Navy to Target Female Recruits

That is soooo amazing. Women in subs has never happened before and women were never allowed in subs back in the day. This is cool!

MAKE IT SO! Decision-making processes can only improve.

I would like to know the sources of where you retrieve your information. Thanks

Women in subs?…bad idea!….it’s like vinegar and oil!…a bad combination!…imagine the sexual tensions when young adults with raging hormones are confined in a small sub!…yeah!…jealousy, anger, frustration!…a remedy for disater!….speaking of remedy for disater…a disater is putting a racist officer in second of command on a base!…I’m an A.F. Veteran who ran into such a scenario!…in a blink of an eye…my future was destroyed, when my Educational Assistance Fund was stolen from me!…it took 15 years and a Congressional investigatigation for the Military to admit the problem and apologize!….yeah!…thanks a lot!

I may get to go on a sub after all

Why?

It is stupid . Women should not be allowed on ships, if they get pregnant then they want the shore billlets which means men have to do more time at sea. It’s not fair. The heck with Political Correctness.

So Mike. Pregnant Navy officers getting shore duty isn’t fair because men have to do more work. You realize that if women weren’t allowed in at all, that would be like every female Navy mate being pregnant and offshore all at once permanently, and you would *still* have to do their work, plus some for all the onshore work they normally have, because they wouldn’t be there at all. Interesting line of thinking, sir.

Fitz, it’s not about pc, it’s about operating in the 21st Century. Sure, pc, like every element in life, has to find a place in the grand scheme. Fraternization concerns exist any and everywhere…hospitals, the office, the hangar, you name it. Sure, the confines of sub operations lend new challenges for which leadership is going to have to address.

On the issue of fairness…not many things in life are, nor should they be, particularly in military operations. You’ll never make any progress hiding from obstacles. That’s why one of the first things they teach in any military indoc program (Basic Training, Boot Camp, etc) is to SUCK IT UP AND DRIVE ON!

Very Bad Idea! When I was stationed at NISMF Vallejo we had some of the very first “Non-Traditional” female billets, MM, EM, EN and IC. Most of them could not perform their duties do to the lack of physical limitations. I can just see a female GM that get tired after loading the MK 45 LWGM Magazine drum and then trying to keep up with it on a firing run. Those projectiles weigh in at 72 lbs each NOT including the propelling charge (39 lbs) and then getting all that Hydraulic oil in their hair and “Moly D” grease under the nails. I not betting on too many wanting to be a Gunner. AND your right about them taking up “general” shore duty billets so all that’s left going to Glakes to SSC and be a “podium Driver” for three years or 36 one month tours of shore duty as a recuiter. Very Bad Idea!

But Sarge… it isn’t fair. Women do not have to complete the same physical standards as men. If females truly wanted equality they wouldn’t hide behind lower standards to increase their numbers in the military. The focus should be protecting our country and true equality would mean a lot less women in the military. Now is not the time for more politics in the military.

….Great more incompitent women headed to the Seabees. Just what we need.

I think the word you’re looking for is ‘incompetent’. Well done.

Women don’t complete the same physical requirements as men because that would be setting ridiculous standards. Women cannot attain the same level of physical strength that men are capable of; that is simply common sense. Women do not have the testosterone. Have any of you actually looked at a woman besides her chest and more ‘delicate areas’? We aren’t made the same as men; we serve a totally different function from men as far as biology goes. However, that doesn’t make us any less able or willing to complete a job or do it right, and certainly doesn’t mean women can’t meet the same mental requirements as men can, or should be told they simply can’t do something because, gasp! they are a woman!

So I shall widdle this down: because women are not required to bench press 230 pounds or shave their heads – they shouldn’t be allowed to defend their country? That’s absolutely mortifying to hear. There are plenty of MEN in the military who take the easy way out and don’t even bother to put in the work to be the best they can be – but because they have male genitalia, *they* deserve more than a woman who will work her tail end off to serve her country as best she can?

You believe that the standards are lowered for women; I say they are tailored to handle a woman’s capacities, like they are tailored to handle a man’s.

For any woman who goes on a sub and ends up conceiving a child while on the sub, here’s a small tip: it takes two to tango and one of them should have stopped to consider the implications of their actions. You cannot simply fault the woman for that, that’s ludicrous.

I just wanted to give you props for handling your response in a very insightful and emotionally removed manner. I couldn’t agree more with every point you made. Nevermind that many men cannot meet the standards set or once they do they go back to being less than fit. Further cognitive functioning and critical thinking are essential to military action, certainly not lacking more in females than males. The responses from the majority of those on this site actually shock me. I didn’t realize so many still felt such a blatant patriarchy and gender bias. Impressive.

OK Gun, ya got me. You’re talking stuff that’s operational reality; quite frankly, I’ve never “been there”. Based on some of my experiences, I can “transfer” some of the issues you have illuminated so that I can better-understand what’s involved here. However, I can’t help but continue a “half-full” view of the situation (that, in no way, diminishes the “half-empty” view…often-times, reality can be viewed in negative shades, particularly by those who refuse to acknowledge such). And, yea Dave, I too have worked with women in uniform who knew how to talk the talk; they knew all the words to the “hymns”, but when push came to shove, they often hid behind the cloak of modified standards. In defense of the feminine gland, I have also observed some hard chargers who knew why they choose to wear the uniform and the sacrifices demanded.

Gun, I guess what my arguement boils down to is, not modified standards, but modified procedures. Again, I’ll be the first to admit, I am completely unfamiliar with the operations you elaborated. Let me just pose a hypothetical situation and a possible solution:

You and your crew are tasked with pushing a bunch of wheelbarrows up an incline. The first few barrows, being pretty heavy, have to be muscled up the ramp. You, the leader, have assessed that there’s no way you and your crew will be able to get all the barrows up the ramp, safely, and without courting injury, before COB. One possible solution would be to rearrange the ramp so that, instead of one long incline, there are a series of short, easily negotiatable inclines. Standards have not been compromised and, in fact, over the long run, just may have been enhanced.

Could the operations you described be modified so as to enable female Sailors to accomplish the mission?

And Dave, I hear your arguement. Again, I can’t help but wonder if it’s about a level of commitment…call it motivation. Like all spec ops communities (something which, in my retirement, is one of few experiences which I truly miss), there are “weeding-out” processes…processes which determine who’s there to just “sing the song”, and who’s gonna do whatever it takes to “get the band on the road”.

Guys, I hope I haven’t over-simplified anything here. My favorite historical example is that of the Tuskeegee Airmen, who faced all sorts of doubt, from all directions, as to the capabilities of Black pilots. As history proved them out, they equalled, and in many areas, excelled over their White counterparts.

Godspeed, Men!

What bothers me most about this news is the question: “How are they intending to accomplish this increase in female recruits?” Are they going lower the entry standards even more? The standards women are required to meet are already far lower than those set for men, to lower them even more would put both men and women at risk with even weaker links in the chain. When 1 lower standard woman fails at her job, all those depending on her will be in jeopardy. Are they going to offer women greater incentives to join the Navy? Women already benefit from unequal rights and incentives, such as not having to shave their heads for one example. Heck, receiving equal pay while still meeting lower standards IS an incentive. Essentially that boils down to getting paid the same for doing less work. If they scaled a reduction in pay to the same measure of reduction in standards, can you imagine what people would say? And yet, from a purely logical perspective, it would only be fair. Then there’s the whole “Life’s not fair, get over it.” answer to those issues. Yeah, I guess thats they should have said about “taxation without representation” 230 years ago and we could have avoided the American Revolutionary War. Or said that to the black slaves 150 years ago and avoided the American Civil War. My points are 2, “Life’s not fair” is NOT an answer, and Political Correctness or this false approach to so-called equality will not benefit our country’s security, which is the sole purpose of the military!

Good points, Jon…and to be perfectly honest, I don’t have the answers. All I know is that our society, our very culture, has grown, throughout the history of this great Nation, by knocking down barriers and adapting our way of life. Right or wrong, good or bad, in totality, I think we have benefited more than we have lost.

To address one of your specific concerns…one of my “NCO Hats” was that of training, specifically physical training. One of my tasks was to bring up to speed a bunch of newbees to the Army…18-to-20somethings, who couldn’t do 10 pushups without a medevac chopper on standby, who couldn’t run from here to there without green bottles (oxygen) at each mile post. And wouldn’t you know it…many a female blew right past their male counterparts in all events, many before factoring in gender adjustments.

Weather the Dept of the Navy eventually integrates females into the male-dominated sub community is something on which we can only speculate. There are no 100% right or 100% wrong courses of action. Whichever way it goes…and it’s my personal gut feel that, in the future, subs will be retrofitted with “his” and “hers” facilities…we’ll adapt and adjust, just like we’ve always done.

i think it is a great idea i want to be in the navy and i hope they will let lodes more girls in. the navy can be any sex type and i think it ia a great ideato get more girls in!!!

wow i love that idea its heaps mad i have alwayz wanted to go in the navy now i can

freakin weet
yay yay yay yay yay yay
briliant idea

lots love laura

While it has good intentions, 2 things need to be made clear:

Women want equality. Ok, make them live up to the same standards, then. This “Oh, they’re weaker” is pure BS. They either build up, or they don’t belong in that field!

Second, consider this: maybe women don’t want those jobs. Some are happy being clerks and nurses. Surprise, eh?

Sarge,

Your comment concerning the Tuskeegee Airmen is specious at best. The operative word in their title is “men”. We aren’t talking about skin color, we are talking about sex – and no, it’s not a “rights” issue. It’s a national security issue.

Starting with Patsy Schroeder and her congressional gal pals back in the early 80’s – our military has been used for ridiculous feminist social engineering projects that have resulted in nothing but a loss of operational readiness and a general weakening of our national defense posture. Here are the facts: Women are physical weaker, more prone to injury, less aggressive, less tolerant of pain, less willing to take risks, and less motivated to kill. Yes, these are the physiological and psychological facts based on voluminous research. To the PC crowd this is anathema – but truth all the same. Are there a few females who have the required skill set? Sure, but they are rare. Further, men do not trust women with their lives or bond with them the way they do with other men. One reason the traditional American male has always been drawn to the military was because of its appeal to their masculinity. For the past 25 years the military has been incrementally attempting to neuter their warriors so women can feel more comfortable as they are integrated into our force structure.

Many of you give anecdotal evidence of female service members who were “locked and cocked and good to go”. I’ve run across a few over the past 3 decades, but these have always been the exception and not the rule. Walking through almost any post, base, or station you will see unsat, unfit female service members every where you look ( and a few male unsat fatties as well). Why is this tolerated? Lower standards for women. Less accountability. Leadership that acts from a position of fear (of the PC crowd) instead of acting from a position of strength backed up by thousands of years of the accumulated knowledge of the profession of arms. Even my own Marine Corps, the last bastion of the true warrior, has felt the effects of these stupid policies.

I don’t expect most people to understand this issue. Today’s society has very little contact or knowledge of our armed forces outside of what they see from Hollywood or the MSM. Less than 1% serve, which is fine by me as I only want those who truly want to be there anyway – if they have what it takes to be a warrior. Unfortunately, a large segment of society sees this issue as one of “fairness” and “equality” with no idea of how these policies impact our forces. Many of these same folks don’t understand that when you break it down to bare essentials, the job of our military is to kill and destroy in defense of our national interest. It’s a mission that hasn’t changed since our founding, and “fairness and equality” has nothing to do with the mission.

Bottom line, the only reason most women are allowed in (and to stay in) is because standards are lowered to give them access and advancement. Many believe this is ok because to do otherwise would constitute “Discrimination”. News Flash: Discrimination is not a bad thing – Bigotry is a bad thing. Discrimination is when you say “anyone who falls below this standard will be rejected”. Bigotry is when you say”you met the standard but we are going to reject you anyway because of (sex,color,religion,etc).” We need more discrimination, not less.

Marine, you’re confusing me with your nom de plume…I always thought it was “Once A Marine Always A Marine”!

That being said, I couldn’t agree more with the issues upon which you have elaborated. Following my initial tour, back in the 60s, I re-entered the Reserve Components some years later, only to find a military, a DOD, so entwined in issues of political correctness. In my post-retirement job, I do a fair amount of traveling, during which I avail myself of the opportunities to visit USOs across our Country. While I thoroughly enjoy talking with the troops; sometimes even assuming my former NCO counceling role, I am, nonetheless, chagrined at the uniform standards and general military appearance I sometimes observe to be in a state of degredation.

You may be familiar with the difficulties, the barriers, with which the Tuskeegee Airmen had to contend. Literature, not to mention interviews, and Hollywood, have all combined in educating the public on some of the “non-military” issues which have, over the years, been overcome within the Armed Forces.

In more recent years, we have seen women who MET THE STANDARD, gained acceptance to the Military academies, and went on to serve quite successfully. The key is STANDARDS; while these institutions continue to be male-dominated, the standards remain, perhaps not on a par with their male counterparts, but still on a mission-oriented basis.

Will it be smooth and seamless? NOOOO! Will there be difficulties? Most-certainly. Will it happen anytime soon? Dunno! The power brokers in that five-pointed building by the Patomac will just have to insist on high, non-pc STANDARDS…we’ll see!

I’m not really surprised at the mysogyny here. Some of the comments have genuine concern, while others are just griping and hateful. I want to specifically respond to the comment about having to lower standards to raise the female percentage another five percent. IT AIN’T HAPPENING LIKE THAT. The Navy, like the Air Force, are having significantly high recruit rates (helped along by the state of the economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), so there is no need to “water down” their standards. Having their pick of the litter, I have found that the Navy is pickier in its standards than it would have been a few years ago. More recruits (male and female) mean more candidates to compete for the jobs available, which is likely why the Navy chose this time to enact such a policy. And women STILL aren’t allowed on submarines. Nowhere in the literature is that indicated. So you can just calm down on that, ’cause you’re keeping your little “subs.”

Thank you Nhea for pointing out the obvious, this article does not mention repealing the ban on women in submarines. That has been recently discussed as a future goal, but the Navy is merely trying to increase the number of women in the service.

Does that mean they’re going to ‘lower standards for women even more’? Uh, no, probably not. Considering, like Nhea mentioned, that due to the economy there is no shortage of quality people to pick from that are able to meet the standards. It simply means they are going to attempt to entice more women to join through PR, education, etc.

As for standards. Well kids, its a simple scientific fact that men are more physically adaptive as far as the building of muscles and stamina goes, as a rule. However there are plenty of exceptions to this case. All that really means is that women have to actually work a lot harder than men to achieve a certain level of strength. Which provides proof that perhaps women are more motivated than men to join if we’re attempting to in the first place.

As far as lower physical standards. The women barely have lower goals to meet on the pt requirements. And those are really just to level the playing field a bit since we are generally working harder to be about as strong. The USMC is the only branch with drastically different pt requirements for the different sexes and I do think those are unfair.

As for less pay for less ability. Well right on, I’m with you! But why stop at physical ability? I guarantee you I’m likely far more accomplished in many areas the military might deem valuable than who can run 5 miles the fastest. But that opens up a whole new can of worms and frankly one thing I’ve always appreciated about the military as that its one of the only line of works in this country where women make the same as men in the same position, performing the same job.

As for myself, I certainly don’t mind ‘getting all that Hydraulic oil in my hair and “Moly D” grease under my nails’. Also, I’ve exceed my pt requirements, and I’m actually faster and stronger than many of my male counterparts, but hey, I dont mind picking up their slack.

Excuse you people that think women shouldnt be on ships or in subs. If there’s any kind of sexual frustration, maybe you shouldn’t be in the military at all, if you cant seem to hold back the simpliest of guilty pleasures. Now, I got medically discharged from the USMC boot camp training over in Parris Island, SC. I was trained like the men and I’ve made it all the way down to TD 62, so don’t you or anyone else DARE to say that women can’t do the same thing as men.

Yes, a lot of women are physically challenged but you know what? I’m 5′3, 145 pounds and I can EASILY bench 200 lbs. Not a lot of men can bench their own weight and then some, so stop living in the 20th century and welcome to 2009, hun. Because whether you like it or not, women are coming back and we’re coming back HARD and we’re after your jobs!

USMC Female Vet, I’m chagrined to see an obviously motivated hard charger cut short of your goal of becoming a Marine. Although, for whatever reason, you never had the opportunity to earn those Globe and Anchors, it is apparent that you have what it takes to not just meet the standard, but to accel in anything thrown at you. It is my sincere hope that, at some point in time, you are able to realize fruition, be it on the military side of the fence or as a civilian, possible in a government leadership role…Good Luck and Godspeed!

That is so interesting, I plan on joining the navy in 2012 and go into fire and rescue.

Certain individuals, apparently Nhea among them, fail to understand the concept of a percentage. The article states that the Navy intends to increase the PERCENTAGE of women. The only way to increase female percentage is to lower male percentage. The only way to artificially favor an increased female percentage is to artificially affect a decreased percentage of males. How can this be accomplished? Perhaps it is as GI Jane suggested, through PR and education, maybe advertising and marketing. If that is their method to affect the change, it seems harmless enough. I don’t believe such intentions could be so benign or fair. Without more factual knowledge on this new plan, I can only assume. And I assume that the most effective methods to make this change would not be nearly so benign as marketing. Why change the natural ratio of male/female recruits anyway? If 85% of the applicants are male and 15% of the applicants are female, let’s say that the natural failure rate for both is even. Then the only way to increase the successful percentage of female applicants is to accept a higher number of unqualified females and reject a higher number of qualified males. Do you see my point yet? I have no problem with allowing as many qualified females as possible to enter the military. Obviously, the more the better! But the article is talking about percentages. If the natural (unmanipulated) PERCENTAGE is about 15%, how do they plan on increasing that, since they obviously can’t alter the percentage of qualified females in the population. They can either entice more women to apply (not more in number, but more in percentage! and the economy shouldn’t have any effect on the percentage unless more women are struggling and desperate than men) , or they can increase percentage of women accepted. Which do you think is more possible? Increase the number of female applicants, or increase the number of accepted female applicants? If it’s just a plan to target women in advertising campaigns, that shouldn’t cause any problems. But increase incentives or decreasing standards is ridiculous, stupid, and anything but fair.

Dear Jon,
If you think for one second that such a prestigious, rigid, and high-standards place such as the navy is going to rig its admissions process to boost its numbers to be more politically correct, you’ve got another thing coming. Now about percentages only increasing by the other decreasing, then that is true. That does not necessarily mean the NUMBER of men goes down. I have 9 Apples, 1 orange. 10 % oranges, right. I get another orange, and now that’s 18ish%. Oh no, now I’ve only got 82% apples, not 90! K guys, who stole an apple!
Check the marines web site. They’ve got oodles of stuff for women, a facebook page for women, and plenty of just regular pictures of women serving. I know plenty of girls from my old CX teamwho could meet the standards with ease, they just don’t necessarily want to join the navy. When the recruiters would show up to our high school at lunch, they went out of their way to talk to girls, but they didn’t neglect the guys for it. As all this shows, and due to the fact that standards are *barely* different, it’s more a PR and Educational effort.
Finally, if qualified male applicants are being turned down to let more unqualified women in, show me the proof. Where’s this rejected man (men, if it’s as serious as boosting a percentage of 35,000)? We should hear all about them on a forum like this, shouldn’t we? If and when you find one, I’ll stop my admissions process right there. I’m slow to label my self a feminist because in my experience they’re more about superiority than equality and don’t care for traditions, and any place that will artificially boost it’s numbers to favor women is too feminist for me
So show me the proof, Jon.

Jon, no disrespect, Bud, but you’re spouting a lot of well-intentioned BS. The Navy simply wants to make available more “non-traditional” slots to female Sailors. I believe, while many females may prefer the traditional roles in administrative and health care delivery fields, many will welcome the challenges of combat/combat support functions. As for equality…well, that issue has been tossed about quite a bit. At the end of the day, it’s kind of like argueing over who can piss the furthest…it really don’t matter, does it. During my 21 years in uniform, I saw, and had to listen, to so many whiney kids who were overly worried that they just might wind up expending a little more effort than their contemporaries. Will this same scenario play out with the female gland on board…probably…not because they’re women, but because that’s simply another leadership challenge in addressing a fact of life, that is, we all seek (at least) equality, if not advantage.

If they want sub duty, they’ll ask for it; if they REALLY want it, they’ll meet whatever standards they have to meet.

Now all the political talk can end….women are more capable of doing the same job as men some even better. There is no need to refer to women as weak links because either way we r still human.No need to keep addressing the fact that standards are lowered in fact if u did your research u would know that standards have actually become even more strenous for women….men dont forget u wear the pants we r not to be equal with u we r to b a help to u this means assist u not do ur jobs so get over it if the navy didnt need us they would not be recruiting us so i guess “You all are not doing your job.

Ok to help clear this up a little. No I am not an enlisted member, yet. I have talked to recruiters and members enlisted in the navy, air force, coast guard and army (they were where i was looking to enlisted). Talking to the Navy I was told that the Navy SEALS and being on a sub is male exclusive! Women are NOT allowed! Plus I was told that 80% of men on subs are of a higher rank and more advanced duties such as nuclear engineering.

Why is it so bad for females to join? It is a little disappointing to lose friends and have men look down on you in the real world because you want to join. Some are upset because I am willing to do a job they are too scared to do, and others have different reasons. Then to know that I will be looked down on the men enlisted because I will be working next to them and have lower PT standards because reality check we have different body parts. If I am willing to work hard just as any man looking to join, why should I be shunned? I have been working on my physical fitness to meet standards and know of another woman that was looking to enlist. She lost over 100 pounds, so she could enlist and have the job she wants. If we are willing to work for it, why should we be looked down upon? I am a very strongly motivated person and want to surround myself with other people who want to make more out of their lives, military has a great rep for that, but it may not be worth it to be looked down upon by every person where I go in or out of the military.

Also there are not incentives, such as sign-on bonuses because like mentioned before there are enough people joining. People are joining because the economy is bad and want a job. They have their pick of who they want to join, they do not have to take people now they have to work with either a person will pass qualifications or not.

Saunders, Kris, listen up you two…and anyone else who’s overly concerned about being “looked down upon”. At the end of the day, it don’t mean a thing. You meet the standard, do your jobs, and that’s pretty much all there is to it. I know, women feel like they have to prove something…if you feel that way, knock yourselves out. But you know, as far as I’m concerned, nobody, man or woman, has to “PROVE THEMSELVES”. At his point in time, ladies, you are in the spot light; that’s simply because you have chosen to step up to the line.

There have been many situations in history where so-called “special groups” had to endure hardship simply to “prove themselves”. However, in proving themselves, all they were doing was what they were called upon to do…their jobs. You may or may not be familiar with the story of the Tuskeegee Airmen, Black soldiers who had, up to that point, been considered for only the simplest of jobs, while being treated, both in the military community and in the civilian world as second…no, make that fourth class citizens. In their case, as in yours, it’s all about meeting the standard and doing your job. If you’re not familiar with the story of the Tuskeegee Airmen, I would suggest you become so. It’s a very inspiring story for all.

As far as SEAL duty, and all the other career fields from which women are presently denied, I strongly believe people like yourselves will cause that to change. Stay focused, Sailors!

You’ll find meatheads who will argue the obvious…body strength, female stuff in the field, etc. As Training NCO, I saw more men, barely into their 20s, who excelled at talking the talk, but couldn’t run from here to there without medical assistance…and when they finally did meet the standard, they expected rewards. Just do your jobs!

Anchors Aweigh!

Jon, I don’t know why you would choose me as representative for all the people saying the same thing I said, but I will try and speak clearly.

I actually do get percentages, I’m not sure you get increases and how that affects percentages. When you have a military branch exceeding its recruiting goals six years in a row, you naturally have a larger pool of people to choose from; both men and women, qualified and unqualified. This has been said before, so what I will do for you is explain that what you are assuming is that women enlisting after the current percentage is filled are unqualified. I have no idea why you would think this, but I will have to let you know you are wrong and it’s throwing off all your “math.” It also sounds like you’re assuming the number of slots available in the ratings has increased with the candidate pool, keeping the rates of failure the same at RTC. Not so.

More candidates mean more qualified people. The candidates are not ALL qualified, but the averages (I don’t have time to get into that math lesson now) mean you’ll find more capable people in a larger sample. As an example, if you take 5% of America’s black people and 5% of America’s white people and record their SAT scores, you’ll find more white people got perfect scores. This obviously doesn’t mean that white people are smarter, you just have to remember that there are MORE white people.

In an increased sample, as the Navy has had for a few years now, they have more room to choose more qualified people for the same amount of jobs. A larger number of people doesn’t mean the same amount of capable hands, and that is definitely what you are not understanding.

I signed my contract in December before I ever saw this thread, but as a Navy brat I was well aware of people like you. I understand that I will having this same conversation more than a few times during my service. I was tested in several different ways to even qualify for the “non-traditional” rating I pursued, but I was happy to do so. I am lucky in that I have the support of my family and recruiters in supporting my goals and training.

I am not so much a rarity and the Navy has and will find others like me. That is how the goals will be met. Hopefully they can find less of you.

I am one of the woman who is currently looking at the SAR program in the US Navy, and though everyone keeps mentioning how the standards are lower for women then men, I have seen none of that during my physical readiness test or on the PT requirement sheets. Women have to equal or beat the men in both physical and mental capabilities if they want in. I have seen girls kill it in the swimming and running and even pull ups during such activities. It is not a question of standard, those should not be changed just cause your a female. If you want a job were the lives of those around you are in jeopardy if you can’t cut it, then you better surpass them. Standards are set so that a job requirement can be met. You can still be and look like a woman and get your hands dirty while your at it. It is question of weeding out the females who don’t posses the heart to do the job and educating the males to show them the same respect they show there male counterparts. We are just trying to serve our country the same way you are. If we can cut it, why not let us help?

sir i want to know that whether a commerce graduate girl can join navy and how should apply for that.

Dear meenakshi kandpal

join a general store or atta-chakki mill, and look at the calculation’s, please don’t type such stupid questions

commerce graduate students have no scope at all, you can try for CA. and we give periorty to only defence dependents only.

I find the comments quite disparaging about women in the NAVY. I am currently applying to OCS for commission and I work as hard, as tough, and am as committed to what I am doing as any male. Males over time become stronger than women, because Men at birth and up to approximately 5 years of age you are weaker than women and this is a scientific fact. Women’s bodies are meant to endure hardships and we constantly prove this daily. You can call us the weak link, but these weak links are the reason you exist and that in and of itself is a hard task.

I do believe that standards should be equal to that of men, but there are some things that women physically cannot do, just the same with men. In short we all have our shortcomings and strengths. Men and women alike. However, dissing my fellow woman is unacceptable. We don’t criticise men for their clear inability to mature faster than women or their inability to think with the head attached to their neck…. GO NAVY… GO NAVY WOMEN…

i think its great that females will be allowed on subs. i think its unfair that males think we are not capable of completing certaint task. i tell you i see alot of males who complain. females are always trying to prove themselves we always have to work harder, be smarter and be well rounded. we take every challange and over come. we have come a long way. i think history is about to happen and those who dont believe in us can sit back and enjoy the show.

I’m excited to hear the news, I decided that I would join and I’m willing to do what it takes. I know women are not as big as men but we have the same willingness to protect and serve.
Last night I was looking at ops for women and very shocked to see the lack of choice. Women are human just as men, we have the same offerings as anyone else. When we serve it is a mature decision and yes I want to shave my head. I have a problem with any person whom disrespects my space but as a team thisgreater good always will shine through.
This I promise my country and myself both equally!

MATT,
“Great more incompitent women headed to the Seabees. Just what we need.”
You are the biggest sexist pig. would you tell your own mother and or wife that!?!?!!!! I don’t think so. Have you ever thought what other people think. i guess no one ever told you treat people the way you want to be treat. You must be incompetent, with a comment like that. You are rude, and very sexist. I am in the navy, so back off!
And learn how to spell.
incompitent- its incompetent.

Thanks, Navygirl, for posting on that one. I tried to, but fell off my chair laughing at the irony of his statement.

Navy Girl, I (think) I like your tone. Many of the “communities” within the Military are extremely male-dominated, not only in presence but in demeanor as well. It’s a tight rope you (all) walk in entering what is/was traditionally a “mans’ world”…in my 21 year career, I saw it all, in terms of women serving alongside, and leading men.

You strike me, through your comments, as a no-nonsense, “take-no-prisoners” Sailor. While I have observed many females within the ranks as behaving “like they had something to prove”, you will learn that this behavior, with experience and confidence, is best-tempered with a “be yourself” demeanor. I realize that may sound old as the hills, but it’s absolutely the only way, particularly when you assume NCO responsibilities.

Good luck and Godspeed, Navy Girl!

I think that people who believe men and women cannot be equal are sadly mistaken. I, like many of my female friends, are a lot stronger and more defined than many of men around. If guys are so worried about females getting pregnate and getting the land time and them getting more money because of the baby, well let me remind you, unless it only takes one now, that two are involved with the makings of a little one. If you are too weak to keep it zipped away then you shouldn’t be in a place like a sub anyways.

Yes I do agree that a person should be willing to get down and dirty if the job calls for it and men look at us women like all were good for is a clean face and manicured nails. It’s bull! Men may know girls like that but I bet almost everyone of them know a guy who acts the exact same, one who freaks at the sight of grease… GET IT TOGETHER! and stop whining like you blame the girls of doing!

hey men aren’t the only ones who can be in the Navy! im a junior in high school and i believe that its time for us women to show that we can handle our own, we can fight for our country the same way men do. so ladies if ya’ll wanna join thats great! See ya there!

i am a 19 year old female and i think that is stupid how so many egotistical guys can get on here and talk crap bout females… we can do anything that we put our mind to…. yes there would be a lot of sexual temptation but hey aint that it everyday life… no females should not get special treatment… we should be treated just as a guy is treated… it is bull crap how guys think girls cant match up to them… news flash boys we can… on a daily basis i life over 100 pounds at a time and do that for 8 hours a day with bout a 15 min lunch brake i would love to see some of the crap talkin guys on here and do my job for a week

I agree very much…Women always complain that they can do just as much as a man…but when it comes to the armed forces they want to get the easiest nonchallenged job thier is….I cant wait til i graduate High school so I can live up to being something in the navy other than a secetary or nurse….Get readii im coming!!!

10 Years Prior Navy. The biggest problem with having women in the military is that there is no great way to solve one basic issue: Having children! I left the Navy after 10 years giving up on my retirement because I was unwilling to leave my 4 month old to go to a Navy ship. There are thousands of women who do this. There is no way women can do a complete 20 year tour if they care deeply about the impact of sea life on there children.

However, if they realize before it’s to late. They may reenter the military when the children are a bit older. Again, realizing the sacrifice. Men definetely have an advantage in the military system and honestly, it’s not like most women are like the Duggers and are going to have 19 kids to avoid sea duty!