OT: Update on Collision

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Ooo, I know where axes can be ground!

Do Gunnys also use that one to grind recruit a$$es, or just hold officer candidates noses to it?

[jamesjohns]

A

[jamesjohns]

a

[jamesjohns]

Typical Damage Control Officers of past generations......





Damage Control Officers in action

Somewhere in the South Pacific they position planes for take-off



Ship lost power, Damage Control Officer steps in



Emergency Repairs

[Lecivius]

DC, after an engine casualty, in The Good Ole Days

[Orm]

[&:]

I do not understand why it was so wrong to link the article that starts this thread. Regardless of what one thinks of the article itself.

[JohnDillworth]

Whole point of the article was to insinuate women are not fit to serve in the U.S. Navy. Factually full of holes, poorly researched and uses a primary source that trades in climate change denial, Obama is a secret Muslim crackpot theories. Lots went wrong in those incidents, I’ve read the reports. To blame it on gender, when none of the official evidence supports that ridiculous assertion, is offensive.

[jamesjohns]

Agreed,

Competence or incompetence in the military (or any organization) is nothing new and not related to sex, race, or creed. The article and source it is from, at best, ignored that fact

[witpqs]

Yup. And based on the OP's posts in the prior thread it was clearly his intention to continue claiming such.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

Whole point of the article was to insinuate women are not fit to serve in the U.S. Navy. Factually full of holes, poorly researched and uses a primary source that trades in climate change denial, Obama is a secret Muslim crackpot theories. Lots went wrong in those incidents, I’ve read the reports. To blame it on gender, when none of the official evidence supports that ridiculous assertion, is offensive.

Thank you.

My thinking, however, is that if what all you say is true about the article then I think it is still important to share knowledge about such a article. Preferably with comments about the articles faults although that can be difficult to do here without breaking the forum rules.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Yup. And based on the OP's posts in the prior thread it was clearly his intention to continue claiming such.

Missed that. Or forgot it.

[Jaroen]

Because that linked article implicitly puts doubt on the performance of women in the NAVY.

The reason that's not particularly nice is comparable to linking an article that implicitly puts doubt on the performance of blacks in the NAVY. Such articles did occur in the past. Rightfully nowadays you'd be castigated for being racist or, being more polite, being insensitive to understanding skin colour doesn't make the person.

The tricky bit is that there may very much be a thing with all kinds of sociological/demographical groups that have some "problems" serving our country. Like lack of education/well-educated, being poor/rich, from broken families/whole families, being a woman/man, being LBGT/straight, being whatever kind of group. If you can think of people being of some particular group you can be sure there's some sort of related "problem". And it should be good to have room to discuss them. Without blaming/shaming.

That particular linked article is not such a discussion. Hence it's not really the best way to offer any insight in the perhaps very real issue with ALL female oficers serving within the NAVY. And I believe by just putting it such it's clear to anyone that the situation is much more nuanced than that. Actually, as some have pointed out already, about 70% of ALL newly trained commanders didn't do good on putting theory to practice.

Soooo, now you know why linking such an article without comment and without further opinion and framing is not quite helpful.

In my opinion it could be very interesting to discuss the possible issue of the NAVY brass covering up the names/gender of the people involved. Is it really so? Any definate reason why? But the simple linking of that particular article without anything doesn't offer much hope for reasonable discussions on different subjects. Which can be another reason for posting it like that not being helpful.

[BBfanboy]

So far the upshot of the discussions seems to be that training and opportunity to practice skills has been an issue among all junior crew, and that needs to be addressed . Hopefully the budget increases made for the USN have not all gone to ultra-techie ultra-expensive new concept ships/weapons and some will be devoted to more training and monitoring. That includes cruises.exercises in light navigation areas before being deployed into the heavily traveled navigation areas.

[crsutton]

It is a hack article from a hack website. I would be ashamed if I posted it here. Although there was plenty of complacency and neglect to go around the disaster referred to in the article, it is the responsibility of the captain. It is his responsibility to see that his officers and crew are performing their duties. It is always the captains responsibility. There were no women present at the disaster below. I am sure there were some Filipino mess boys though. Perhaps we can pin it on them.

[jamesjohns]

In 1907 some young Naval Officer ran the USS Decatur aground and was court martialed for it. (Chester Nimitz)

[Canoerebel]

I wish you all would steer clear of politics and stating opinions on issues that divide us.

I am familiar with Stacy McCain, the writer of the article in question. He was a columnist here in my little town. I haven't read anything he's written in the last few years, but I know him as a strong writer with conservative views. I don't think of him as a hack. As far as I know, the Washington Times is a conservative newspaper, which is fine by me. Most of the newspapers and other major media in our country are left-leaning or far-left-leaning. It won't hurt us to have a few on the other side.

What does skepticism about climate change have to do with the legitimacy of one's viewpoints? Are we suspect if we haven't bought into climate change? I haven't bought in since I began studying it in the 1980s. My views are based upon my own study of science, meteorology, statistics and politics. I have never watched Fox News. I did not vote for Donald Trump. But folks on the left would label me a nut for my views. Some have expressed a desire to have people like me jailed. The global warming-think has become some kind of weird cult.

I am neither a Republican or a Democrat, but I have very strong views developed on my own, without major input from media. As many of you know, I don't watch television. I do spend a lot of time reading from all kinds of sources. My views on a number of issues would make many of you irate, no doubt. So I don't post them.

If this post makes any of you wish I hadn't posted it, good. We all need to desist from this kind of crap.

[Anachro]

+1

That said, for me personally, I don't think the issue for some here is incompetence of women at a basic level as much as it is the "affirmative action" that AW1Steve alluded to in my previous thread on the subject, which I would take to mean any sort of slackening of standards, bad leadership, and bad administration that has produced a substandard level of seamanship across the navy over the last decade.

Were the women properly trained or were they let down by superiors who were quick to pass them through training to fulfill a quota? Was it simply bad training and leadership across the board? Are the recent mishaps because the navy is overburdened with missions and has little time to devote to training? I don't think any of us know the answer; I suspect its probably some sort of confluence of various factors that have produced the outcomes we see today.

But instead of flinging ad hominem attacks at each other and assuming the worst, we should all focus on the issues themselves and discuss them without rancor. I believe such topics are worthy of discussion in a naval-oriented forum such as this and I would not want to consign ourselves to merely discussing the game and its mechanics in perpetuity.

[JohnDillworth]

Dan, I hate to disagree but there are plenty of conservative newspapers but it's an insult to them to call the Washington Times a newspaper. It is a propaganda tract purse and simple. It spent years posting that Obama was a secret Muslim, born in Kenya and was courting the Jihadist vote. It also spent years promoting false conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of Seth Rich, a DNC staffer. It prints what it wants even when there is confirmed evidence to the contrary. Newspapers are entitled to opinions.....thats why they have editorial sections. To post lies to advance your political views is wrong. Where I come from facts matter....the truth matters and you will find little of either in the Washington Times. Moreover the original articles entire purpose was to call into question the leadership abilities of female naval officers. You may like and respect the author, but the article is poorly researched and the author clearly didn't read the official accident reports. He states his opinions as facts without any backing evidence whatsoever, cites no evidence, nor backs up his assertion of big , burly damage control officers saving ships because they were genuine he-men. Read the article again....would you have been proud to write that?

[Canoerebel]

Although I feel strongly about this topic, my views aren't appropriate to the Forum, which has always maintained a remarkably civil and neutral tone. So I'm redacting my comments here.

I think I'll put myself on probation for awhile. [:)]

[LST Express]

This is one of those tail chasing threads. An opinion by one person will change no one else’s opinion but it’ll just keep on going round and round.