Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, April 20, 2017

Every submarine in the U.S. fleet was designed with the height, reach and strength of men in mind, from the way valves are placed to how display screens are angled. That's going to change. With women now serving aboard submarines, defense contractor Electric Boat is designing what will be the first Navy subs built specifically to accommodate female crew members. The designers are doing the obvious things, such as adding more doors and washrooms to create separate sleeping and bathing areas for men and women and to give them more privacy. But they are also making more subtle modifications that may not have been in everyone's periscope when the Navy admitted women into the Silent Service. For example, they are lowering some overhead valves and making them easier to turn, and installing steps in front of the triple-high bunk beds and stacked laundry machines.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Half the sub will be smeared with bright fingernail polish and glitter.

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-04-19 06:26 PM | Reply

A tampon dispenser in every bathroom and a ----- in every bed.

Hey it's the navy.

Based on what Goatman told me. What happens at sea, stays at sea. [...]

#2 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-04-19 06:31 PM | Reply

maybe this link works: abcnews.go.com

#3 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-04-19 08:13 PM | Reply

What happens at sea, stays at sea.

#2 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2017-04-19 06:31 PM | FLAG:

Women on combat ships goes hand in hand with a huge rise of prostitution on combat ships. I bet the gay hookers are pissed at losing their monopoly.

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-04-19 09:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

#4

FF!

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-04-19 09:13 PM | Reply

Hovered on the article link fully expecting it to be a Duffleblog piece, and was surprised to see Associated Press.

The clickthru link didn't work for me, but I found article reprints on legitimate sources. (ex, www.sfgate.com)

#6 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-04-19 10:12 PM | Reply

"On the body of the wrong woman, on a boat of horny, sex starved men, it may as well be an atom bomb."

You might as well be quoting the Koran.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-20 01:38 PM | Reply

There are already female officers either already on subs, or in the training program to be Nuke qualified. Women serving on the enlisted side will be new..

It would be "interesting" if there ever came to be an all-female submarine, lol.

#10 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-04-20 01:46 PM | Reply

Why would that be more "interesting" than an all-male submarine?

Are you telling us you're not gay? Is that what supposed to be "interesting?"

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-20 01:49 PM | Reply


Which woman is that?

#8 | Posted by snoofy

If the selection is thin, any woman.

#12 | Posted by boaz at 2017-04-20 01:51 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

what supposed to be "interesting?"
#11 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Metrics on mission readiness, maintenance of the sub, crew morale, etc.

#13 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-04-20 01:51 PM | Reply

It would be "interesting" if there ever came to be an all-female submarine, lol.

It would sink. They wouldn't be able to back the thing up...

#14 | Posted by boaz at 2017-04-20 01:52 PM | Reply

Well that will screw up the "what is long and hard and full of seamen" joke.

#15 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-04-20 01:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#7

Disgusting misogyny.

Also, inconsistent with your traditional claims of how disciplined military personnel are.

#16 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-04-20 02:01 PM | Reply

There are already female officers either already on subs, or in the training program to be Nuke qualified.

I believe there is a woman in command of donald's "armada" that is not on it's way to Korea.

#17 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-04-20 02:11 PM | Reply

#16,

It's truth. I've been in units with 2 women and 80 men. Depending on where you are, the tension can be thick. The women are loving it. The men are hair triggers. Human nature cannot be politically corrected out of existence.

Just as when a group of females are in an enclosed area for a few months, their periods start to match whoever is the alpha female. You cannot get around nature.

#18 | Posted by boaz at 2017-04-20 02:22 PM | Reply

#18

Your view of men is nearly as insulting as your view of women, and just as unscientific. I pity you, walking around so misguided.

And note the second part of my post: if men are really as out of control as you suggest, they probably shouldn't be trusted with weapons (including literal nuclear weapons).

#19 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-04-20 02:26 PM | Reply

Your view of the world is naïve and stupid. I wouldn't expect you to be able to comprehend what I'm talking about.

You are a liberal.

I say what I say because I have lived it. I have seen it. I don't care how "insulting" you think something is. And your smug attitude at something that's real is stupid. You cant be misguided when you have lived something and seen it with your own eyes.

You must have never dealt with many young people at one time and had to lead them.

Well, I have...

You cant take your pity and shove it..

#20 | Posted by boaz at 2017-04-20 02:33 PM | Reply

#20

The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence", slick.

Your logic (such as it is), these concerns over unit cohesion, would have you fighting (or whatever you actually do) in a segregated unit. How does it feel to use that sort of reasoning on others?

#22 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-04-20 02:47 PM | Reply

#21

Nice logic. They can be trusted with billion dollar weapons systems but not to restrain their impulses. You just can't get around your own inconsistency on this.

#23 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-04-20 02:49 PM | Reply

If the selection is thin, any woman.
#12 | POSTED BY BOAZ

And if the selection is zero, you'll make do with a man...
Kinda like what Stz said in #4.
#MAGA

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-20 03:03 PM | Reply

"You must have never dealt with many young people at one time and had to lead them."

Ever led any women?

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-20 03:06 PM | Reply

And if the selection is zero, you'll make do with a man...
Kinda like what Stz said in #4.
#MAGA

#24 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-04-20 03:03 PM | FLAG:

And if there are no men? Anything, animal, mineral, or vegetable, becomes fair game. Because that is TOTALLY how human sexuality works. /snark

#26 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-04-20 03:07 PM | Reply

They can be trusted with billion dollar weapons systems but not to restrain their impulses. You just can't get around your own inconsistency on this.

#23 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-04-20 02:49 PM | Reply

How is that inconsistent?

We had a friggin Commander in Chief who could not restrain his impulses around a young woman. And he was trusted to continue running the country after being caught.

There are countless similar examples. You'd have to be ignorant to most of human history to find anything inconsistent about a man with alot of responsibility being irresponsible when it comes to women.

#27 | Posted by Sully at 2017-04-20 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How is that inconsistent?
We had a friggin Commander in Chief who could not restrain his impulses around a young woman. And he was trusted to continue running the country after being caught.
There are countless similar examples. You'd have to be ignorant to most of human history to find anything inconsistent about a man with alot of responsibility being irresponsible when it comes to women.

#27 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2017-04-20 03:13 PM | FLAG:

Again, individual cases do not constitute evidence that even a majority of men lack self control in this area. They certainly don't validate the position that gender segregation in the military should continue. Rather, they highlight the need to promote cultures of inclusivity and to establish safeguards against misconduct: as has been done (albeit in fits and starts) virtually everywhere else in the working world.

#28 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-04-20 03:20 PM | Reply

Like our old buddy Momar Gadaffi for example, living out his senior days ------ nubile girls.

Sully is your point that's just the way it is, so it's unrealistic to expect an American President to significantly raise the bar when it comes to his personal conduct?

I'm sure that's not your point. Tell me what your angle is here?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-20 03:22 PM | Reply

Sully is your point that's just the way it is, so it's unrealistic to expect an American President to significantly raise the bar when it comes to his personal conduct?

I'm sure that's not your point. Tell me what your angle is here?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-04-20 03:22 PM | Reply:

Huh? I was just trying to remind Boyd that there are countless of exmaples of otherwise competent, responsible people behaving "badly" when sex is involved. And that men in particular seem prone to this.

I wasn't making a point about how a president should act or who should and should not be allowed in the military. I could actually care less if people are screwing in submarines.

I just found it odd that someone would pretend not to know that people often do things they know they 'shouldn't' when sex is involved. The cotinued charade is still odd.

#30 | Posted by Sully at 2017-04-20 03:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Important info for discussion: youtu.be

#31 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-04-20 03:50 PM | Reply

When I served women were only on Tenders.

But after both cruises I was on you could see women being frog marched off the boat for prostitution or pregnancy. Mostly prostitution.

#32 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-04-20 04:54 PM | Reply

"Huh? I was just trying to remind Boyd that there are countless of exmaples of otherwise competent, responsible people behaving "badly" when sex is involved."

Who is Boyd? I thought your comments were addressed to me. As for your point, it is fairly uncontroversial. It is also trivial. The fact that some people act inappropriately does not mean that most will or support the continued segregation of the military. Likewise, sexual misconduct occurs even in gender segregated environments.

"And that men in particular seem prone to this."

You didn't even assert that this problem was gender specific in your original post. You certainly haven't proven it.

#33 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-04-20 05:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 3


If someone wants to serve our Country in the military, and is capable of doing so, why should anyone deny them their want?

Most, if not all, the concerns regarding the sex aspect seem to be because some people cannot control their urges. Maybe those people who are unable to control themselves are the ones who should not be in the military.

Ya know, personal responsibility and all that.

#34 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-04-20 08:48 PM | Reply


[aside to rcade: the link on the headline no longer seems to work]

Maybe this one:
www.sandiegouniontribune.com

?

#35 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-04-20 08:54 PM | Reply

Women have served in the Israeli military for years without major problems, is anyone saying American men serving can not obey orders and and act as well as Israeli men?

#36 | Posted by THomewood at 2017-04-21 03:43 AM | Reply

I've been to Israel and stayed with a family who had a daughter who was in the IDF. She was dating a fellow soldier. On the down low of course, she was even hiding it from her dad.

It's all the same, it's not a problem unless you make it one.

#37 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-04-21 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I would like to know how many tens of millions the modifications cost the taxpayer, just to have a politically correct crew.

#38 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-04-21 01:43 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort