One of my favorite sayings, and, unfortunately, one of the most accurate in many situations today...............Quote:
.......raised by wolves..........
Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been.
My only point was that there are plenty of jobs on Naval vessels (both ships and submarines) that are not exceptionally labor intensive and very fit for people who are not as strong as some. Yes, things can become labor intensive in a moment, (of that there is no doubt) and some jobs aboard ships and subs are very labor intensive which is why the military, across the board, has physical fitness standards and tests. But I think we'd all agree that your standard military physical fitness tests are probably still not the benchmark for what may be required of sailors/soldiers/Marines/Airmen when the metal starts meeting the meat. At which point it's up to every service member to do what they can to the best of their ability and training.
The only clearly and undeniable "defined role" I can think of between a man and a woman is that a man provides sperm and a woman provides the egg and her body carries and delivers a child. Thanks to science women aren't even necessary for feeding their newborns anymore.
No matter how hard I rack my brain I cannot think of a SINGLE other "defined role" for men and women.
There are stay-at-home-fathers, women preachers, female warriors. Throughout history we have had female rulers of nations, inventors, serial killers, mechanics, firearms instructors, hunters, trackers, pedophiles, builders, executives, slaves, ..... shall I go on?
You asked if we were 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?"
I guess the answer to that depends on whether or not your husband was healthy, strong and a good man.
Let's not forget that women were married young, had children immediately and had NO options for a sustainable life outside of her husband. Women who were abused had no resources to leave. She had no education and no social standing to get a job if she wanted to leave an abusive relationship.
Even if she married a wonderful man, if he died she often was forced to marry again and quickly or not be able to provide for her family.
To this day single-mother homes are far more likely to live below the poverty line than single-father homes.
A woman's "defined role" as a house wife and mother was literally her ball and chain in MANY instances and, sadly, many men took advantage of that and degraded their wives knowing full well they would have no where else to go.
So, guess what.... women started demanding jobs. They wanted options to fall back on if they needed to. Some did not want to rely on a man for their living. Some, like my great aunt, just needed something to get by with after they finally got up the courage to leave an abusive relationship and their families refused to help because the women were being such a "disgrace" by getting a divorce.
Or, some, like the wife of one of my good friends who served in WWII, needed to get jobs after their husbands came home from war with severe disabilities.
Yes, there were some VERY successful, and loving (what you call) "traditional" families and that is still true today. But that is not and never was true of everyone. A "traditional" family can work and work wonderfully if that is what is desired between a man and a woman and they both choose that life for his/her self. When it is a societal requirement, however, it can be very repressive for both a man and a woman. I also do not believe it should be an only option for either a man or a woman.
Countries that still restrict the roles and rights of women are often (not always) still third-world with higher rates of disease (mostly sexually transmitted), poverty, civil war, abuse to women and children and so much more. Is that coincidence?
Are there things men are better suited for and vic versa? ABSOLUTELY!! Are there jobs out there that are closed to individuals who do not meet prerequisites?? YES!!
But if a set of standards is laid out (physical, mental, moral, psychological, what have you) and both a male and a female can perform to those standards, then why should a man be able to get the job and not a woman?
If we can put females into outer space with men for weeks at a time without problems, why can't we put them under the water?
Lima I liked your last post and I agree with what you said. I think that if standards are equal then women who cut the mustard should be able to do what they want to do.Quote:
If we can put females into outer space with men for weeks at a time without problems, why can't we put them under the water?
This rest of this post is only about the above question. My question to you in reply is why? Or, at the very least, why now? Why, when our submarine force is the absolute best in the world and not in need of extra manpower (or womanpower :smile: ), do we want to mess with it? IMO, for the reasons I've already stated (and I hope I've made my case) it will hurt efficiency, not help it. So to the question....Why?
The only answer I can think of is vanity. Your thoughts please.
I've often wondered the same thing. Sometimes I've wondered what took so long but, personally, in this case, I don't know why ANYONE would fight to be on a submarine (male or female). :wink:
I guess, in all seriousness, I'd have to say, "Why not now?"
Sometimes when you don't need something is the best time to get it and start using it so you have it. I think of guns and medical kits. A lot of people say, "Why? Why do you have it or want it if you don't need it?" Well, if you ever did need it then you have it... I guess the same argument could be made for better man (or woman) power.
Maybe it's just one of those.. "because we can" type of things.
I honestly do not know.
Here's a solution, and I know every woman on this forum would agree. Any submarine who needs to return to port to relieve a pregnant crew member, then that crew member should be dishonorably discharged from the Navy and prosecuted under UCMJ as a threat to national security. Problem solved!
I'm not being flippant either. If the Navy is going to have women serve in such a highly sensitive, highly mentally demanding, job of such secretive strategic importance, then political correctness should not enter into the equation and consequences for jeopardizing such a vital strategically important mission should have equally dire consequences.
It may take two to tango but it only takes one to get everybody killed.
I do think there are solutions to most of the problems we are talking about but many of these problems the Navy will never have the nerve to do.
I think that if a woman wants to serve on a sub then she must be on a positive type of birth control. I'm thinking about the shot administered by the doc every three months, or something similar. If I had to have my wisdom teeth out just on the chance that I would ever be on a sub then I think the BC thing wouldn't be unreasonable as SOP.
The above idea on mandatory birth control and pregnancy being punishable by the UCMJ is a good one...although I don't think the Navy would get away with persacuting a woman or a man for wanting to be parents.
One thing that I forgot to mention about submarine life that may bring a bit more clarity to what is expected...we have no damage controlmen. Everyone is responsible for damage control. It is all based on your watchstation...for example I stood Reactor Operator. The Reactor Operator who just got off watch (there are 3 watch sections, each 6 hours long) would be called the off going RO and the one who would be sleeping is called the on coming RO. The offgoing RO is the Nozzleman for hose team C (vertical spread primary hoseteam) during a fire, along with quite a few other duties for other casualties (they escape me right now.) So long story short every submariner will be well versed on firefighting, fighting flooding, along with a miriad of reactor casualties (to varying degrees based on whether your a nuke or forward guy.) So I neglected to mention this before but putting on fire fighting gear, an scba, or an eab (hose line breather connected to fixed manifolds) lugging charged firehoses around tight quarters with lots of corners, is pretty physically demanding. (FYI during drills the oncoming watchteam are used as drill monitors)
You might be thinking well how often do fires occur on board a sub, well the answer is VERY rarely, but guess what, we run drills where we break out all the equipment and stop just short of opening the nozzle on simulated fires (the bails are velcroed shut but the hoses are charged stiff.) We also simulate smoke in the compartment with opaque shower caps over your mask so your vision is totally obscured, and none of this equipment can be relaxed until the ship has the fire out, and has come to periscope depth (or the surface), and ventilated for 5 ventilation half-lives.
Most of the fire drills take place in the engine room because that's where the majority of the large electrical equipment resides. The Reactor plant is just a convoluted means of making steam to turn turbines for propulsion and electrical power with out any combustion process. This all means you better be capable of hauling around heavy stuff while sucking rubber for the next 45 minutes in a steam powered engine room with the AC off and all ventilation secured (>130F)...this royally sucks.
I also want to reiterate that every enlisted person and every officer is expected to know how and be able to do ALL of this. A fire on a submarine will kill the entire crew faster than just about anything (besides a huge hole opening in the hull but this is far less likely.) If your the closest person to the fire...you just became a firefighter, no matter what your position on the ship is.
You certainly have a way with words. I almost lost my coffee on that one.Quote:
Is the dad a crew member? Then sure, slam him too but he could be some guy from pizza hut.
I have been following this thread since yesterday morning. When it comes down to it, this seems to be the number one problem and objection and for valid reasons. I imagine that there would be a lot of objections to this solution, but this sounds quite reasonable to me personally given the risks and consequences associated. It does remind me, though, of the battles that were fought over vaccines given to women who served in Iraq in the 90s, where there were claims (FUD?) that these vaccines MAY impact their ability to have children in the future.Quote:
I think that if a woman wants to serve on a sub then she must be on a positive type of birth control.
Otherwise, it seems like experience has shown than in almost all cases, men and women serving together are quite capable of behaving, shall we say, professionally. If women can pass the same set of requirements and standards as a man, then let them serve. As an earlier post pointed out, if they can't do the job they won't pass qualification, same as anyone else.
While it isn't on the same level in this regard as as serving in the military, when I was in school (college) I switched programs and was the new guy in the group that had been together for a year. On the second day we needed to partner up for the lab exercises. Most of the guys partnered up quickly. I, who knew nobody, got "stuck" with the pregnant girl from Kuwait that nobody else wanted. Except for the fact that I could never pronounce her name properly, she turned out to be the best lab partner I had in any of my classes.
For example, if a female crew member found out they were pregnant while underway and it is determined that she had no way of knowing she was pregnant until the sub was underway and that the child belongs to her lawful husband, then an exception can be made. Both of which can easily be determined. A qualitative beta HCG lab test on the woman's blood would be able to determine exactly how far along in the pregnancy she is and if it was impossible to know before getting underway, that would be a mitigating factor. If through DNA it is determined the father is the crew members spouse, that would also be a mitigating factor.
Obviously if the father is a crew member then the Navy could also charge him as well and give him a DD. However, the female crew member does bear ultimate responsibility. The only way she would not be prosecuted and given a DD would be if circumstances prove the baby is her lawful husband and she could not have possibly known of the pregnancy prior to getting underway. If the baby is neither her husbands, or a fellow crew member, she gets hung out to dry alone.
But since any of this is never going to happen, it's all fantasy anyway. The issue of required birth control measures as atctimmy mentioned is also something to be considered.
However, unit integrity of the submarine service demands some sort of consequence for what happens with crew fraternization and pregnancies. It's not like an aircraft carrier or surface ship where the pregnant crew member and be transferred off the ship via aircraft and replacements brought on board via the same method.
A cruise on a submarine being three months or longer and of such vital secrecy any deviation from a mission to go to port is a threat to national security.
I'm just glad that here is yet another opportunity for my daughter, if she should choose to serve. As for bad effects on the crew/discipline/morale, my experience in the USCG (a service that has long made no distinction between where men and women can serve) matches perfectly with what Cammo says:
Unfortunately, my experience with mixed gender on extended deployments was not a good one, and I'll leave it at that.