FEMALE ship commander messes up

[Quantum Windbag]

More to the point ... And without any inter-service rivalries that confuse the peasants (just kidding for those who cannot take a joke).
The crime is the same in the eyes of the law regardless the gender of the accused ... The thread is of note because the accused is female.

As a female veteran CWO-4 in a combat related MOS ... I can say that we initially fought very hard to mirror the standards of our male counterparts.
To us ... The requirements necessary for a male to meet in order to be considered suitable for the task were what we saw as a necessity for us to meet.
We fought hard against many objections to keep that criteria equal in every sense ... And to no avail these requirements have been altered to better suit what some would believe to be "more fair".
Soldiers like me have a very different view than many in regards to the "extra credit" minorities get due to race or gender when in competition for a promotion.

We were and are soldiers ... And should be treated as equals regardless of gender.

Bush92 made what I believe to be some valid points about unfavorablly altering our service requirements to meet social desires within the services.
Their points hold just as much merit with or without prior service ... Although they may be more extreme than my own.
For Joe to challenge the coments with nothing more than a snide remark about service ... Only encourages veterans like me to slap him back (besides the fact I outranked his sorry goat-smelling ass).

Progressive Liberals that support any kind of gender-based assessment of this case ... Or any other case ... Go further towards supporting the further deterioration of our current service status.
The UCMJ (or the UK version) doesn't give a damn what gender you are in regards to the violation ... It is a military issue that the military can handle without a lot of misguided editorial bullshit.

.

A whole lot of problems with these statements.

In 1949 (I could be slightly off on the dates) Harry Truman signed an order to desegregate the Army. And a lot of the same kinds of people complained that he was playing politics or doing social welfare work. Desegregating the army didn't make it perform worse, and neither will letting gays serve openly.

For women in the military, the thing is, women DO get a lower standard on the APFT then their male counterparts.

Final point. The military still trying to police the moral conduct of its members is a little archaic. Somehow, I don't think this is the only officer stepping out on her spouse.

Because rules about morals only matter when JoeB gives his stamp of approval.

The thing is, dipshit, everyone is taught the UCMJ when they join. Officers get extra instructions, and Captains on a ship are actually the person in charge of enforcing it. In fact, their word is considered final on the subject. A ship captain who violates the UCMJ, or the English Armed Forces Act, should be dealt with harshly because they are required to set the example for everyone under their command. A CO that ignores the law is is not fit to be a CO.

Even an Army supply depot puke should know that.

 

[Mojo2]

in England but it is a current event . --- Admiral blasts first female commander Sarah West over 'affair' with junior officer | Mail Online ---

This is why the West is becoming weaker and weaker. NATO allows gays in military now. Completely impotent. Civilian politicians have went out of their way to destroy the military forces of NATO.

I'm with you on some of your other stances, but there is nothing wrong with Gays serving in the military.

Except for bigots making a problem of it.

 

[Marianne]

in England but it is a current event . --- Admiral blasts first female commander Sarah West over 'affair' with junior officer | Mail Online ---

Like dozens of men haven't done the same thing since they started allowing men and women to serve together.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Why would they have to be male? An affair is an affair, regardless of the sex of the parties involved.

Luddy asserted that males did this. There's only been one incident of a male Captain and a female under his command violating policy on fraternization and that didn't include any sexual relations. So if male Captains have done this and we exclude women from the equation, then who does that leave, Einstein? It leaves men. So, which cases is Luddy talking about? Which male Captains had an affair with a male subordinate on the ship he commanded? That's all I want to know. Luddy certainly KNEW what he was talking about when he made his claim, right? Luddy wasn't just talking out of his ass, right?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is why the West is becoming weaker and weaker. NATO allows gays in military now.

Gays have always been in the military.

 

[Rikurzhen]

in England but it is a current event . --- Admiral blasts first female commander Sarah West over 'affair' with junior officer | Mail Online ---

Like dozens of men haven't done the same thing since they started allowing men and women to serve together.

You know about dozens of male Captains of Navy ships who've had affairs with men or women directly under their command on the ship. Interesting news. Clearly you must know this to be true so why don't you tell us about only ONE incident to show us that you know what you're talking about. A male US Navy Captain who had an affair with a man or woman on the ship he commanded. I'm always eager to learn new facts, so educate all of us with what you KNOW.

 

[Rikurzhen]

This is why the West is becoming weaker and weaker. NATO allows gays in military now.

Gays have always been in the military.

And they used to be drummed out of the military too, for the good of morale and unit cohesion.

If women don't like the thought of being sexualized by men if they happen to be showering naked together, what makes you think that heterosexual men like to be sexualized by homosexual men while naked in the shower together?

 

[BlackSand]

A whole lot of problems with these statements.

In 1949 (I could be slightly off on the dates) Harry Truman signed an order to desegregate the Army. And a lot of the same kinds of people complained that he was playing politics or doing social welfare work. Desegregating the army didn't make it perform worse, and neither will letting gays serve openly.

For women in the military, the thing is, women DO get a lower standard on the APFT then their male counterparts.

Final point. The military still trying to police the moral conduct of its members is a little archaic. Somehow, I don't think this is the only officer stepping out on her spouse.

Only a foolish Progressive Liberal white male could fail to see how utterly insulting it is to suggest that females and other minorities are incapable of surpassing your abilities without unfair advantages.

Progressive Liberals like you are what make this country and the services suck now ... What continually degrades our abilities to compete with a close eye on excellence and superiority.
You are stupid enough to think that there isn't any kind of difference in giving a person a chance to prove themselves and their worthiness ... Versus the inability to accomplish anything under the same indentical set of standards.

Requirements are different according to gender or race in the service now ... And there is nothing equal about it.
You are the one who seems to support lessening the criteria and sacrificing excellence in an attempt to progress social engineering in the services.
A lot of soldiers like myself don't need a different set of standards to whip your ass ... And we don't care if you try to support the idea you somehow superior by thinking we need your help.

This case is no different in the eyes of the law because the Commander is female.

.

 

[Hottie]

Ever hear of a woman doing anything right?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Only a foolish Progressive Liberal white male could fail to see how utterly insulting it is to suggest that females and other minorities are incapable of surpassing your abilities without unfair advantages.

I'm no liberal and until we actually see women passing uniform PT standards, I'm feeling pretty comfortable in arguing that they can't do so. Whether this position is insulting or not is of no consequence, for I'm not tasked with making people feel good about themselves - that job is theirs alone.

Recent evidence, 14 of the most determined (and very likely most physically fit) women tried and failed:

I was one of four women in the group, bringing the number to 14 female officers who had attempted the course since it was opened to women in the fall of 2012. All the women so far had failed — all but one of them on the first day. . . .

But there came a point when I could not persuade my body to perform. It wasn’t a matter of will but of pure physical strength. My mind wanted more, but my muscles quivered in failure after multiple attempts. I began to shiver as I got cold. I was told I could not continue. . . .

In the Physical Fitness Test, for example, a male perfect score is achieved by an 18-minute three-mile run, 20 pull-ups and 100 sit-ups in two minutes. A female perfect score is a 21-minute three-mile run, a 70-second flexed-arm hang and 100 sit-ups in two minutes. There was a move to shift from arm hangs to pull-ups for women last year. Yet 55 percent of female recruits were unable to meet the minimum of three, and the plan was put on hold.​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only a foolish Progressive Liberal white male could fail to see how utterly insulting it is to suggest that females and other minorities are incapable of surpassing your abilities without unfair advantages.

I'm no liberal and until we actually see women passing uniform PT standards, I'm feeling pretty comfortable in arguing that they can't do so. Whether this position is insulting or not is of no consequence, for I'm not tasked with making people feel good about themselves - that job is theirs alone.

Recent evidence, 14 of the most determined (and very likely most physically fit) women tried and failed:

I was one of four women in the group, bringing the number to 14 female officers who had attempted the course since it was opened to women in the fall of 2012. All the women so far had failed — all but one of them on the first day. . . .

But there came a point when I could not persuade my body to perform. It wasn’t a matter of will but of pure physical strength. My mind wanted more, but my muscles quivered in failure after multiple attempts. I began to shiver as I got cold. I was told I could not continue. . . .

In the Physical Fitness Test, for example, a male perfect score is achieved by an 18-minute three-mile run, 20 pull-ups and 100 sit-ups in two minutes. A female perfect score is a 21-minute three-mile run, a 70-second flexed-arm hang and 100 sit-ups in two minutes. There was a move to shift from arm hangs to pull-ups for women last year. Yet 55 percent of female recruits were unable to meet the minimum of three, and the plan was put on hold.​

Tell you what, the day you can do this is the day I will listen to your opinion on what women can, and cannot, do. Until them keep your fucking misogynistic mouth shut.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mirMEsFI07o]Kacy Catanzaro at the 2014 Dallas Qualifiers | American Ninja Warrior - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Politico]

Educate me. Have there been a lot of incidents of male Captains of a warship having sexual relations with male subordinates?

Again your hate of gays has what to do with the story?

Luddy made the claim that men do this. I know of only one incident involving a female subordinate but it didn't involve sex, so I'm assuming that all of these men who do this, have sex with a subordinate, had sex with male subordinates.

I asked luddy to educate me about all of these male Captains and I haven't read anything from him yet. He's the one who immediately jumped to defense mode and claimed that male officers do this. Can't make women look bad, no sir, that can never be permitted. OK, if he's going to make the claim I'm going to assume that HE ACTUALLY KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING OUT rather than just talking out of his ass. Is that a bad thing for me to do, to assume that when people on this board write something that they actually KNOW it to be true?

The Navy has relieved the commander of a mine-sweeper for having an “unduly familiar relationship” with his female second-in-command. The case, believed to be the first firing of the top two officers on the same ship for fraternizing with one another . . .

I feel compelled to respond to one aspect of this….There was no “hooking up,” as one poster so colorfully put it.

I screwed up quite enough, but it wasn’t that bad…

This will be my last comment, but I can’t let another Officer’s (XO LCDR Laird) reputation be questioned like that and just let it go.​

Here is an explanation for how one's behavior can qualify as "unduly familiar":

Department head is constantly going to dinner/lunch/various social functions with two of his officers, but does not invite others. Whenever an invited officer and a non-invited disagree, he sides with the invited one. The invited ones also always fare better on fitreps despite objective markers of performance. This is frat. Another example: a different department head becomes friends with a wardroom spouse. They pt together, are constantly inviting each other over for dinner and the department head often gossips and complains about other members of the wardroom to both the spouse and the officer. Also frat. No sex in either scenario but both led to major morale issues wherein people felt they were at a professional disadvantage because of the personal relationships. It happens. A lot. . . .

One poster who claims to be familiar with the case said most are over-reacting to the charge of fraternization. “The idea that people’s mind go directly to sex and physical involvement rather than the possible close attentive relationship needs to be reviewed as to how this term is used,” the poster noted. “Frankly it’s like planting a big red F on the front of someone’s uniform when it could literally be just a perception with one night of drinking and folks seeing an interaction that led to absolutely nothing. A whole 28-year stellar career [Rushton's] was tossed out the door because of one human mistake that took less 3 seconds and never happened again.”​

Nice multi paragraph attempt at deflection. What Luddly said is irrelevant. You asked about gay male captains. Seeing as this case does not involve anyone having gay sex you obviously brought it up for the purpose of propagating a gay hating agenda.

 

[JoeB131]

Only a foolish Progressive Liberal white male could fail to see how utterly insulting it is to suggest that females and other minorities are incapable of surpassing your abilities without unfair advantages.

Progressive Liberals like you are what make this country and the services suck now ... What continually degrades our abilities to compete with a close eye on excellence and superiority.
You are stupid enough to think that there isn't any kind of difference in giving a person a chance to prove themselves and their worthiness ... Versus the inability to accomplish anything under the same indentical set of standards.

Requirements are different according to gender or race in the service now ... And there is nothing equal about it.
You are the one who seems to support lessening the criteria and sacrificing excellence in an attempt to progress social engineering in the services.
A lot of soldiers like myself don't need a different set of standards to whip your ass ... And we don't care if you try to support the idea you somehow superior by thinking we need your help.

This case is no different in the eyes of the law because the Commander is female.

.

Um, there's a "lower standard" for minorities? Really? Okay, that might explain how Alan West became a Colonel despite being batshit crazy.

I'm sort of indifferent on the concept of "standards'. Standards are what you have in peacetime when those are coveted jobs. When you have a war, you take what you can get.

You think they enforced much of a standard in World War 2 when they put 16 million dudes (10% of the population) in uniform? Nope, they took what they could get.

Let's not forget, during Vietnam, when all the hippies were finding ways to avoid the draft, the Army made up the difference by taking guys with criminal records as an alternative to prison.

And then we get to the current standard. Again, the Army lowered its standards on age, education, criminal backgrounds in order to keep Bush's wars going after they stopped being popular...

So you had Nidal Hassan who wanted to get out and couldn't. Until he shot up an office.

You had Bradley Manning (or is that Chelsea) who they wanted to Wash out in Boot Camp. But dammit, we had a quota to fill, so this transvestite somehow got access to our top military secrets the Army was keeping from the American Public....er... I mean the enemy. Yeah. The Enemy.

You had Bowe Bergdahl, who washed out of the Coast Guard for Psych reasons, but darnit, the Army would totally take that guy!

Now, getting back to your rant about "progressives", I present this chart showing how many service members a year were kicked out for being gay under DADT

You see a pattern here? After Clinton signed the law, the number of discharges for being gay INCREASED year over year. Partially because they forgot the third part of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" which was "Don't Pursue". Commanders who suspected soldiers of being gay kept going after them even though they weren't supposed to.

And then we get to 2002, the first year of the "War on Terror", and suddenly, the number drops. Not because "liberals" were pushing the issue, but because they needed to fill boots.