Woman + Subs

[CommodoreMid]

When I was in ROTC our sub LT had precommed one of the VA class subs (can't remember which one) and he said the berthing on them had been designed with the idea that one day there would be women on board. I'd imagine once more of them are built integration would be more likely.

Besides, aren't the sub guys always bitching about getting enough people anyway, ie through the nuke drafts in NROTC/USNA? If they open it up to women they'll have a bigger pool of qualified people to pick for it.

 

[redmidgrl]

I wanted to get a feel for the general consensus in this thread before piping in. I am not denying that some women use their bodies to get out of work or going on deployment (AKA tactical pregnancies).

But believe it or not, there are women out there who actually join the service to serve their country too. In fact, there are a lot of us. So denying women the right to serve alongside men on submarines may be doing the submarine fleet a disservice.

Every time a woman joins a command, she is judged for having a uterus and guilty until proven innocent. Women deal with a lot of crap, and even the ones who do their jobs extremely well are constantly under the microscope.

Like it was stated earlier in the thread, the submarine force is entirely volunteer. If a qualified woman knows what is involved with going underway on a submarine and still wants to do it, then we shouldn't stop her.

 

[Spekkio]

Just wondering, so does this mean women cannot be nuclear officers who operate the reactor on surface ships either? Can female nukes only be instructors or whatnot?

Females can be nuke officers on aircraft carriers.

Like it was stated earlier in the thread, the submarine force is entirely volunteer. If a qualified woman knows what is involved with going underway on a submarine and still wants to do it, then we shouldn't stop her.

As has been covered by a dozen posts, the issue isn't sexism. There are legitimate logistical problems that are very difficult to overcome wrt putting women on submarines. You also have to consider that there are many compartments on 688 subs that people must transit through that cannot fit two people side-by-side.

In the big picture of the Navy's mission to defend our country, do you think it's a good idea to potentially disable a submarine to carry out its mission by coming off station so that women can serve aboard subs? Do you think that it'd be good for morale, retention, rectruitment, etc. when sailors are being forced into even more cramped living quarters so that the few women aboard can have an entire space to themselves? Alternatively, would you rather deal with the multitude of potential sexual harrassment and fraternization issues that would arise from having women and men share berthing? Do you think that will rid the Navy of feelings of resentment and sexism toward women?

 

[Flash]

Besides, aren't the sub guys always bitching about getting enough people anyway, ie through the nuke drafts in NROTC/USNA? If they open it up to women they'll have a bigger pool of qualified people to pick for it.

From what I have read it is a very big part of why they want to open up subs to women.

Every time a woman joins a command, she is judged for having a uterus and guilty until proven innocent. Women deal with a lot of crap, and even the ones who do their jobs extremely well are constantly under the microscope.

You have seen this in your vast experience then? Gotta call bullshit on that one.

 

[scoober78]

Let's also stop the discrimination with regards to the selective service sign-up. Women should be allowed to register for the draft. Then we will all be truly equal, and we will have a more perfect union.

Somehow I sense sarcasm here... I agree absolutely though if you are serious. The fact that we exempt women is a anachronism at best.

First off, I think it's insulting our intelligence to compare racial segregation with gender segregation.

Second, the military is not the place to further social agendas - especially when they fly in the face of what is practical or more efficient with regards to gear, facilities, and more importantly mission accomplishment.

You gotta qualify this one...Why is it insulting? That many of the same arguments are being used is a fact. Segregation, at its heart, is still segregation whether it is based on gender, race, religion...its nearly all irrational.

The military not the place to further social agendas huh? It has a pretty long history in this respect. Racially for example, the military led the nation by several decades and that seems to have worked alright. I've never heard of an instance of mission accomplisment being set aside in WWII, Korea or Vietnam because of the need to integrate. Change starts somewhere, and like it or not, the military has often been in the lead in this respect.

 

[et1nuke]

I just wanted to put my two cents in and call BS on anyone who thinks its "not possible". I've been to sea on two different subs with women on board. First was an older boomer class and it was a week with three females. Second was on SSGN sea trials and there was a handful of them maybe five or six. All were shipyard civilian women riding for tests or training. The SSGNs now have a huge expanded berthing area with extra heads and showers not to say that there wasn't already a lot of space before they were converted so it wasn't too hard to make one of the spaces a full-time female head and isolate a berthing passage. I've only been on an LA class for like a five min tour and can imagine it would be more of a PITA to do on one of them. But like a lot of people have pointed out there are many challenges to overcome on surface ships as well.

 

[Spekkio]

I don't think anyone's saying it's "not possible," but that it's more of a PITA than it's worth. Also, short underway periods don't deal with the same long-term issues as full deployments. If said boomer is making 5 knots to nowhere 1.5 months into its 3 month deployment and discovers that et2 smith is pregnant, now what?

 

[et1nuke]

I don't think anyone's saying it's "not possible," but that it's more of a PITA than it's worth. Also, short underway periods don't deal with the same long-term issues as full deployments. If said boomer is making 5 knots to nowhere 1.5 months into its 3 month deployment and discovers that et2 smith is pregnant, now what?

Aren't they allowed to stay on the ship for the whole first trimester or something? They have exposure limits for pregnant women and even if they don't want women working in the plant they can stand watch forward or if they are enlisted they could crank in the galley. If they need to get off the ship then evac them off. I've seen guys taken off for far less severe reasons while underway, not alert, but underway. I don't know I just wanted to say I had a bit of first-hand experience and really don't think its as big of a deal as people make it out to be.

 

[Brett327]

Aren't they allowed to stay on the ship for the whole first trimester or something? They have exposure limits for pregnant women and even if they don't want women working in the plant they can stand watch forward or if they are enlisted they could crank in the galley. If they need to get off the ship then evac them off. I've seen guys taken off for far less severe reasons while underway, not alert, but underway. I don't know I just wanted to say I had a bit of first-hand experience and really don't think its as big of a deal as people make it out to be.

I tend to agree. There are lots of potential reasons for having to medevac someone off of a ship/sub/etc. An unexpected pregnancy is not unique in that respect. I suspect other countries may have women on their subs. We may be able to see how they've managed to tackle some of the logistical issues. Either way, while it may be a PITA to transition, it's certainly not all that difficult to figure out. People may have to live with a little less personal privacy than they're used to, but as some have pointed out, sub duty is voluntary, so you have to accept how things are going to be if you want to play.

Brett

 

[phrogpilot73]

However, equating this with racial equality is silly. There are actual logistical concerns here.

First off, I think it's insulting our intelligence to compare racial segregation with gender segregation.

I think it's a valid comparison. Stop looking at the issue with a set of 21st century eyes, and start looking at it from a circa 1940's set of eyes. They honestly believed back then that African Americans were less capable human beings. There were also "logistical" concerns with them being anything other than stewards. I mean, can't berth 'em with their division...

Women should be REQUIRED to register for the draft.

Fixed it for you.

 

[PropAddict]

I suspect other countries may have women on their subs.

Yup. The Swedes, for one, have multiple hot females on their subs. I think it was the Gotland that was in Sandy Eggo when I was there for mid cruise. Good times.

 

[redmidgrl]

You have seen this in your vast experience then? Gotta call bullshit on that one.

If you're saying I've never dealt with crap for being female, then you're mistaken. Even in my short time in the training commands, I have personally dealt with comments as well as my female friends. We ignore it, but it's additional stress on top of normal flight school stress.

 

[RadicalDude]

If you're saying I've never dealt with crap for being female, then you're mistaken. Even in my short time in the training commands, I have personally dealt with comments as well as my female friends. We ignore it, but it's additional stress on top of normal flight school stress.

Although not a female, I can totally see where you're coming from on this. I may be a stupid Ensign with nothing but a meager Academy experience, but I've been fairly surprised at how bass-ackwards some servicemembers are wrt their opinions and comments about women. I'm glad to see this thread turned from a wimmin-hatin bash to a reasonable debate on the subject.

A close family friend of mine, who happens to be an active-duty Captain in command of a shore installation, once told me that these kinds of things (integration of women, repeal of don't ask don't tell, etc.) are inevitable in a modern American military. In essence he said: "Fighting progress doesn't get you anywhere, finding solutions does." I tend to agree with him on the subject.

 

[Flash]

If you're saying I've never dealt with crap for being female, then you're mistaken. Even in my short time in the training commands, I have personally dealt with comments as well as my female friends. We ignore it, but it's additional stress on top of normal flight school stress.

Okay, that is great, you have seen all of TRACOM. But to say stuff like this when you haven't made it to the fleet yet:

Every time a woman joins a command, she is judged for having a uterus and guilty until proven innocent. Women deal with a lot of crap, and even the ones who do their jobs extremely well are constantly under the microscope.

...is a bit much.

 

[HercDriver]

Yes, yes I know this has been covered here ad nauseum. Somebody even posted an April Fools thread about it last year. Apparently it's for real this time. I heard about this from an old WW2 vet I was talking to in Walmart yesterday and I don't think anybody posted it up here yet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...09/25/AR2009092503385.html?hpid=moreheadlines

That all sounds like a nightmare to me.

I mean, going to Walmart.