THE NAVY announced today, after the expiration of a period for Congressional intervention, that it will allow women aboard submarines as of 2012. How long will it be before the first child is conceived on a military underwater vessel or before a female commander turns the forced togetherness of submarine life into a maritime version of Mommie Dearest?

According to the Seattle Times:

Rear Adm. Barry Bruner, who led the Navy’s task force on integrating women onto submarines, brushed aside questions from reporters about the potential for sexual misconduct or unexpected pregnancies among a coed crew.

“We’re going to look back on this four or five years from now, shrug our shoulders and say, ‘What was everybody worrying about?'” said Bruner, the top sub commander at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in coastal Georgia, where the announcement was made.

Does he mean the same way people are shrugging their shoulders now about women abandoning duty because of pregnancies,  about thousands of charges of sexual harrassment by women soldiers against other soldiers, about the effect of women on troop cohesion, and about the military mothers who have had to leave their children behind?

The wives of sailors on subs have expressed their displeasure over this tight coed living. Why shouldn’t they? Our armed forces are part defense and part love-making. But Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said in a public statement, “We literally could not run the Navy without women today.” For thousands of years, countries defended themselves with men. Imagine. Everything has changed. Men literally could not do it.

One male commenter writes in response to the Seattle Times story:

Women on a military base are a distraction and take up twice the resources of a man and do half the work. Most end up doing office type work and are quick to get pregnant..and that was in the Air Force! Women are not as robust as men (no pun intended) and can easily get injured and cannot stand up to severe conditions.

This man is a fool. Doesn’t he know that WE LITERALLY COULD NOT RUN THE NAVY WITHOUT WOMEN?

                                    — Comments —

Larry B. writes:

These sorts of ubiquitous statements: “We literally could not run the Navy without women” show the implication of modern liberal thought. The same argument is used for expanding the role of women in combat and in ground forces. Without women, we just wouldn’t have enough troops to simultaneously invade and occupy the Middle East, the Orient, etc. Without them, we couldn’t have as many ships and subs going about and doing God knows what. Why is it so preposterous these days to actually scale down military operations? Once government has expanded, it cannot be drawn back…or so it seems we’ve been conditioned to think. If our volunteer forces are not large enough to invade a country…maybe that’s a sign that the public does not want to invade that country. The military is an extension of government, and is one of the most important extensions. This mentality that it must be continually expanding in its scope and involvement is right in line with the progressive Big Government ideology.

A lot of the problem comes from the hallowed historical context in which Americans hold the armed forces. The gruff-but-loveables were the ones who whipped Hitler and snubbed Tojo. True, they lay life and limb on the line for American interests, and the individual soldier does not merit criticism, but the military policies, administration, and practice should not be beyond reproach. Sadly, anyone who is against women in the military, or against military expansion in the Middle East, East Asia, and so on must necessarily not “support the troops”.

That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. The troops are supposed to support us, the American people, but there is no accountability if we’re not allowed to criticize or correct. I did not ask the troops to go into Afghanistan, nor did I ask for more people to be put on submarines. Why is this sort of allegiance demanded of me then? The military is not an agency that needs expansion through artificial civil rights and increasingly enticing perks for enrollment. It’s an agency that should protect America. Is putting women on submarines protecting America? At one point in his pre-election campaign, Obama mentioned extending the selective service registration to women (!). Is being drafted a civil right, or a violation of them?

Laura writes:

You raise important points. I have focused on the folly of women in armed duty, on how this affects the whole tenor of military life, but there is another important dimension to it. The recruitment of women enables the unnecessary expansion of the military and of foreign intervention.

Randy B. writes:

This is one of the largest slices of baloney ever sliced by our military “leaders.” 

I was in the USAF from 78-83 and for a portion of that served as the Air Force attaché to the USN at Apra Harbor Guam. I was able to witness the disruption and distraction that was caused by the relatively low female membership at that time, not only in the Navy, but in the Air Force and Army. Because of my primary duty (AFSC), I was only exposed to the special operation leg of the Marines, which at the time did not did not allow (not unlike the Navy Teams, AF CCT, PJ’s and Army Delta) women in those specialties. As a young man in the Air Force, any time a young enlisted or commissioned woman was around I know I acted different than I did around men. Not the same way some servicemen acted around women, as I was brought up believing that women were to be honored, revered and respected; whereas many of the guys acted like dogs in heat. Since feminism has not, and will not ever take away the nature of man, nor his often mentally incapacitating desire to reproduce, there is no way the potential inconceivable benefits of having women on subs will ever outweigh the person risk to both members. Seeing as how so many of our military leaders seem to be absent character, morals, honor, and the ability to lead versus being led, I perceive this act as a willful attempt to further deconstruct our ability to defend ourselves and our nation. I would cast this lot at Obama since every fiber of his being seems to be hell bent on the destruction of our Republic, but this did not start with our Kenyan plant, rather it started several presidencies prior. This will not stop Obama from attempting to claim the crown of American destruction. 

A very good friend of mine is a reserve Commander in the USN and an Engineer on subs. He has related stories of behavior on subs that is accepted and reluctantly overlooked in favor of mission integrity, and with an understanding of the complexities of being on a sub, at sea for months, often submerged for weeks on end. I am not condoning this behavior, but I recognize it happens. I know that many a good sailor will lose his career, and destroy his forced future as a civilian, because either his historically accepted actions or speech will absolutely be held as offensive by women. If women were not allowed to serve in the military, men would tell you serving in the military is often a ballet of egg shells and rice paper, but when you throw women into the mix it’s like adding glass and vipers. I have been drinking with operations guys from all branches of the military; I have been in weekend upon weekends of fist fights with the same in the same bars; I have been a part of several things for which I am not proud, but in each case our bonds were set in Kevlar-and-titanium-reinforced, concrete. This is a process we in the military refer to as bonding. How would I, or any other man, establish that bond of unchallenged trust with a female in the military? Over tea, maybe we could sit down and watch Pretty Woman, or Sleepless in Seattle? I know, we could spend a weekend at the mall getting our hair done, or shopping for purses. My intent is not to defame or degrade the enjoyed activities of women, but to point out the stark contrasts between men and women. 

Every time I think I have witnessed the straw that will break the camel’s back, some functional moron with bars, leafs, birds or stars comes along proving me absent the ability to fold space time and peer into the future. How screwed up is our military now? We currently have three Navy SEAL’s on trial for murder while at war for killing insurgents from that war zone. Maybe I’m biased, but I want my brother SEAL’s (no I am not a team’s guy) killing without remorse, and as close to indiscriminately as is possible in a war zone. I want our enemies to fear us, psychologically traumatized, and to suffer so much pain and loss that they lose the will to fight. The only person I want a woman to kill is the animal that would attempt to rape her; assuming I was not there to intervene as a man should. 

I hate to say it, but America has had it so good for so long that I can only imagine three ways out of our current predicament: A civil war, a plague, or the return of Christ. We have lost our souls, we cannot draw a clear line between right and wrong, we are too busy watching Oprah (sic) pervert our moral compasses, we plan weeks in advance to see the newest brain-dead “blockbuster” from Hollyweird to further escape, we fight over spots in line dining out five days a week, and believe to contribute to the American way we have to be 300% in credit debt.

Michael S. writes:

Navy Secretary Mabus even TALKS like a woman. “Literally” — so many women seem to be obsessed with that word. They use it when the expression to which it refers is not a metaphor.

At least he didn’t use that even more popular standby, “amazing.” American women are so easily AMAZED these days… I mean, literally, AMAZED.

Laura writes:

Ha! Ha! This really made me laugh. It’s true. I also have used “literally” to add emphasis even when it literally means nothing.

Mabus is saying the Navy would stop functioning if women were not present. Literally, not metaphorically. It’s not that it would not be able to do as much. It would not be able to operate at all. I think never in her wildest dreams did Gloria Steinem ever imagine feminism could so transform men.

Larry B. writes:

It is curious how, in many ways, the Military has been a mechanism for social reform before it’s caught on in mainstream society—racial integration and equal pay come immediately to mind. Now the problem seems to be one of perception. Many people, whether lobbying for an increased feminine presence in the military or a celebration of militarized homosexuality, argue under the false pretense that these parties are being deprived of their civil rights in the military. Of course, the military is NOT a media for civil rights; it is NOT a forum for civilians, civil rights do NOT apply to the military, because it is NOT a civilian body. Any soldier, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, is abrogating their civil rights (not that professing homosexuality is constitutionally protected) with the military policy, a policy that is not meant to be conducive for freedom of expression, but for the effective and forceful defense of national interests in realms where civil rights cannot be addressed (i.e. between two countries whose definitions of civil rights are not the same and do not enter into war-time considerations).

The same arguments were used when women were not included in the military, and are still used when people complain about the rampant corruption and abuse of the military pension system by impregnated women and lazy men: “What about those who really do feel a heart-felt calling, a vocation, to protect their country, fight for freedoms, etc.” Unfortunately, these hearty volunteers seem to be growing fewer and farther between. As military standards fall, more and more recruits are joining up because it’s the best career move they can make. Our national fighting force has largely become a force of people trying to avoid combat long enough so they can get a free college education and a handsome resume. The Fort Hood massacre, though tragic, was nonetheless an appalling demonstration of the military’s poor quality.

“Diversity is Strength!”

Please follow and like us: