Land Life / Boat Life

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by fishwife

I'd written a long reply to this but a sailing forum isn't really the place, so I'm going to say just one thing. I know many decent men, some of whom I'm lucky to be able to call friend. I don't know of a single one who doesn't think, deep down, that there should be a captain and an admiral, rather than joint captains. That works for most of my female friends, it doesn't for me.

Paige

You can be the captain....on your own boat. When you're on my boat, however, you're part of the crew, just as I wouldn't expect that stepping on your boat automatically makes me the captain there. 'Joint captains' ('co-captains') is for pansies.

[unbusted67]

Originally Posted by Not Sure

'Joint captains' ('co-captains') is for pansies.

Well that's an enlightened view. I'm sure there are some husband and wife teams out there that would be happy to argue that with you, minus the name calling.

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by unbusted67

Well that's an enlightened view. I'm sure there are some husband and wife teams out there that would be happy to argue that with you, minus the name calling.

The purpose of the captain is to be in charge of the boat and all aspects of its operation. This is never as evident as in an emergency, when decisions need to be made and orders followed post-haste. In such a circumstance, there can't be confusion about who is in charge exactly, nor debate/argument about the best course of action to take.

The term, 'too many chiefs, and not enough indians' comes to mind. It's not about 'enlightenment' ....nor chauvinism, discrimination, or any other 'ism'. It's about decision-making and responsibility.....and on a boat, rule by committee is a recipe for disaster.

My use of the term 'pansy' in this instance is for lack of a better word for a weak-willed man that capitulates to the will of the woman to also be called the 'captain'. If you can think of a better word, then have at it -- 'milquetoast' maybe? If the woman wants to be the captain, then fine....be the captain. The man is now the first mate. But along with the title goes all of the inherent responsibility and decision-making that being captain entails, it can't just be pawned off back on the man when it's convenient to do so. That is captain by proxy.

[Ocean Girl]

Originally Posted by Not Sure

The purpose of the captain is to be in charge of the boat and all aspects of its operation. This is never as evident as in an emergency, when decisions need to be made and orders followed post-haste. In such a circumstance, there can't be confusion about who is in charge exactly, nor debate/argument about the best course of action to take.

The term, 'too many chiefs, and not enough indians' comes to mind. It's not about 'enlightenment' ....nor chauvinism, discrimination, or any other 'ism'. It's about decision-making and responsibility.....and on a boat, rule by committee is a recipe for disaster.

My use of the term 'pansy' in this instance is for lack of a better word for a weak-willed man that capitulates to the will of the woman to also be called the 'captain'. If you can think of a better word, then have at it -- 'milquetoast' maybe? If the woman wants to be the captain, then fine....be the captain. The man is now the first mate. But along with the title goes all of the inherent responsibility and decision-making that being captain entails, it can't just be pawned off back on the man when it's convenient to do so. That is captain by proxy.

You are comparing a crewed vessel with a double handed sailing team...apples and oranges

The cruising couple expample - Mom and dad sailed around the world together. They never discussed who is the captain, when the poop hit the fan there was team work to resolve the issue.

The crewing boat example- I crewed on many boats for many miles and as crew I obeyed the captain, even if I thought it wasn't a good idea.

Cheers,
Erika

[marujo.sortudo]

Personally, I don't think it matters what the titles are, or if there are any. There simply needs to be an understanding that when all hell breaks loose, someone takes charge and there are no debates, no arguments, just quick, responsive action. Some couples might need structure to achieve this (one partner is the skipper, whoever is on watch is the skipper, etc.), but other couples might just be in sync enough to do it without structure. Just do what works in an emergency, and keeps everyone happy the rest of the time. Simple. It's a good test of a relationship, too, I imagine.

-Colin

[paradix]

Looking at the analysis of major aircraft accidents over the years, it's clear that many could have been avoided if the co-pilot/first officer/engineer had felt able to challenge what was clearly a bad call on the part of the captain. While this isn't a reason not to have those roles defined, it is surely evidence that more than one head in a crisis is a good thing. A joint response to an emergency, while it might cost you some time, might also save your life.

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by paradix

Looking at the analysis of major aircraft accidents over the years, it's clear that many could have been avoided if the co-pilot/first officer/engineer had felt able to challenge what was clearly a bad call on the part of the captain. While this isn't a reason not to have those roles defined, it is surely evidence that more than one head in a crisis is a good thing. A joint response to an emergency, while it might cost you some time, might also save your life.

Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not stupid or vain enough not to recognize a good idea when I hear one, nor am I bashful when it comes to substituting the good idea for my own, or giving praise, recognition, and kudos to the source of the good idea. What I don't need, however....and can't abide...is the constant arguing and debate over decisions made, and the hurt feelings when the proffered idea is rejected.

Part of being 'captain' is manning up when you've made bad decisions, a trait that appears to be sorely lacking these days in both men and women.

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

You are comparing a crewed vessel with a double handed sailing team...apples and oranges

The cruising couple expample - Mom and dad sailed around the world together. They never discussed who is the captain, when the poop hit the fan there was team work to resolve the issue.

The crewing boat example- I crewed on many boats for many miles and as crew I obeyed the captain, even if I thought it wasn't a good idea.

Cheers,
Erika

No, I'm saying on any boat......and particularly on a boat crewed by a couple. Somebody needs to be in charge, whether it's agreed on or talked about or not. Clearly in your parents instance, when 'the poop hit the fan', somebody took charge and somebody took orders. Otherwise they wouldn't have made it around the world. It's as simple as that.

[Ocean Girl]

Originally Posted by Not Sure

No, I'm saying on any boat......and particularly on a boat crewed by a couple. Somebody needs to be in charge, whether it's agreed on or talked about or not. Clearly in your parents instance, when 'the poop hit the fan', somebody took charge and somebody took orders. Otherwise they wouldn't have made it around the world. It's as simple as that.

The cruising couple is different:
Actually you are still wrong (sorry but had to say it). I crossed the gulf with em and also down around Belize. What I observed was: when a conflict arose one would say "lets do this" and the other would comply or say "wait, how about this"? they would agree and move on. It didn't happen very often because they practically communicated through osmosis or something..by the time they circumnavigated they were a well oiled machine.

I personally would not crew on a boat without a captain. If it was a cruising couple boat I would need clarification who is the order giver period. BTW that usually entailed whoever was on watch.
But hey what ever works for ya,
Erika

[rusky]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

The cruising couple is different:
Actually you are still wrong (sorry but had to say it). I crossed the gulf with em and also down around Belize. What I observed was: when a conflict arose one would say "lets do this" and the other would comply or say "wait, how about this"? they would agree and move on. It didn't happen very often because they practically communicated through osmosis or something..by the time they circumnavigated they were a well oiled machine.

I personally would not crew on a boat without a captain. If it was a cruising couple boat I would need clarification who is the order giver period. BTW that usually entailed whoever was on watch.
But hey what ever works for ya,
Erika

Agree with all you are saying Erika

Well, just our experience. I sort out boat stuff - work the sails, maintain boat and engine etc. I do most of the navigating. My other half is the catering officer and can work sails/nav etc but we have pretty clearly demarcated roles. We just do it without having a big discussion. FOr example, when we anchor, we dont usually say a word but know what the other wants - like your osmosis comment.

We (I) jokingly refer to her as the admiral [ as an admiral outranks a captain] but we do all the planning together, and when on passage, if one of us is uncomfortable, we always have a plan B , or C up our sleeves.

No passages for a while now - kitty replenishment stuff.

[unbusted67]

I think hundreds, if not thousands of years, of nautical history will prove the need for a Captain. There is far less history proving that the term "Pansy" is not totally offensive.

[Chief Engineer]

I found a woman who I would love to sail with.

She is smart, well read, inquisitive,reasonably strong, and has a wonderful singing voice....we harmonize quite well in various music genres Country, Sea Shanties Irish/Folk

Unfortunately her husband (who is a nice guy)............

[Talbot]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

The cruising couple is different

My military background would insist on clear lines of authority, but I like the concept of consensus on longer timeline decisions, and when sailing, the watchkeeper is the boss. It is silly for the person roused out of sleep, unfamiliar with the conditions at that moment, to want to take charge.

It does however, require confidence in the abilities of your partner!

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by unbusted67

There is far less history proving that the term 'Pansy' is not totally offensive.

And yet I thought it was better than my first choice, which also had 5 letters and started with a 'p'.

I don't think that there's any easy way to convey the notion of a p****whipped male without offending someone or the other.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

I started this post with a half humored attitude about how land people and boat preceive me. I had to reread my original post because I was confused why it was going "gender". I guess you all are more intuitive than I am. So you are not off topic cause I think this is the kind of thread that you let go where it wants to go.

After starting the thread I had to go back and reread your post because I didn't remember you saying it bothered you...in fact, you specifically said it didn't...and it seemed you were saying "isn't it weird to be high on a scale in one group and low on the same scale in another group".

Like if people in my climbing group are impressed at how flexible I am but people in my yoga group laugh at how inflexible I am.

I am average build but I feel small when around my family and large when at a running event.

It's the relevant comparison group that changes so your ranking in it changes so you feel...different.

I can relate because generally I'm on the low end of girly in my social circles but higher end in my climbing/sailing circles...because of painted toes too!