Six month deployments and family formation will definitely hinder attaining the numbers the Navy and the military in general are looking for.

Link

Quotes taken from the link:

Quote:The Navy's top commander for personnel said the service has repeatedly learned problems develop if a ship has many junior enlisted females but no senior enlisted women on board to mentor them.

What "problems" is the admiral talking about?

Quote:Vice Adm. William Moran told reporters during a visit to Pearl Harbor on Thursday he thinks the fundamental reason is that women want to start families and need more time to do so. This often makes women choose between staying in uniform and starting a family, he said.

Wow! Admiral Moran must be pretty smart if he figured that out.

Quote:"What can we do different that doesn't make that choice so hard? Or gives them an opportunity to go and then come back?" Moran said.

Simple. Dilute the Navy's basic mission and culture to make it more closely resemble civilian life. Later, when the Navy is needed for something serious, well… just hope it all works out somehow.

Quote:Other senior leaders including Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and the chief of naval operations have made addressing the low retention rate for women a priority.

Of course they have.

(05-27-2014 10:58 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Quotes taken from the link:

Quote:The Navy's top commander for personnel said the service has repeatedly learned problems develop if a ship has many junior enlisted females but no senior enlisted women on board to mentor them.

What "problems" is the admiral talking about?

I can guess here from what a few of my friends that were enlisted Marines and Sailors told me from their time in The Service (that would be late 90's and early 2000's; same time frame women were first being introduced to ship-board duties).

- There was a prostitution ring on at least one carrier.

- The rates of shipboard pregnancy tend to grow exponentially with each additional month of deployment.

- There's always some rapes and myriad lesser sexual harassment issues.

- Lots of family issues when you get home from long deployments and your shipboard sweetheart wants to move your wife and kids out of the way.

- Female sailors who do behave on board have a tendency to get pregnant before the next deployment as well.

(05-27-2014 12:22 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 10:58 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  What "problems" is the admiral talking about?

I can guess here from what a few of my friends that were enlisted Marines and Sailors told me from their time in The Service (that would be late 90's and early 2000's; same time frame women were first being introduced to ship-board duties).

- There was a prostitution ring on at least one carrier.

- The rates of shipboard pregnancy tend to grow exponentially with each additional month of deployment.

- There's always some rapes and myriad lesser sexual harassment issues.

- Lots of family issues when you get home from long deployments and your shipboard sweetheart wants to move your wife and kids out of the way.

- Female sailors who do behave on board have a tendency to get pregnant before the next deployment as well.

Oh, those "problems"!

Well, it's like the admiral said: we just need more "senior enlisted women on board to act as mentors". We can all be totally positive that the
"problems" will go away then.

(05-27-2014 12:34 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:22 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 10:58 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Quotes taken from the link:

Quote:The Navy's top commander for personnel said the service has repeatedly learned problems develop if a ship has many junior enlisted females but no senior enlisted women on board to mentor them.

What "problems" is the admiral talking about?

I can guess here from what a few of my friends that were enlisted Marines and Sailors told me from their time in The Service (that would be late 90's and early 2000's; same time frame women were first being introduced to ship-board duties).

- There was a prostitution ring on at least one carrier.

- The rates of shipboard pregnancy tend to grow exponentially with each additional month of deployment.

- There's always some rapes and myriad lesser sexual harassment issues.

- Lots of family issues when you get home from long deployments and your shipboard sweetheart wants to move your wife and kids out of the way.

- Female sailors who do behave on board have a tendency to get pregnant before the next deployment as well.

Oh, those "problems"!

Well, it's like the admiral said: we just need more "senior enlisted women on board to act as mentors". We can all be totally positive that the
"problems" will go away then.

By "senior", I'm guessing he means women of non childbearing age.

(05-27-2014 12:34 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:22 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 10:58 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  What "problems" is the admiral talking about?

I can guess here from what a few of my friends that were enlisted Marines and Sailors told me from their time in The Service (that would be late 90's and early 2000's; same time frame women were first being introduced to ship-board duties).

- There was a prostitution ring on at least one carrier.

- The rates of shipboard pregnancy tend to grow exponentially with each additional month of deployment.

- There's always some rapes and myriad lesser sexual harassment issues.

- Lots of family issues when you get home from long deployments and your shipboard sweetheart wants to move your wife and kids out of the way.

- Female sailors who do behave on board have a tendency to get pregnant before the next deployment as well.

Oh, those "problems"!

Well, it's like the admiral said: we just need more "senior enlisted women on board to act as mentors". We can all be totally positive that the
"problems" will go away then.

This is how ideologies work. If you aren't getting the desired results from policy change to help prove your ideology, what's the solution? More of that same ideology of course!

(05-27-2014 12:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  By "senior", I'm guessing he means women of non childbearing age.

I suspect that it is what he meant, too.

The frightening (to those who care about the effectiveness and readiness of the Armed Forces) thing is, he probably thinks that would make a difference in behavior among other people on board.

The horror... young women want families... gotta put an end to that.

Maybe we should take a page from the Israelis.

They have women in combat positions, including tank crews (not to be equal, but because when your country is 20 miles wide you use everybody you have to defend it). When a mixed-gender tank crew goes out on patrol, they are issued condoms.

(05-27-2014 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Maybe we should take a page from the Israelis.

They have women in combat positions, including tank crews (not to be equal, but because when your country is 20 miles wide you use everybody you have to defend it). When a mixed-gender tank crew goes out on patrol, they are issued condoms.

You don't think they can currently get condoms?

(05-27-2014 12:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:35 PM)VA49er Wrote:  By "senior", I'm guessing he means women of non childbearing age.

I suspect that it is what he meant, too.

The frightening (to those who care about the effectiveness and readiness of the Armed Forces) thing is, he probably thinks that would make a difference in behavior among other people on board.

Basically E-6 level and above personnel. I was in for seven years and can could the number of female chiefs I had at my 4 commands on one hand. Now, these women were very professional, but a simply few are far in between. Rarely are they in rates that would require them to deploy nor are they capable of providing the leadership these young female sailors require. Not because they don't want to, but because their advice will be received as paternalistic.

(05-27-2014 12:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Maybe we should take a page from the Israelis.

They have women in combat positions, including tank crews (not to be equal, but because when your country is 20 miles wide you use everybody you have to defend it). When a mixed-gender tank crew goes out on patrol, they are issued condoms.

You don't think they can currently get condoms?

They don't seem to be using them.

(05-27-2014 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Maybe we should take a page from the Israelis.

They have women in combat positions, including tank crews (not to be equal, but because when your country is 20 miles wide you use everybody you have to defend it). When a mixed-gender tank crew goes out on patrol, they are issued condoms.

For Israel, questions of military readiness are not just a matter of national security, they are matters of national survival and continued existence.

Thankfully, America's position is less sensitive than that. So I would be opposed to adopting the extra-condoms-in-the-lunch-box policy, both on grounds of morality and necessity.

But I will be the first to admit, that policy is still more rational and balanced than the one America's military has tried to implement for these past ~20 years or so.

(05-27-2014 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Maybe we should take a page from the Israelis.

They have women in combat positions, including tank crews (not to be equal, but because when your country is 20 miles wide you use everybody you have to defend it). When a mixed-gender tank crew goes out on patrol, they are issued condoms.

You don't think they can currently get condoms?

They don't seem to be using them.

Move to strike, non-responsive.

(05-27-2014 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:46 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Maybe we should take a page from the Israelis.

They have women in combat positions, including tank crews (not to be equal, but because when your country is 20 miles wide you use everybody you have to defend it). When a mixed-gender tank crew goes out on patrol, they are issued condoms.

You don't think they can currently get condoms?

They don't seem to be using them.

A lot of them get pregnant to get off the ship. You can give them condoms, but you can't make them use them.

You put 18 to 24 year old boys and girls together in tight quarters with no way to exit and tell them to spend 18 hours a day together, well it doesn't take a "social-scientist" to figure out what happens next.

The only way around this problem is for the military to require mandatory birth control administration, which won't happen for a myraid of reasons. And that will only prevent pregnancy, STD's are a whole other topic.

(05-27-2014 12:57 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  You put 18 to 24 year old boys and girls together in tight quarters with no way to exit and tell them to spend 18 hours a day together, well it doesn't take a "social-scientist" to figure out what happens next.

The only way around this problem is for the military to require mandatory birth control administration, which won't happen for a myraid of reasons. And that will only prevent pregnancy, STD's are a whole other topic.

Or we could have gender separated units. Imagine if you will, an all female submarine.

(05-27-2014 12:57 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  You put 18 to 24 year old boys and girls together in tight quarters with no way to exit and tell them to spend 18 hours a day together, well it doesn't take a "social-scientist" to figure out what happens next.

It's amazing, the things that the academic-media-political class has either forgotten, or else never knew to begin with.

Quote:The only way around this problem is for the military to require mandatory birth control administration, which won't happen for a myraid of reasons. And that will only prevent pregnancy, STD's are a whole other topic.

Oh, there's other ways around this problem, 49R. For example, these "problems" never came up in the first ~200 years or so of the US Navy, and there was no mandatory birth-control administration in those days.

But I agree with your implied point: there's no way around this problem that will be politically acceptable to the liberals and the media. That is the real problem underlying all the other problems. Until somebody steps in front of that train, and survives, it will just get worse.

(05-27-2014 01:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Or we could have gender separated units. Imagine if you will, an all female submarine.

Purely intuitive answer here, but I suspect the results of that experiment would not be positive. Even so, I'd be willing (politically) to try it out and see.

(05-27-2014 01:12 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 01:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Or we could have gender separated units. Imagine if you will, an all female submarine.

Purely intuitive answer here, but I suspect the results of that experiment would not be positive. Even so, I'd be willing (politically) to try it out and see.

There was a study conducted in the '80's that look at the rounds per minute performance of an all female Howitzer gun crew. For the life of me I cannot find it anywhere on the interwebs, but I'm sure you can guess what the results were. Despite months of training, said crew could not approach the RPM, sustainment, nor the endurance of a male gun crew.