nothing but rumours.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by perardua

I would like to say that at no point did someone I know, whilst on stag, manage to engage in a sexual act with a US servicewoman over the barrel of a .50cal. Furthermore, this act did no take place literally opposite the medical centre which had condoms readily available, nor did the servicewoman concerned become pregnant. These are nothing but rumours.

It's nevertheless a warzone.

They are adults and should be accounted for their acts. The medical center has nothing to do with it. Of course, I said earlier that they are kindergarten kids and that point tend to confirm it. I'm not sure I would give a .50 cal to kindergarten kids.

If there are only rumors, this is the most important information (sorry from my part as it looked very serious as this article comes out of MSNBC). As a result, all of this discussion becomes purely theorical but interesting, nevertheless.

I would maintain that military regulations concerning men/women relations are obsolete when applied to troopers at home. After all, it is their problem.

On the other hand, they should be maintained, and strictly enforced, in what can be considered a combat zone :
- currently Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East base, probably every home base involved in the supply chain.
- In any time, a sub should be considered a combat zone because of the very mission of these ships.

In my opinion, women under arms are no longer women but troopers and they should act as such no matter their gender (from what I read, even if rumors, women were not considered responsible; men were considered guilty as well). From my point of view, women and men can do whatever they want when it comes to sex, even during war times. However, if a woman gets pregnant (either because of her, him or both not taking proper preventing measures) during war time, I would consider that this is equal to abandoning its post.

Still theorically, I would consider the general first reaction to be slightly exagerated but the idea of a court martial would be a proper course of action. Theorically, if the upper chain of command put pressure to avoid any prosecution they have comited the worse possible mistake. This would be discriminatory and this would hamper the position of all these female troopers doing their job properly.

This is an opinion only, of course. Thanks to everyone else as I have seen some very interesting points.

Mo

[perardua]

Sense of humour failure? In the event described that did not happen, at all, ever, the opinion of most was that the use of the .50 for this purpose was a marvellous act of masculinity in the finest military tradition, whilst the total lack of precautions was an act of sheer stupidity that, rumour has it, resulted in a shotgun marriage. Good drills.

Seriously though, when you put large numbers of young men and women in the same place, without much to do other than work, these things are bound to happen. I would say that it is unrealistic to expect soldiers even (or especially) on operations to remain wholly chaste, especially given the increasing tour lengths they are being asked to do.

However, I disagree with court-martialling pregnant female soldiers, for a two reasons. Firstly, contraception is the responsibility of both people involved, and I would be surprised to see a male soldier court-martialled for impregnating a female soldier. Secondly, what happens when a female soldier becomes pregnant at home before deployment, or on R&R during a deplyment? She still becomes non-deployable and someone else still has to cover for her, yet no-one has suggested courts-martial, or that people should seek permission from their chain of command to start families. Some form of action should be taken to discourage it, and contraception should be (and is) freely available.

Anyway, if, as was suggested, someone is willing to get themselves pregnant to get out of a deployment, are they really the kind of person that you want there in the first place?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by perardua

Sense of humour failure?

Happens

Originally Posted by perardua

Seriously though, when you put large numbers of young men and women in the same place, without much to do other than work, these things are bound to happen. I would say that it is unrealistic to expect soldiers even (or especially) on operations to remain wholly chaste, especially given the increasing tour lengths they are being asked to do.

Perfectly agree and that's why I would consider military regulation to be out of date.

Originally Posted by perardua

However, I disagree with court-martialling pregnant female soldiers, for a two reasons. Firstly, contraception is the responsibility of both people involved, and I would be surprised to see a male soldier court-martialled for impregnating a female soldier. Secondly, what happens when a female soldier becomes pregnant at home before deployment, or on R&R during a deplyment? She still becomes non-deployable and someone else still has to cover for her, yet no-one has suggested courts-martial, or that people should seek permission from their chain of command to start families. Some form of action should be taken to discourage it, and contraception should be (and is) freely available.

Explanation failure this time on my side (LOL). I meant to court-martial both man and woman involved. I perfectly agree that both are equally involved. I thought I had been clear on that. It seems not.

Originally Posted by perardua

Anyway, if, as was suggested, someone is willing to get themselves pregnant to get out of a deployment, are they really the kind of person that you want there in the first place?

I don't have an opinion on that. If it was to be proven such woman would be guilty of treachery and, then, I would be supportive of her being put in jail. Proving it is much more tricky.

Whatever, I love the idea of nuclear submarines in T2K with augmented crews

Los Angeles-class: 80 men, 47 women and ... 12 newborns.
Ohio-class: 108 men, 49 women and 25 newborns. Missile complement reduced to 8 in order to make room for a day care and two nurses.
Triomphant-class (France): 80 men, 31 women, 42 kids, 9 nurses (1 for every 5 kids, by law). Missile complement reduced to 0.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by perardua

Sense of humour failure?

Failed his sense-of-humor savings throw?

I've only been in one unit when I was in the Army where there were both men and women -- G3 at 2ID HQ. Flirting is constant, but usually innocent. After hours is different, but most troops were professional enough not to do something too stupid -- no one wants to be forced into a marriage and have more of a conscience than to just abandon their kids. Yes, there were plenty of romances -- I had one of my own -- but abject stupidity or lack of common sense isn't as common as you might think. It might be the unit involved -- you don't end up at division HQ by chance, you're selected, and you can't apply for it. But in my experience, everyone isn't constantly screwing everyone (except maybe career-wise sometimes).

[perardua]

I agree, it's not something that is common. The entirely anecdotal example I gave is the only case I ever heard of where it got that far, and certainly it's not something that happens much in the UK (apart from with the ubiquitous station bike, if you're that way inclined) or while deployed. Certainly within units you rarely get more than flirting. In fact, I think that inter-unit, service or (as in this case) international flings are more common in these situations, a bit of the old "what goes on tour stays on tour".


However, my point (which I made badly) was that it's unrealistic to think it won't happen. Interestingly, part of the brief on arrival in Afghanistan was being told that STDs are increasingly a problem around Kandahar Airfield, mainly due to people being stupid on R&R, but increasingly due to bored troops getting some while on tour.

[Mohoender]

What Paul's said seems obvious to me. And I agree with Perardua's point as well. Then, my point is that even if it has to happen, you have to react agaisnt it with some strength nonetheless.

Funny how circumstances can make you act in a very different manner.

As a civilian I would tend to let go.

If I was in the military within real life I would tend to punish this mildly.

If we were playing a T2K game and the situation would occur in my group, I would probably abandon the woman to herself and shot down the man responsible for it.

[waiting4something]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Happens



Perfectly agree and that's why I would consider military regulation to be out of date.



Explanation failure this time on my side (LOL). I meant to court-martial both man and woman involved. I perfectly agree that both are equally involved. I thought I had been clear on that. It seems not.



I don't have an opinion on that. If it was to be proven such woman would be guilty of treachery and, then, I would be supportive of her being put in jail. Proving it is much more tricky.

Whatever, I love the idea of nuclear submarines in T2K with augmented crews

Los Angeles-class: 80 men, 47 women and ... 12 newborns.
Ohio-class: 108 men, 49 women and 25 newborns. Missile complement reduced to 8 in order to make room for a day care and two nurses.
Triomphant-class (France): 80 men, 31 women, 42 kids, 9 nurses (1 for every 5 kids, by law). Missile complement reduced to 0.

Whoah, that like 2 dudes for every chick. I bet those submarines have a lot of dudes doubling up on a chick. Lots of 3 somes going on aboard. I forgot how you say that in French. For this reason I believe that submarines should be crewed by women with a 2 to 1 ratio over guys. I not sure but, doesn't the French Foreign Legion forbid it's troopers for the first few years from getting married?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by waiting4something

I not sure but, doesn't the French Foreign Legion forbid it's troopers for the first few years from getting married?

I don't know. Anyway the foreign legion doesn't obey regular military rules. This is due to the fact that anyone enlisting in it (including Frenchmen) have to drop any citizenship. Legionnaire belong to the Legion and to the Legion only.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Legionnaire belong to the Legion and to the Legion only.

Is there any hard numbers on peacetime desertion in the FL?

I'm under the impression its quite high compared to other units. A few years ago the FL were over and after talking to them they made it seem like your life is total shit once you join - that you belong 100% to the legion with no time for yourself.

Curiously enough, before their unit left it was reported that 3 of them deserted, obviously choosing to disappear into Canada's bigger cities rather than stick out their contract and go for legal immigration later. I always wondered if it was the same guys I talked to.

Anyways, just wondering, since none of the ones I met seemed to like it.

[Mohoender]

No clue about that

What I can say is that people joining today have changed. An increasing number of them join because they were unemployed and these often leave quickly.

What you describe (no time for themselves), seem to correspond to the training time. From what I know, nowadays, more people leave before the end of this training period (which is quite long). However, once they fully jojn, I don't think there is that much desertion.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

What I can say is that people joining today have changed. An increasing number of them join because they were unemployed and these often leave quickly.

Isn't there a minimum term of service (assuming you don't wash out)?

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Isn't there a minimum term of service (assuming you don't wash out)?

Yes but there is a fairly long training period before full incorporation. Selection time is about 2 weeks. Then, you sign a 5 years contract. This is followed by 3 months of training. Of course, officialy, you are already fully part of the legion but, for real, you are not considered a legionnaire before the end of that period.

Still the level of desertion is around 5%. Most of it during the first 6 months. All of it during peace time. Almost all deserters are from EU and Gaulois (French). Usual condamnation is 3 months of prison with no time effectively done in jail.

[Graebarde]

1. IF the female can pass the qualifications I agree it should be open to them if they choose. There needs to be ONE standard of performance however, not one for men and one for women. Make it or fail.. one and all. I know many female 'warriors' that would put the average male 'warrior' to shame in 90% of the task. (I was married to one for 17 years)

2. IF a female gets pregnant, she is non-deployable. SOME get that way so they don't have to 'perform their duties'. I'm old and crass.. if they are non-deployable and have a good service record, it's one thing.. medical reassignment. IF on the other hand they are bricks before, then seperation from service. How many do not have someone to take care of the child? Same story.. Yeah like I said, I'm a old crass fart.

3. Male chauvanism gets in the way of 'prgress'. It also makes for dangerous situations in combat. There is a ingrained thought I think that males will tend to be protective of the female at their own risk. And there are females that take advantage of that same thinking. I served with females... some great 'warriors' many fell into the latter... The bottom line is WHY people join the armed forces.. usually for the WRONG reasons... 'gee I didn't join to go to war, I joined for college, or the paycheck, or what ever lame reason'

I shall now step off the soap box.. and thank the makers that I am not in the service now... and hope the MEN can handle it.

[Webstral]

It's a thorny issue. Mixing men and women causes problems wherever you do it. Sting said it best: "There is no political solution/for our troubled evolution." ("Spirits in the Material World") Substitute policy or administrative for political, and you have something to apply to the military. Men and women can have fraternal relationships, but men and women in their breeding prime (especially men) want love and sex--not necessarily in that order of priority. Ignoring this unavoidable fact is just immature. Given our oddly puritanical attitudes towards sex, it's not surprising that the US military is struggling with integrating men and women in a fashion that is fair, impartial, and workable.

I'll be honest: I struggled with the mixing when I was MI. The combat engineers and the infantry are just easier in that way. Fortunately for me, I don't flirt well, and I know it. I kept female soldiers at arm's length because I don't dance well enough to manage anything else. While I daresay that many male soldiers have my attitude, at least as many are eager to find themselves in the company of female soldiers for all the wrong reasons. I won't repeat the things I heard at an EO seminar; young soldiers are looking to get some.

It's not all one-sided, either. In my various XO positions for MI AIT companies at Huachuca, I was constantly in the company of young female soldiers. The command team (the commander, the first sergeant, and I) had a runner assigned to us whenever snowbirds, blackbirds, or light duty types were available. The runner occupied a desk in my office, which was between the CO's and 1SG's offices. Many's the day I walked into my office and got a "Hi, sir..." greeting that told me I needed to be out and about all day.

After PT one day, I discovered that I didn't have enough time to drive home and shower before an early appointment. I kept a spare set of BDUs in my trunk for just such an occasion. I showered in the seldom-used VIP shower in the barracks. The private assigned to clean that area came in and struck up a conversation with me through the shower door. She was one of the "Hi, sir..." types. She ignored hints that I was just about done with my shower. She did not leave when I shut off the shower and dried off. I told her I was going to have to get out of the shower and get dressed now. She said, "That's okay, sir."

I solved the problem by telling her to find the senior drill sergeant right away. There was a pause, then she left. When the senior drill sergeant arrived, I told him that under no [expletive deleted] circumstances were any of the trainees to enter the VIP shower while anyone was in there. He gave me a three-bags-full. I think he understood.

While it may be true that fraternization represents a lack of discipline, asking for monastic discipline on top of combat discipline may be more than one can ask. We don't want choir boys in the Army, and we don't recruit monks. We want killers. For better for for worse, the kinds of men who sign up to kill people against whom they have no particular gripe want to [expletive deleted] women. If government-sponsored brothels were available, then I'd say the Army would have a case against fraternizing in the field. In lieu of providing authorized outlets, the Army needs to grow up and accept that its killers never signed on for celibacy. Men and women under stress are going to have sex just as surely as a bullet fired in the air will come down someplace.

If I were in charge, I'd set up brothels that were under strict military control and issue ration cards or some other rationing system for access. Then we'd have an argument that male and female soldiers should not be finding solace in each others' arms.

Webstral