Woman + Subs

[Bevo16]

I agree that the pregnancy problem is easily solved by mandating birth control- a much less invasive method than implant birth control would be Depo-Provera. Depo is a shot that a woman recieves once every 3 months.....

I know that every drug effects different people in different ways, but that Depo shot turned my wife into a raving lunatic (and borderline suicidal, then borderline homicidal) for about a month after she got it. After 3 rounds, she was getting another method, or we were done.

IMHO, every woman who joins the service should have to get an IUD for the first 5 years they are in service. Millions of dollars are wasted every year training and providing services to servicewomen who join the military just to become unable to do their job due to unplanned (and untimely) pregnancies. Someone else is left to pick up the workload while someone else who is under contract (and orders) to do that work is off having a baby.

I would probably have less angst if the cows at the NASNI maternity ward (AKA Pass and ID) could have put down their sausage McMuffin long enough to get me a visitor pass and not talk with their mouth full...but I digress.

 

[Spekkio]

I don't disagree about the ADA, but it is illustrative of the point that it is not incumbent on the group being excluded, but the group doing the excluding to prove why that exclusion is appropriate.

I disagree. If we go back to before integration of blacks and later women into the workplace, they absolutely had to show that it was valuable to hire them, or else companies would have no motivation to accommodate the varying needs of their employees. Today we accept as fact that, for many jobs, people of both sexes and all races add value, but not all of them. A construction company which requires a lot of heavy lifting is probably not going to find female employees very valuable.

As for disabled people: companies didn't spend millions of dollars to provide handicap access just so that they could hire them as workers. Some built them because the law said so, others built them because they recognized that an image of being "friendly to the disabled" was good for business -- both from disabled customers and people who sympathized with them. I do agree with Random that the government forcing companies to cater to any group of people is contrary to a free market. You know what's worse than a government fine for not having a handicap ramp? A whole community of people who refuse to do business with you because the local news station just put out a report about how you hate the disabled.

Nevertheless, people in this thread have provided reasons why the exclusion is appropriate.

I also disagree with the argument that "it is the right thing to forcefully include women on submarines" because this isn't about sexual discrimination. Submarines, plain and simple, were not built to house two different sexes, just like an F-18 is not built to be piloted by men the size of Shaq. Aside from berthing, there are a lot of compartments that can't fit two people side by side. For men, it's pretty easy to shake off the fact that you'd be working that close to a woman, but what if you had to work in those conditions with a gay man? (insert cliche submarine gay jokes here)

So the solution would be to build submarines that can house both men and women, and convert ones that cannot. This would be a huge, expensive task to undertake. Additionally, at the current rate of building submarines, it would also take decades to fully finish the conversion.

 

[phrogdriver]

Pregnancies while underway are extremely rare, and while I never underestimate the ability of the average Sailor to find places to bang each other, I would imagine that it would be challenging to do while underway on a sub. Pre-deployment medical screening can weed out any "legit" pregnancies. At any rate, IMO the chances of it occurring are so slight that it ought not weigh significantly in the calculus of integration.

Brett

Extremely rare? I've known of it happening twice on deployments I've been on. There were probably some I didn't know about. It's not like getting hit by lightning. I've never known anyone to get hit by lightning, ever, yet the military flips out about it and doesn't let anyone go outside during a storm.

If a woman gets pregnant shortly before deployment, a test isn't going to pick it up. After mando birth control riles up the feminazis, how about pissing off right-to-lifers by requiring women to take a manditory shot of Plan B as they cross the brow?

 

[Brett327]

Umm, not every woman can take birth control. One of the most glaring reasons is that depending on the woman's medical/family history, hormones in birth control have been linked to this pesky little thing called breast cancer.

There are 11 other forms of female birth control other than the "pill." That said, the risk of breast cancer from hormonal contraception for the vast majority of women is insignificant. In fact, the risk of medical issues associated with pregnancy vastly outweigh those potentially incurred from hormonal contraceptives. Ask any doctor.

Brett

 

[Brett327]

Extremely rare? I've known of it happening twice on deployments I've been on. There were probably some I didn't know about. It's not like getting hit by lightning. I've never known anyone to get hit by lightning, ever, yet the military flips out about it and doesn't let anyone go outside during a storm.

If a woman gets pregnant shortly before deployment, a test isn't going to pick it up. After mando birth control riles up the feminazis, how about pissing off right-to-lifers by requiring women to take a manditory shot of Plan B as they cross the brow?

It's still very rare, and if you consider that any given sub crew will have just a handful of women, the chances, IMO, are pretty remote.

There will never be a mandatory birth control policy - ain't gonna happen, so put it out of your minds.

Unlike most of you, I was in an operational squadron when female aviators were first introduced, circa 1993. Lots of similar concerns at the time that evaporated after everyone figured things out. It won't be any different on subs when it happens. My Skipper at the time thought the male aircrew were going to peek into the head on the P-3 to watch our female officers take a whiz - patently ridiculous, as nothing of the sort happened, but our squadron went through all kinds of silly things to adjust. In the end, everyone just acted like the professionals that we were and all was well.

Brett

 

[Ducky]

I know mistakes have been made in the past with pregnancies and frat on deployments; however, can we step back for just a second and give people some credit. How about we instill some good old fashioned professionalism in the coed crews we would train to be on subs. Treat people like responsible adults and they will act like responsible adults. Treat everyone like dumbasses that can't keep it in the pants and well that might just happen. People generally live up to what is expeted of them.

Requiring females to do anything special with regards to birth control etc is just stupid. When females are allowed on subs Im sure the medical facilities will have to be refitted to handle female health issues that may arise underway. A possible solution for the coveted super secret SSBNs that only cruise for about 3 months would be to monitor a woman whos pregnacy is progressing normally. She could then either be SIQ or if deemed appropriate fill some light duty paper pushing watchstanding role on the sub. This would eliminate the immediate need to fly her off; however, if the pregnancy becomes problematic that she would then be flown off like any other sailor with a medical emergency.

 

[porw0004]

My Skipper at the time thought the male aircrew were going to peek into the head on the P-3 to watch our female officers take a whiz ...

Haha, VP Vouyerism, now reading THAT finally made this thread worthwhile in my opinion, hilarious.

 

[Calculon]

For what it's worth, on that one documentary they had on the military channel recently on the 3 Navy communities, IIRC they did actually show a sub (a boomer if I'm remembering correctly) surfacing to medevac someone off the boat so it's definitely been done.

 

[Pags]

For what it's worth, on that one documentary they had on the military channel recently on the 3 Navy communities, IIRC they did actually show a sub (a boomer if I'm remembering correctly) surfacing to medevac someone off the boat so it's definitely been done.

You can't just let the guy die. COs go to great lengths to medevac their people.

 

[phrogdriver]

I know mistakes have been made in the past with pregnancies and frat on deployments; however, can we step back for just a second and give people some credit. How about we instill some good old fashioned professionalism in the coed crews we would train to be on subs. Treat people like responsible adults and they will act like responsible adults. Treat everyone like dumbasses that can't keep it in the pants and well that might just happen. People generally live up to what is expeted of them.

Requiring females to do anything special with regards to birth control etc is just stupid. When females are allowed on subs Im sure the medical facilities will have to be refitted to handle female health issues that may arise underway. A possible solution for the coveted super secret SSBNs that only cruise for about 3 months would be to monitor a woman whos pregnacy is progressing normally. She could then either be SIQ or if deemed appropriate fill some light duty paper pushing watchstanding role on the sub. This would eliminate the immediate need to fly her off; however, if the pregnancy becomes problematic that she would then be flown off like any other sailor with a medical emergency.

While generally I agree with the "treat people like adults and they'll act like adults" concept, it's not universally applicable. Usually it works for things like liberty regs, littering, etc.--small things. When it comes to the human capacity to satisfy their baser urges, you need to figure out ways to keep their dumb asses in line. We don't say,"If we show people we trust them and stop guarding the banks they won't steal money." People will get laid on ship--trust me, it happens more than you probably think. Even if you stop that, people will do it before they board, as they should, and get pregnant in the process.

The difference between a pregnancy and any other emergency is that the pregnancy was optional, both on the part of the servicewoman and on the part of the Navy that put her on a submarine. We don't allow elective surgery underway, either. Some sailor needing to be medevaced to stay alive is an entirely different situation.

As far as allowing them to continue aboard in a paperwork job, I'm not intimately familiar with subs, but I'm guessing they don't have a lot of fat in their T/Os. Besides, if you've ever lived with a pregnant woman, you'll know that they won't do to well on a sub. Even a medically normal pregnancy can have a lot of puking, sickness, and discomfort (and that's just the guy!:icon_tong)

 

[m26]

For what it's worth, on that one documentary they had on the military channel recently on the 3 Navy communities, IIRC they did actually show a sub (a boomer if I'm remembering correctly) surfacing to medevac someone off the boat so it's definitely been done.

I thought it was an SSN. IIRC, they also said it put everyone at risk by forcing the submarine to surface in a dangerous part of the world.

 

[jfulginiti]

IMHO, every woman who joins the service should have to get an IUD for the first 5 years they are in service. Millions of dollars are wasted every year training and providing services to servicewomen who join the military just to become unable to do their job due to unplanned (and untimely) pregnancies. Someone else is left to pick up the workload while someone else who is under contract (and orders) to do that work is off having a baby.

I would probably have less angst if the cows at the NASNI maternity ward (AKA Pass and ID) could have put down their sausage McMuffin long enough to get me a visitor pass and not talk with their mouth full...but I digress.

Do you really believe that or are you just kidding? I'm not sure if I should be pissed off or not.

 

[Ducky]

Besides, if you've ever lived with a pregnant woman, you'll know that they won't do to well on a sub. Even a medically normal pregnancy can have a lot of puking, sickness, and discomfort (and that's just the guy!:icon_tong)

I agree with what you have said; however, they could also make them SIQ(same effect on crew as a flyoff) for the remainder of the cruise. SSNs would be able to medevac just like any other ship of the fleet, but the boomers with their short cruises and larger spaces could at least hold off until they reach safer waters or get back to port. It would not be comfortable for the pregnant women if she was kept aboard, but it seems like a necessary risk/consequence that women on subs should accept.

Additionally, if one boomer's location is compromised due to medevac there are several others in undisclosed locations to back it up so I really think that the pregnancy excuse to keep women off subs is bogus.

 

[Bevo16]

Do you really believe that or are you just kidding? I'm not sure if I should be pissed off or not.

You can get pissed off if you want. No skin off my ass either way. I am dead serious.

If a young HS graduate wants to join the Navy (roughly 18 years old), then the deal is that the Navy is going to train her in a skill and expect her to use that skill to the benefit of the Navy, it's should not be to much to ask for her to live up to her part of the deal and not require a year off (or more) of sea duty to have a kid. After 5 years (boot camp, A-school, sea tour) she wants to go to shore duty and have a baby (at the ripe old age of 23)..good for her. Same for officers. 5 years is roughly equivelent to flight school + a JO tour. Graduate college at 22, finish your JO tour at 27, be a happy mom by 28 if you want. Anything short of that, is irresponsible.

It is not an issue of reproductive freedom to me, it is an issue of keeping a unit mission ready. CO's need to know that the people they have assigned to them will be there to do the jobs that they are spending valueable time and money training them to do. Sailors and wardrooms should not be asked to pick up the slack for a female shipmate who gets knocked up while on sea duty. That whole "gender equity" thing should go both ways.

If our medical departments can force a flu shot on sailors in the name of readiness, we should be able to "vaccinate" our female sailors against pregnancy for the exact same reason. I can't "choose" to take my chances with a virus that will make me feel cruddy for 3 days, but women can "choose" to cause themselves to miss entire deployments to have a child. There is no logic to reasoning like that.

I know that it's not PC, but it's the way I feel.

 

[phrogpilot73]

I can't believe this thread has been going on for 6 pages.

Guess what? If the Navy is ordered to allow women to serve on submarines, then every single person in the submarine community is going to say "Aye, aye sir" and carry on with their duties. Period.

All of the other arguments are moot. No matter how much an aviator is pissed about it - the submarine community will make it happen if they are required to. I think it's telling that the only guy with a significant amount of sub experience (that has weighed in) is supportive of it.

Stop applying your typical LCpl/Seaman experiences as well. They are not valid comparisons, because the amount of training/screening that goes into being a nuke submariner is only going to result in a handful of women who are probably more interested in their career than getting pregnant.

Women are just as capable of doing the job of the submariner as any man - although yes, there are logistical issues that will be solved by the leadership of the Navy, not a bunch of O-1 through O-3's on airwarriors.

I don't know a shitload of women in the Navy that WANT to be submariners, but those that do - I'm glad they'll have their opportunity. For what it's worth, I had a classmate who wanted to go submarines (and was subsequently laughed at by our upperclass) and she ended up getting out at 5 because they still hadn't opened the community. The Navy lost a good one that day.