It happens. Aboard ship. And in office buildings. And on the worksite. And on travel. And lots of other places. There's just all sorts of naughty mischief goes on wherever boys and girls work together. Oh my.

For which your formula is ... no more two-gender crews aboard Navy ships. Right. And no more mixing of the sexes in office buildings. Or at the Washington Post. Or at Foreign Policy. Or - face it - anywhere else. We must stamp out this rampant hedonism lest it sap our moral fiber and be the end of civilization.

Or.

Or.

Or maybe we could sorta set some norms and rules, put leadership in place to apply them, and hold individuals responsible for their conduct. Maybe we could reside trust and confidence in our military professionals, expecting the same level of responsibility and good conduct as is expected in civil society. Maybe we could stifle the Neanderthals who sometimes show up aboard ship while at the same time standing off the misogynists and sexists who say the only fix is to forbid females serving aboard ship.

On the last point, that ship has sailed. Courageous female Navy officers successfully fought in court for the right to serve as equals aboard Navy warships. I know many of the principals in this fight and give them full credit for courage and fighting spirit in ending a bad practice. Get off it, Tom. The JAMES WILLIAMS case shows how these problems are handled properly: you identify the miscreants and beat the shit out of them in courts martial.

Finally, women in submarine crews. If anyone knows where there's a private place in a submarine for clandestine sex between two crewmembers, please speak up. As a buddy once commented, submarines are the ultimate birth control device. The real submarine issue is the doubling of the talent to draw from for nuclear power training, which cuts in half the argument for the special pay nukes get. It's a union-shop issue: females threaten the nuke bonus.

Courageous female Navy officers successfully fought in court for the right to serve as equals aboard Navy warships. I know many of the principals in this fight and give them full credit for courage and fighting spirit in ending a bad practice.

Excuse me while I sneeze-horse manure!

Women did not fight in court for the "right" ( there is no such right)-rather they waged a carefully orchestrated public relations campaign to ensure that the facts were not aired publicly, much less listened to. The lifting of the combatant exclusion was the result of a knee jerk reaction by the Navy and the Congress to a non-existent problem (e.g. Tailhook)-and in response to a myth created that women were critical to the services succeeding in Desert Storm. Guys like me pointed out at the time that this kind of baggage was going to happen-the intervening years have proven us more than correct.

I commanded a mixed gender squadron. I also came up in my career in single gender units. The issue is not that the job didn't get done-it was extra added cost involved ( money, emotions, and discipline problem) to get the job done. Given a choice I prefer an all male unit over a mixed gender unit. They work together better and are more fun to be in and to lead.

The commenter at WTKR ( I lived in Norfolk for 15 years) is right on the mark and all the whining by pro feminist advocates does not change the reality of the reduced combat readiness the current diversity nonesense has leveled on the US Navy.

Ominus veri!

Rather I was thinking of dropping the rules against fraternization. There has gots to be a better way to handle this.

Best,
Tom

Tailhook was a non-existent problem. Right. And the naughty girls forced the Navy, DOD, and Congress to lift the combat exclusion. Right. And the Navy has so much talent that it just doesn't need to expand the supply. Right. And women should be barefoot in the summer and pregnant in the winter. Right.

See what happens when you inhale while sneezing.

Some people say it cannot be done, but I still think that we can get tremendous efficiency advantages from single sex units. ie, all-male or all-female platoons and boats. A single sex environment will better protect the E3s and E4s from abuses. Officers are a different case, but then, they usually need less protection. Kinda like bringing back the WACs for enlisted.

Ships present a different environment because of the integrated living environment. But an all-female ship sounds possible these days.

Re: Tailhook. I lived through that nightmare. I was lucky because I was not there-but spent that September/October trying not to get killed in the North Atlantic. But a lot of good men went through misery and for nothing. Really good men had their lives ruined all because of a overworked reaction to a percieved problem that the Navy was already addressing before Paula " I got my 8 million dollars and didn't have to pay back my bonus" cried wolf.

As for supply-it is all in how you recruit. The m\Navy amde its recruiting quotas in the buildup to the 600 ship Navy and did not need to kowtow to quotas and reduced standards. With a program of national service the miltary could have all the men it needed. Add to that fact the idea that a draft would give more of the nation's population a vested interest in the conflicts that we have undertaken. So the "we have to women" argument makes no sense. Its that we have chosen to recuit women instead of men in order to justify a vast social experiment. That's fine you can do that-but there is a cost. I remain fixed in my conviction that cost is not worth paying.

I would commend Martin Van Kreveld's book to you Men, Women and War where he very deftly explores the cost of that policy in detail. We will of course continue with the feminization of the military-and it will be American society that will be the poorer for it.

And it's clear to me that the vast majority of misconduct, reported and unreported, involves sex.

Put young men and young women together, often in high stress jobs, give them a paycheck, and then give some of them authority over others -- and of course you're going to have sexual misconduct.

That shouldn't surprise anyone.

But it that doesn't excuse any of it. Of course most of this misconduct is prejudicial to good order and discipline and must be stopped somehow. (Working together on a Navy ship or on a FOB in Iraq isn't like working in an office building.)

The question is -- how much of a readiness hit are we willing to take for this "equality?" How many of our scarce resources do we use training about, investigating, prosecuting, etc., all of this misconduct?

Jeez - isn't anyone reading Ducky's posts? Maybe women aboard ship lowers "cohesion" and/or combat readiness. Maybe future combat at sea will be as horrific as Leyte or Savo. I dn't know and am not qulified to answer.

But none of these points are responses to Rubber Ducky's point, which is that bosses cannot get involved sexually with subordinates on the job; it constitutes coercion and sexual harassment. And that's that. Full stop.

Harry Stonecipher, the CEO of Boeing was sacked for the same thing a few years ago. It happens every day. It happens in the Navy ashore I am sure. This isn't about coed ships per se.

I hate to rain on your parade but sailors had sex with each other before there were women on ships.

Are you implying that Jack Aubry and Stephen Maturin were lovers?

Of course they were both officers...

So, let me get this straight. General Order #1 bans porn, alcohol, and (in most of its permutations) bans sex.

Should it be any coincidence that suicides are skyrocketing?

Personally, I have no issue with sex on deployments, and I really don't mind sex between people of different ranks, so long as they are in different organizations. In fact, in the Army, it USED to be legal. Sex between officers and enlisted, then, isn't a matter of morality if we just arbitrarily changed the rules...it's just a silly little policy. It reminds me of Catholic School, when one Lent the bishop declared that we could eat meat on Friday because St. Patrick's Day fell on a Friday and he was an Irish Catholic bishop.

Unfortunately, the Army's rules are a little puritanical, though I can't say I entirely blame them. For every quiet, casual, consequence-free relationship, there are too many complicated ones. Female troops sent home for pregnancies, office relationships, fistfights over women, you name it. It's as if no one learned how to have consequence-free casual sex like a normal awesome human being!

I do, however, believe that sex between supervisors and subordinates is clearly wrong. It's wrong in almost any work place. If it's happening between officers and enlisted people on a ship, it's probably in the supervisor/subordinate category.

I've known absolute professionals, both men and women, who've served, and it irritates me to hear some of you denigrating half of them. I've served on single sex ships, and I've served on mixed gender ships, and I've seen absolutely poisonous leadership with low morale in both environments, and brilliant leadership with high morale in both environments.

Bottom line, the issue with the James Williams was bad leadership that allowed fraternization and sexual assault, not bad leadership that allowed sex. Fraternization is bad, regardless of whether it involves leaders hanging out with their best friends who happen to work for them, or sleeping with them. Admittedly, sex between leaders and subordinate is extra-poisonous, both because of potential for sexual pressure, and because of the sorts of negative attitudes evidenced here. When it happens, everyone knows about it, and it degrades the environment for every other woman in the command.

I have heard the biting commentary similar to fellow posters Eric and Skippy that would follow any woman on a crew that had sexual relationships between leaders and subordinates, regardless of whether they were also in a sexual relationship with a superious. Sexual fraternization is absolutely poisonous to good order and discipline.

I think that all of you who want a single sex military are going to be out of luck (barring an incredibly reactionary change in the American body politic). At this point, the sort of broad-brush criticism of women in the military voiced by Eric and Skippy just serves to make morale worse for those women who serve, and adds extra challenges to their ability to be successful and lead well. Luckily, most of them overcome this sort of bile.

When I think of the top ten sailors who've worked with me in my career, the majority of them are women. Lives were saved, by their actions and insight, and if I had to relive my Navy experience without them, it would have been a bleaker, emptier experience. I honor what I learned from them, and how they inspired me.

Tom, I think that Rubber Ducky is absolutely right that removing the prohibition against fraternization is a bad idea. Fraternization undermines good order and discipline too much.

But that problem existed in the single sex Navy too - getting rid of women is not the answer.

How long has it been since you've been in the service? Your attitude speaks to a navy that past away ten to fifteen years ago. Today's Navy is smarter, more efficient and more lethal than ever before. True, we don't have as much fun. But that fun cost lives and huge losses in resources. Hence the zero tolerance policy of today.

Yes, there are abuses made by women but I've seen guys pull the same crap. A friend of mine, who is a NDCM, told me that most women in the spec ops community don't live up to the standards they need to in order to keep up with the guys. But...he also said the best commanding officer and best performer he worked with was a female. My attitude prior to the discussion with him was against females as divers or EOD but it sounds like they can do it, but make sure there is no slack given. I'm still against female Seals though.

As far as the rest of the fleet, quit your bellyaching and man up.

lol, what service were you ever in?? Women are not in the SpecOps Community. Also, as for EODs, AGAIN, they do not have to meet the same standards! I am on AD still, how long has it been since you have been in and what Navy are you in? Bellyaching? In other words, something is wrong, don't point it out? Just ignore it and it will go away?? lol So, you do not see a problem with the things I pointed out?! Name any or the examples I made that are wrong? Should we have them meet the same standards? Or is that one more thing I should stop my bellyache over? The Navy is hardly more lethal, it has yet to even be tested at sea, heck, due to ROEs they tend to run from small Somali Ships. Keep Drinking the Kool Aid Bertrand, if you are in a leadership position then you are ignoring a lot that is going on. Many women do a great job in many positions, but combat arms is something they have no business being in. But hey, ignore the Navy's own SPARTAN Program Results, ignore testimony before Congress and DACOWITS, ignore real life, I am sure it makes you feel like you deserve the 5.0 on your FitReps for Diversity and EO ;)

Seriously, do you people really think there is no difference between a man and a woman? I am curious, because it would seem like many of you think gender is a social construct, you ignore any of the things I have pointed out like physical ability, being more injury prone, pregnancy, etc..is this because they do not fit your premises or because then you can go on a site like this and just spout PC silliness and how "My best-insert term here-were all females"? The Navy has YET to have a real test in Damage Control, I really hope I am wrong but from what I have seen and what the Navy has even tested on, I do not think I am. As for ground, they have ZERO business being anywhere near ground combat, yes, a woman can be just as brave but that does not mean she can hump 75lbs of kit for 20 klicks and then wind up wrestling with a man on target.
The Frat Policy is there for a reason, I totally agree with it but this whole nonsense that women have proven themselves to be worth the quota that they cost a spot for a guy is just PC silliness and those of you who continue to enforce these views that the are or even worse, the ones who say we need it for the purposes of diversity are either poor leaders or have yet to do a job where you life is on the line. This is the Military, we are supposed to be geared toward one thing, fighting and winning wars, not to have quotas, not to have lower standards and not be feminized to the point where if you raise your voice you can get a council statement. Joke.

Mens Custom Timberland Boots
$150.00 $84.00
Save: 44% off
Timberland Custom Boots menPremium Guaranteed Waterproof leather for comfort,

durability and abrasion resistance ; Timberland tree logo stamped on inside of

tongue ; Direct-attach waterproof construction keeps feet dry and comfortable ;

Durable laces with Taslan fibres for long-lasting wear ; Rubber lug outsole for

traction and durability ; Padded collar for a comfortable fit that locks out debris

; Rustproof hardware for long-lasting wear ; Embroidered logo on side

http://www.brawbuy.com/
http://www.myjerseysky.com/
http://www.ghdprincess.com/

Then Secretary of the Navy, now Senator, Webb said it best when he said [words to the effect if not exactly quoted]

1 woman in 10,000 is qualified to lead Marines in combat. That woman would of course be a freak. As long as I an Secretary of the Navy we will not be commissioning freaks.

The original thought was about Marines but can be easily
extended to include all military organizations,perhaps even the AF [bombing wedding parties from 20,000 ft. is possible for women, but still who would want a girl that liked that sort of thing].

The departure from that policy is,has been,and will be disgusting,ridiculous,self defeating and possibly Satanic.

So in order to prevent an infraction, the people that are "responsible" for the offense shouldn't be allowed to be in the military. So following that line of reason we should then raise the age of enlistment to 21 to prevent any of our service members from drinking under age.

And before you repsond: Yes it is the same thing. You're just being silly.

And, besides, anyone who has been paying attention to the news, our military is pretty much at its limit. The fact is that one of the hard realities that we are facing is that we simply need bodies and it's tough to find all the people our military requires to fulfill its various assignments. Preventing women from serving would make fully half the population inelligible for service and would be like fighting with one hand behind your back.

With 75% of our young people inelligable because of their weight, criminal records, or whatever, it would be rediculous to NOT use anyone we could get to sign up.