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

This is a discussion on Women on submarines as soon as next week...sorry not a fan within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Cold Shot Women generally don't bring a lot to the table in most professions. Pretty far off topic. The same thing can ...

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 140
Like Tree131Likes

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

  1. #76
    VIP Member
    Array ctr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
    Posts
    2,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Shot View Post
    Women generally don't bring a lot to the table in most professions.
    Pretty far off topic. The same thing can be said for men who don't respect women. The difference is one statement is true and the other is not.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 35,670'
    Posts
    11,567
    .......raised by wolves..........
    One of my favorite sayings, and, unfortunately, one of the most accurate in many situations today...............
    Richard

    NRA Life Member

    "But if they don't exist, how can a man see them?"

    "You may think I'm pompous, but actually I'm pedantic... let me explain the difference."

    "Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything."

  4. #78
    Senior Moderator
    Array limatunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    4,247
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    Lima I hate to say this but your opinions on life aboard a combat ship are way off. We do not have a push button Navy and water tight doors do need to be closed by hand. Most of the work done in the Navy is still "strongbacked" into place. <- That means that it is still very labor intensive. There are plenty of ropes to haul on and plenty of things to be "lifted way up there".

    The important thing to remember is that we are talking about combat ships. Ships take hits and that's where the rubber meets the road. On the surface it might seem like a ship would be a better place for women than an infantry unit and for the most part that is true. It's true until the ship gets hit and people start getting killed.

    Our Navy is the top dog right now and nobody wants to tangle with us but one day someone will. Some day in the near future we will fight a nasty war at sea with China or India or someone else and I want our Navy to be better than it was yesterday, not just "good enough". The issues we are talking about today WILL matter.

    Our Navy is so good that we don't see pictures of bloody sailors coming home in body bags very often, but they do. People died on both deployments I made and I had a couple very close calls. My first duty station was on board the USS Tripoli LPH 10. Google her and look at the pictures of the damage she sustained during the 1st Gulf War.

    Attachment 54197

    My point in all of this is to remind you that even though I'm familiar with motherhood (because I have three kids) I can't really tell you about being a mom. You telling a submariner what it's like, or will be like on a sub, is like me telling you what it's like to give birth.
    Please don't misunderstand me. I wasn't trying to imply that I knew anything about a submariners life. As stated I took a single tour of an ancient submarine when I was in junior high school and I flat out said I had no idea what it took to close hatches on modern subs these days. I, BY NO MEANS, was trying to say I knew anything about it. Nor did I want to imply that Naval life has turned completely "push button" or that people in the Navy do not have dangerous or labor intensive jobs.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    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.
    First, I would ask you to name those "certain defined roles."

    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?

  5. #79
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,236
    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.

    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 ), 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.
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and Ió
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.

  6. #80
    Senior Moderator
    Array limatunes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    4,247
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    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.

    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 ), 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 have NO idea..lol.

    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).

    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.

  7. #81
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    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.
    atctimmy likes this.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  8. #82
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    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.
    I'd be willing to think about this option if the father also had to be discharged. And I can't help but wonder why you didn't include that option. Two to tango and all that.
    goldshellback and limatunes like this.

  9. #83
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,236
    Quote Originally Posted by torgo1968 View Post
    I'd be willing to think about this option if the father also had to be discharged. And I can't help but wonder why you didn't include that option. Two to tango and all that.
    Who says the father has to even be in the Navy? It is the duty of the person on the submarine to keep the submarine safe. Is the dad a crew member? Then sure, slam him too but he could be some guy from pizza hut. In the end it would still be the woman's fault. Unless she was raped then she would have willfully put the boat at risk by her actions.

    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.
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and Ió
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.

  10. #84
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    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.
    atctimmy, Bark'n and 10thmtn like this.

  11. #85
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,749
    Is the dad a crew member? Then sure, slam him too but he could be some guy from pizza hut.
    You certainly have a way with words. I almost lost my coffee on that one.
    I think that if a woman wants to serve on a sub then she must be on a positive type of birth control.
    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.

    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.

  12. #86
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,916
    Quote Originally Posted by torgo1968 View Post
    I'd be willing to think about this option if the father also had to be discharged. And I can't help but wonder why you didn't include that option. Two to tango and all that.
    Hey, a dishonorable discharge and being prosecuted as a threat to national security is no small issue, so obviously there would have to be a protocol and policy worked out.

    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.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  13. #87
    Member Array Ishmael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Ohio Valley
    Posts
    231
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by cammo View Post
    In all cases of the boats I've been on the crew of mostly men has been happy to have me and they say the all guy crew is more tempered by a woman or two. i.e they LIKE it.

    Maybe the fact that it won't be the same is a good thing.

  14. #88
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    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:
    Just out of curiosity how often and long do you deploy in the CG?
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and Ió
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.

  15. #89
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by Ishmael View Post
    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:
    Coast Gaurd does not = Submarine

  16. #90
    VIP Member
    Array WHEC724's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    6,263
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    Just out of curiosity how often and long do you deploy in the CG?
    The 'HE' in WHEC724 stands for High Endurance. That translates to extended deployments at sea. I know we're commonly referred to as "puddle pirates", but we stay out as long as any Navy vessel will.

    Unfortunately, my experience with mixed gender on extended deployments was not a good one, and I'll leave it at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doodle View Post
    Coast Gaurd does not = Submarine
    Amen to that. We got twitchy enough as it was when we stayed out too long. I can't imagine what it's like under the waves.
    __________________________________
    'Clinging to my guns and religion

Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

be a marine free a marine to fight
,

free a marine to fight

,
powered by mybb american core values
,
powered by mybb class of 1967
,
powered by mybb deed restrict open space
,
powered by mybb importance of personal fitness
,

powered by mybb physical activity

,

powered by mybb physical fitness

,
powered by mybb why is personal fitness important
,
powered by mybb why is physical fitness important
,
powered by mybb wyoming state fair
,

women+combat -wombat

Click on a term to search for related topics.