NZ Navy vessel came close to capsize in Southern Ocean

[Baker]

Originally Posted by Fletcher500

The current environment (at least in the US) is to question facts, and sources, so I won't bother posting the links to some of the reputable science based web sites I found on a google search noting that GW may indeed be the cause of larger wave heights we are experiencing. IE, rogue waves have always been around, but their frequency appears to be increasing.

Cigarette smokers are 50% more likely to get divorced than non smokers. So do cigarettes cause divorce????

What does this have to do with this discussion????? There is a chance that the frequency of rogue waves is not increasing at all. It is simply because we have the ability to monitor them more closely. My point here is that you can't always take something at face value. There may be other things at play. In this case....the ability to measure/monitor/report rogue waves.

[BruceK]

But but but, the article is PC, the boat had a female Commander.
NZ only recently, after a long ban,permitted US nuclear powered vessels in its waters.
NZ has strong "progressive" views on a number of subjects.
Surely none of the additional easily ignored verbiage detracts from the essence of the report.

[Benthic2]

Originally Posted by BruceK

But but but, the article is PC, the boat had a female Commander.

This comment is completely out of line. The gender of the skipper is totally irrelevant, and for you to suggest it is, says more about you than the article.

[BruceK]

Originally Posted by Benthic2

This comment is completely out of line. The gender of the skipper is totally irrelevant, and for you to suggest it is, says more about you than the article.

Oh Benthic,do lighten up.

[Peter B]

Originally Posted by BruceK

Oh Benthic,do lighten up.

Yes, fair comment. But Bruce, sorry but you are wrong re this comment...

"NZ only recently, after a long ban, permitted US nuclear powered vessels in its waters."

It appears it is still in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ze...lear-free_zone

[Benthic2]

There is a lot of low hanging fruit on this thread. However...to suggest that the gender of the skipper is a relevant detail is TOTALLY out of line and completely unacceptable.

A big wave vs a medium ship will always be an interesting event.

Whether the skipper of that ship is a man or a woman is, and ALWAYS will be, totally irrelevant, and to suggest otherwise is an affront to both men and women, everywhere.

[Fletcher500]

Baker, it is relevant. Like it or not.

[3blade single]

"She blinded me with science." - Thomas Dolby

[BaltimoreLurker]

Originally Posted by Benthic2

There is a lot of low hanging fruit on this thread. However...to suggest that the gender of the skipper is a relevant detail is TOTALLY out of line and completely unacceptable.

I'm not so sure about that. If you follow the Naval Service you'll see it's still a pretty hot topic. Not saying who is right or wrong, I'm just saying that the gender issue isn't anything like settled.

[OldDan1943]

The US has at least one female Commanding submarine officer plus more than a few enlisted female members.
What I dont like is the women still consider pregnancy as an easy out.

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. OD. "...consider pregnancy as an easy out." I guess it depends on the intensity and duration of labor...Our first was about 20 minutes. Our second seemed like it took forever.

[Al]

Originally Posted by Benthic2

This was a political thread from the first post. The article linked is about a wave vs ship moment and yet it manages to loop in Chinese Human Rights and Global Warming ?

The thread title might as well have been "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here...."

Well played Sir, well played!!! LMAO:

[OldDan1943]

Originally Posted by RT Firefly

Greetings,
Mr. OD. "...consider pregnancy as an easy out." I guess it depends on the intensity and duration of labor...Our first was about 20 minutes. Our second seemed like it took forever.

RT, I know of female officers and enlisted women who told me, "If I dont like the (Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force etc) I will just get pregnant and get an early out. Meanwhile the shipmate fathers have to support the woman and child.

Sure am glad I was sterile. "Still not pregnant? Guess we better keep trying."
LOL Fooled her.

[MurrayM]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreLurker

I'm not so sure about that. If you follow the Naval Service you'll see it's still a pretty hot topic. Not saying who is right or wrong, I'm just saying that the gender issue isn't anything like settled.

People are weird...how could anyones gender compromise how they operate a vessel or supervise people? Some organizations are slow in adapting to a new normal. Women weren't allowed to compete in the marathon at the Olympics until 1984, one reason being it was feared their uteruses would fall out.

I like Prime Minister Trudeau's quote when asked why 1/2 his cabinet members were women, and he said "Because it's 2015"

[sbu22]

Dan - the first wave of female submarine officers will not screen for command until 2024 (assuming they touch all the required career bases). This would place the initial fem sub CO assignment at about 2026.

This isn't an issue of the inate ability (or inability) of females to perform tech functions. It is a fact that, in 2016, 16% of afloat female sailors were pregnant and reassigned from ships to shore duty. These transfers and the backfill cost the USN $110 million. Not to mention the effect on teams and unit cohesiveness.

"Because it's 2015" isn't much of an answer.

[OldDan1943]

Sbu22 and don't forget, the "father" must give the woman about 1/2 his pay forever even if they never marry or she refuses to see him or let him see the child ever again.

Yea, I may seem to be coming off as the 'heavy' but, this does happen way too often.

Maybe 20 years ago, pregnancy was an auto discharge. Now they fill of the shore billets, so the men cant have access to them. I was a machinist mate and I think there 100 shore billets available for this rate. I am not sure why any women can go into that rate unless it involved nuclear power training but, that use to recall, that's a 7 year enlistment. LOL

[sbu22]

Apologize for the tone and drift.

[MurrayM]

Originally Posted by sbu22

This isn't an issue of the inate ability (or inability) of females to perform tech functions. It is a fact that, in 2016, 16% of afloat female sailors were pregnant and reassigned from ships to shore duty. These transfers and the backfill cost the USN $110 million. Not to mention the effect on teams and unit cohesiveness.

The Canadian Government apparently takes a different view, in that it's not seen as an inconvenience and they want parents to take the time to establish bonds with their children.

Paternity leave in Canadian Forces - 37 weeks.
Paternity leave in US Army - 14 days.

Maternity leave in Canadian Forces (while pregnant and after) - 55 weeks,
Maternity leave in US Army - 12 weeks.

Adoption leave is also 37 weeks in Canada.

[BaltimoreLurker]

Originally Posted by MurrayM

The Canadian Government apparently takes a different view, in that it's not seen as an inconvenience and they want parents to take the time to establish bonds with their children.

Paternity leave in Canadian Forces - 37 weeks.
Paternity leave in US Army - 14 days.

Maternity leave in Canadian Forces (while pregnant and after) - 55 weeks,
Maternity leave in US Army - 12 weeks.

Adoption leave is also 37 weeks in Canada.

Might have something to do with a culture more martial and less social engineering centered, especially in the Naval Service. Think Tailhook and the Marine Corps continued resistance to women in combat MOS.


Not knocking the Army, CG, and Air Force .... well, maybe sort of, a little bit.

[psneeld]

USCG had female COs of combatants long before the Navy.

And yes, the USCG is then crazy enough to offer longer maternity leaves and then penalize them for not working enough.