Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Women on submarines as soon as next week...sorry not a fan

12K views 139 replies 47 participants last post by  Magnum 
#1 ·
The Day - First women to report to subs graduate | News from southeastern Connecticut

Don't get me wrong...this is not about sexism because there is nothing about being a submariner requiring great physical strength (especially since these are officers...ZING!), I digress anyway all you need is intelligence and coolness under pressure. My problem lies in the history and traditions of the submarine force that will not be the same with a mixed gender crew. Trust me there's no time or room for "relations", so I'm not worried about that but...why would women even want to be on subs with guys like me and other dudes I know. They don't call us dirty boat sailors for nothin. It'll never be the same.
 
#39 ·
I've flown with many, many female aircrew members. Some good, some not so good, just like the men.
Spending a limited amount of time flying with female crew members is not even in the same league as living with them in close quarters for months at at time.

Not even close.

Consider that submarines don't even have private beds for the crews. Sure, just by habit you'll generally pick the same one but it wasn't unusual for someone else to sleep in it when you were on watch.

For the interested people that think its a great idea to put women on a sub, lets see how that submarine smells after its been underwater for three months. Even the wives of the men that are submariners have been known to throw the clothes away after they came home from a patrol because they stunk so much that they would stink up the whole house. I'm pretty sure that the addition of women thrown in wont make it any better.

Subs have an odor all their own and unless you have been on one you can not "appreciate" it.

The addition of women on combat craft, or even in some support functions is not as great as it seems. The Military has a habit of keeping certain events quiet like, just to protect themselves. Having a brother that is a Major in the Air Force, a BIL that is a Sergeant Major, a nephew on the U.S.S. Reagan, a niece in the National Guard, I do hear of some gender based events that one will never hear anywhere else. Its a problem, its always been a problem and its always going to be a problem and anyone that thinks that young kids full of hormones stacked together for long periods of time isn't a recipe for hard times is only kidding themselves.

While I personally have no problem with women in most military functions, there are no other military functions that are even remotely the same as the submarine force. There is a whole culture there that you will never see or hear about unless you have been part of it.

I am not questioning their integrity, ability, their love of country or their willingness to participate. I'm just saying that injecting them into something that they will have no idea about until they get there is unneeded, unnecessary and unwise.

And ask yourself this question...

WHY?

Subs have opertated just fine since the creation of them without woman. We have the best, most capable submarine force on the planet...second to none.

WHY do we need to add another variable to the equation of something that has been so efficient for so long?

There is an old saying amongst skilled craftsman...

If it works, dont fix it.
 
#40 ·
Doodle,

Your post #29 was a well written expression of your feelings on the matter. I understand your resistance to change. And your fear for the nature of the close knit group that are submariners.

There have been situations in my work life which might parallel. For years (over a decade), I worked with a woman as my direct co-worker (only 2 operators in this building per shift). Our process dealt with highly hazardous chemicals nearly every day. Improper handling or an emergent situation could have, at the least, called for evacuation of some 50,000 residents and workers from the city. At the worse... blast crater of 1/2 mile, takes out one hospital for sure and probably breaks windows in the other, and kills ~35,000.

I have not worked with men in the same department whom I would trust more with my life. Both of us were the type that would run towards a fire. And I could count on her to carry her share of the load and more any time we had an emergency. We had a few very serious issues during my tenure in that building. In some of those cases, we can honestly say we saved the lives (or at least the livelihood) of the 135 people on site (and our own). One time we did so with monkey sh__ (putty) and duct tape. Another time in the pitch dark when lights and a 10,000 watt generator failed.

And in that 10 years of working together, in a closed, locked, and secure building with every opportunity possible; there was no hanky, no panky, no spanky.

My point is this... my guess is that the women who signed up for this duty, are the type that run towards "fires" and are probably fully aware of what they are headed into. My guess is that if they get on good boats, with good men, and prove themselves, they will be an accepted, respected part of the team. There will ALWAYS be those with whom they do not get along. But those will eventually cull themselves or retire out.
 
#41 ·
Good post gold shellback...

Now, off topic...... I'm about to be out of a job. Who's hiring?
Go nuclear. Power. Utility plants.Nuclear Power Plants.

They need experienced people. A large part of them are ex Navy. It pays well. Check it out.
Its a small industry. You'll probably recognize some of your shipmates there.
 
#42 ·
Doodle, it doesn't matter if you like it or not. It's happened and nothing is going to change it. Some of here remember the screaming about how the Navy was doomed when they put women on board ships (other than hospital ships). How the Army was doomed when women were allowed into combat zones. How the Air Force was doomed when women were allowed in the cockpit., and before the cockpit how it was doomed when they were put into aircraft maintenance. Guess what.....life went on, the different branches continued to do their job and for the most part nothing changed.

I'm old enough to remember police carrying nothing but revolvers. I can remember family members who were LEO talking about quitting the force, before they'd carry one of those "damn" automatic pistols. They made the transition, granted there were heel marks on the floor where some of them were dragged, but they made it.

Change is the only thing in the world that is constant. Get use to it, it's coming and you can't stop it.
 
#43 ·
"Change is the only thing in the world that is constant. Get use to it, it's coming and you can't stop it"

Of all the "change" that has happened in the world and our country in since the sub forces started their traditions, the notion of women on subs is one of the least worrisome to me.

I've enjoyed reading this lively discussion! Maybe the solution is to assign sub crews by sex, the all women subs and the all men subs.
 
#51 ·
Won't work...qualification process is passed down knowledge. Every good submariner is a good submariner because of the awesome submariner he learned from.
 
#47 ·
I appreciate the desire of some women to serve their country.

That said, the military does discriminate - and for good reasons. Too old? Too young? Too fat? Too immature? Too stupid? Too out of shape? Have physical limitations? Sorry - don't want you. Just because you "want" to serve, does not mean it is in everyone's best interests for you to be allowed to.

The bottom line is that LIVES are on the line. I've been in both all-male combat units, and in mixed-gender combat support units. I can tell you that the physical fitness of the MEN suffers in units that have women in them, because the women simply cannot keep up (in general) and that brings the fitness of the whole unit down. Ladies, please do not argue this point. I've been there, done that, and seen it with my own eyes. Women do NOT have to meet the same physical fitness standards as the men do - if they did, there would be precious few women in any branch of the military.

I've not been on subs, but I'm willing to bet that there is some really heavy equipment on board that, in the event of damage from accidents or enemy action, would require some serious physical strength to move. Heck, try to close a hatch with water pushing in on it.

Point is that physical strength matters in combat. Always has, and always will. It also matters in law enforcement, fire fighting, and etc. Political correctness literally can cause loss of life in this case. The standards either exist for a reason - or they don't.

Oh, and I'm not 55+ either.
 
#52 ·
I will certainly NOT argue with you on the physical restrictions. I agree. There is a physical requirement and there should be! I, myself, was discharged from the Marine Corps DEP because of my knees. It was very depressing for me not to be able to fulfill that dream/goal but I understand that they couldn't take me just because I wanted to serve. There are physical demands that need to be met.

Let's not forget that one of the reasons the military opened up for females was to allow them to do the kinds of jobs that men were being "wasted" on... administration, organizing, supply, etc.



As the military HAS become more technical and less physically demanding it has blurred the lines of what men and women can and cannot do.

They were actually talking about this on the news the other day and it was in regards to jobs in general, not just the military. As technology keeps advancing the line between men and women and labor intensive work is so broad it's hard to even define it. Jobs that used to be considered "man's work" are now equally as doable for women and it's starting to conflict with what people think about as "man's" vs "women's" work. And people are starting to question whether or not we should even try to put certain jobs into sexual categories anymore.

You talk about hatches with water pushing on them. According to the Navy there hasn't been a submariner lost at sea in over 30 years due to new safety systems on subs. Does this include hydraulics, etc, to better assist in closing off compromised sections? I have no idea. Last time I was on a sub was a tour of an ancient one that was dry-docked and probably not at all what we have in our oceans today.

I've taken a tour of a couple of the Naval ships my brother has been assigned to over the years and I am always impressed by how non-manual they are. Sure, there is a lot of manual stuff still but a lot of it has gone the way of the dodo and been replaced with a button or other system.

FAR gone are the days of a bunch of sailors hoisting the anchor by the sweat of their brow and the strength of their backs.

If you asked me I would say that that physical fitness and endurance would matter MUCH more in an infantry setting than in a submarine. Women having to haul heavy packs for mile after mile, hoist up and hump out fallen comrades, hold a fighting position for hours, etc, would seem much more relevant to saving/losing lives because of fitness vs whether or not she could close a hatch as the former is FAR more likely to be required than the later and there is no mechanical equivalent to a man on the ground vs closing a door.

And even in infantry-style combat we are seeing gender lines blurred. Women have been finding themselves in combat on a far more regular basis and doing a pretty fair job of it.

And I hate to open this can'o'worm but how is a woman in a sub any more of a distraction than a gay man in that same sub? These days an openly gay sailor (or two or three or four) can serve on a sub together. I fail to see how this would be any better or worse than men and women serving together. At least for the sake of some propriety the Navy is trying to make some provisions for discretion for men and women.. you don't get that for men serving with gay men.
 
#49 ·
Allot of interesting views above. However, as a individual (and a woman), I will strive to become what I want to be, and I will work hard to achieve whatever I want to do. There is no man that will tell me otherwise or prevent me from achieving what I set out to do!!!

Period!

There are a few posts that I take serious issue with.
 
#50 ·
FIRST ISSUE: Logistics

I was in the surface Navy when women were integrated onto combat ships. My first deployment we had no women on board and we had a urinal right on the flight deck welded to the back of the island. It was obviously very convenient for use when we were busy moving airplanes around (something we did for 16 to 20 hours a day when at sea).

My second deployment had "women" on board. Actually we had one woman, that's right just one. She was an officer and, honestly, I hardly ever saw her unless she was looking through the glass cockpit at me (I was a yellow shirt/flight deck director/wave my arms and the planes move kind of guy). The problem was that a week before she got to the ship a guy with a welding torch came up and cut our urinal off of the island and it was gone.

Now instead of just running over a few yards to do what you HAD to do we now had to go down three flights of stairs to take a leak. Those who were inclined to be slackers now had a perfect excuse to sneak away from work and disappear for 10,20 or even 30 minutes. Then I had to send workers to look for missing workers. It really was a big hassle and cut our efficiency.

A second problem was that there were close to 4000 men on my ship and not enough facilities on hand. I lived in a room that was about 1100 square feet with 163 other dudes. And for all 164 of us we had 4 toilets and 4 showers. I remember waiting in line for over 90 minutes just to get a shower after a long, hot 16 hours day on the flight deck.

Once a female was added in it got even worse. The one female on our ship got her own bathroom near her own berthing and she also got one of the two bathrooms the pilots used near the flight deck. Now there were about 200 pilots on the ship and they now had their facilities cut in half because of one person. So next thing you know we had pilots who wanted a shower or to use the can spilling over into other areas of the ship because they didn't have enough of their own facilities. Again it caused a greater strain on the ships crew and cut efficiency. How does waiting in line for a shower cut efficiency you ask? It cuts into your sleep. We worked on average about 16 to 20 hours a day and every chance you had to sleep you took it. We averaged a 5am to midnight workday (at sea) and waiting in line for an extra 45 minutes made a big difference when your tank was already near empty.

Now with all of that said, my surface ship was like a palace compared to the facilities available on a submarine. Adding a couple of women to the mix WILL cause problems that many folks can't even comprehend. Submarines don't even have enough beds for everyone to sleep in so people share bunks (not at the same time). When many submariners are going off duty they wake up the guy who is coming on duty. That guy rolls out of the shared bed and goes to work. The off duty guy flops in to get some sleep. They call it "hot bunking" because the bed never gets cold. Now think about where the women will sleep. There will be a whole section of bunks being taken up by one or two women and a whole slew of guys will be stuck hot bunking.

From what I have heard the Navy is building newer surface ships with more facilities to accommodate women. This will help with some of the problems I've mentioned on surface ships but the Navy isn't building any more LA class boats or Ohio class boats. The "women" problems will haunt the sub force for another 20 years.

ETA: Also there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you add more space for women's facilities you lose space that belonged to other things. Less fuel space, less food space or less office space. In short, even when things get better for crew services you lose someplace else.

NEXT ISSUE: Conduct

Its a problem, its always been a problem and its always going to be a problem and anyone that thinks that young kids full of hormones stacked together for long periods of time isn't a recipe for hard times is only kidding themselves.
^^^^ This IS a real problem. Sex, assault, rape, jealousy, on duty lovers quarrels, prostitution, STDs, pregnancies, special treatment and plain old awkwardness are all problems on Navy ships now that women have arrived in force. Anyone who thinks that a bunch of 18 to 22 year old men and women cramped together at sea for six months isn't a powder keg is just fooling themselves. The Navy has THOUSANDS of sexual misconduct problems every year on surface ships. It gets hushed up and swept under the rug to keep it out of the headlines. That doesn't mean that it isn't a real problem, it just means that you aren't seeing it on CNN.
 
#56 ·
I for one am horrified by bathroom inconvenience, so much so that I think we should keep half the population from serving their country in the way they and the military best see fit. [/sarcasm]

And again, it saddens and angers me to see how poorly people regard our military. They've weathered every single change that doomsayers claimed would ruin things, morale, readiness, unit cohesion, and on and on, we've heard them a million times. And at no point have we slipped from having the best fighting force on the planet.
 
#58 ·
I love a good intelligent debate. Reminds me of conversations in manuevering while standing Reactor Operator with my Engineering Officer of the Watch, Electrical Operator and Throttleman.
 
#59 ·
One other thing...did you guys know that after the NASA Challenger incident, NASA modeled their QA program after the SUBSAFE program?
 
#62 ·
haven't had a chance to read all these posts yet.

my girlfriend and I were talking about this the other day. neither of us really cared for the idea. we are both early 20s and were just thinking about what we are like at this age. nothing but walking hormones. neither of us could figure out how people wouldn't be distracted all day.

she happens to be rather opinionated. aside from this sub issue she says women shouldn't be in the marines or in the plumbing department of home depots.

test it and see his it goes. then we can judge.
 
#65 ·
#66 ·
Push buttons only work as long as there is power. There is always a need for a MANual backup. :wink:

Kinda reminds me of when Gloria Steinem (sp?) told a reporter that fire departments should get "electric axes" to chop down doors so women could be fire fighters. IIRC, she also said it would be ok for a female fire fighter to pull her down a set of stairs by her ankles (banging her head on every step) instead of being lifted up and carried to safety by a male. :doh:

The bigger picture is this - traditionally, the only time women, children, and old men fought in combat is when things were really desperate. We are not there. Military and protective services are NOT a job - they are a profession - and you should not have a "right" to serve just because you want to. Period. Been there, done that, have the scars to prove it.

In the Army, females who got pregnant were considered "non deployable." That meant more work for the men if we deployed. Not sure what the Navy does, but I would imagine something similar. Curious - what percentage of females aboard ship get pregnant? Any of you Navy vets know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bmcgilvray
#71 ·
From the article:

Naval policy is to transfer women immediately to shore duty if they become pregnant.

Yep - that would work for a sub that's trying to stay underwater undetected, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

36 pregnant out of 360 females, or a full 10% - on just one deployment. Whether they got pregnant before the ship sailed (and discovered it while underway), or during shore leave, or "against the rules" on the ship, does not really matter. Those females either need to be replaced, or the men need to do more work to make up for fewer crew members aboard. Either way, it would be an additional risk in combat.

*sigh*
 
#68 ·
Well, let's hope a berth on a sub won't turn into a birth.
 
#69 ·
That's the point I'm trying to make. It will happen. It will come to pass when a submarine on patrol has to come back to port because they have a woman on board that is pregnant.

When I was in the Navy's dive fairer program I had to have my wisdom teeth out just because there was a chance they could become a problem at some point in the future. I was told that due to the nature of service on board a submarine they had to come out, so out they came.

The reality of this thing is that it will risk lives to have women on subs. Those who don't understand this just don't get what submarines do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bark'n
#70 ·
Auto part Photography

Ironically enough an old navy buddy posted this on FB...thought it fit
 
#72 ·
I hesitate to start typing again on this subject but just briefly:

If the Navy really wants to deploy women on subs then it needs to lose the 50's attitudes, get real, and quit pandering to a "softer sex" type job and treatment description. Some of the things described here are just plain riduculous (like the urinal that was removed prior to the woman's arrival).

On merchant ships, there was no thing such as women's bathrooms. I actually hotbunked with men on some small research boats. On others there was one guy and three girls in a cabin. It was the crappiest cabin on the boat, right next to the engine room so I had to sleep with mickey mouse ears on. Nice. It all worked and no I did not become pregnant. The ahem...magazine....lockers were the size of coffins, so the guys all seemed pretty relaxed - this notion of them running around like hungry wolves is crazy. We (I) pulled my (our) own weight and added a level of attention to detail that was not as easy for the men.

OK, the guys were on deck firefighting crew (except one had a girl that had more sea time than any other guy aboard) but I had my own job in comms for emergencies. It takes a village.

I'll stop now.
 
#74 ·
Cammo girl you make some good points and I think there is a way that women on combat ships could work. They should only be there if they really are equal to the men around them when doing the heavy work. Same requirements, same PT tests, same labor. I think that less than 10% of the women wanting to go to sea are truly qualified to work there by the same standards the men must pass (maybe even less).

Sadly the Navy can't lose the 50's attitude or they will get sued left and right. A mixed berthing is a lawsuit waiting to happen and there would be thousands of women lining up for the "he harassed me" lottery ticket. It is what it is.

For the record I knew plenty of great women in the service while I was on shore duty. The best boss, actually the best two bosses I ever had were women.

I had to sleep with mickey mouse ears on
Ha ha! BTDT. : ) You were on some sort of merchant ship? For how long? How long would you be out?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bmcgilvray
#73 ·
A few disjointed thoughts:

1. My wife, who absolutely abhors women who degrade themselves in pornography (which is by their own choice), is also the first to say that some jobs are for men because women can't compare.

2. We have lots of women in EMS. They do somethings better than men, particularly when it comes to assaulted women. They also are much more likely to call for more help lifting patients, and insist that they must get the "light/foot end" or the stretcher because it requires less lifting, even though they must all past a lift test to get the job.

3. I think that comment about women not bringing much to the table would make more sense and be less offensive if were followed by the qualifier "...than a man does." Women can be equal to a man on a job. Neither can be considered superior. We are not running short of men the last time I checked.

4. Women and men are different. I doubt I'll see the day when certain sexual organs and functions spontaneously become interchangeable. Modern society can try try try to be gender neutral but it is a biological impossibility akin to the emperor's new clothes.

5. In the end, are women (womanhood) harmed (as defined by law) if they are denied certain jobs that are discriminate against them for articulable and sensible reasons?

6. Why can't our society accept that men and women have certain defined roles and make a commitment to adhere to them in principle, if not 100% in practice? There are plenty of studies that suggest that many problems our society has now are a result of Mommy working, etc. Were we really worse off 50-100 years ago when the woman raised the children, as it has worked for thousands of years, and the man went to work, and we had traditional families? When most women didn't HAVE to work? When our children weren't given over to someone else to raise?

If a woman can do a job, fine. But why do so many demand it? Why do so many women have to be "equal" and turn their backs on traditional motherhood and family? Men and women are supposed to complement each other. There's a lot more to equality than turning a wrench.
 
#75 ·
"Were we really worse off 50-100 years ago..."


No, absolutely not! Not socially. Not morally. Not even economically, for household economies are just as stressed as they ever were though both spouses are now employed. The women are no longer working for "extras" either. That notion has gone the way of the bi-metallic standard.

Now, rearing children is frowned on as a source of fulfillment for a woman. Lest they think they're off the hook, men shirk their responsibilities to their own children too. And, this is in families who "wanted kids!" It doesn't even take into consideration a society completely awash in unwanted, ill-disciplined, and neglected children whose irresponsible parents simply don't care. Witness performance and behavior of any school classroom to see the tragedy of this truth.

Then we wonder that children behave as if they were raised by wolves.

"There's a lot more to equality than" ...(fill in the blank with one's favorite "fulfillment"). That's because life's more important than mere self-fulfillment as defined by the likes of Gloria Steinem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HotGuns
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top