• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Woman + Subs

KBayDog

Well-Known Member

Missed the point. My beef is with the "initiatives" of actively targeting certain groups to paint a picture of what we want the DoD to look like, vice how it needs to perform.

I'm not advocating keeping any demographic group out of any military occupational field. I'm all for recruiting/promoting/retaining the "best and fully qualified" to serve (you know, like SECNAV orders in the promotion board precepts).

I guess where the DoD/DoN and I disagree is that I operate under the naive assumption that "best and fully qualified" has to do with pure performance and potential, not what demographic group they belong to. This is 2013, not 1940 - we're long past the point where anybody is excluded from service due to sex/race/religion/etc.

Aside from the ban on women in combat arms - a Congressional mandate, not something we made up on our own - nobody is excluded denied the privilege to serve based on the color of their skin or what they have between their legs. The sub community is now including women? Good on 'em. I know there will be growing pains, but it'll be a non-issue in a few short years. USMC solicited for volunteers to attend IOC. Good on 'em. Yes, through KBay's crystal ball, I see women serving in the 03XX field in the not-too-distant future. It's a matter of "when," not "if."

I don't care who we recruit/promote/retain, as long as they meet or exceed the standards we have set to ensure combat effectiveness.
 

KilroyUSN

Prior EM1(SS) - LTJG - VP P-8 NFO COTAC
None
If pregnant women are not allowed to work/live in radiation areas, and a submarine is one giant radiation area (even the non-nuclear engineering sections are considered low radiation areas on boomers at least), then they must be removed from the submarine as soon as it is found out they are pregnant. When you are on a Boomer, hiding in the middle of nowhere, this does not give very many options to remove said member, especially if the rest of the boats on your rotation are either broken, or no where close to being able to relieve you of a duty that MUST be covered 100% of the time. I have seen a death of a wife withheld from an individual until we returned to port one month later, because of manning and issues concerning getting him off the boat since no one could relieve us.

I am not saying women should NOT be on submarines, I am just stating that with women, there will be pregnancies, and to prevent the "sex underway" issue from cropping up again, I will assume that these happen when the boat is in port. You can say that these candidates will be "smarter and more dedicated" but as we know, "accidents" happen, and the fact is as an enlisted female, you may be stationed on a submarine for almost five years straight, during these five years, you will effectively go out for 3-5 months and come back for 3-5 months, then rinse and repeat for the entire five years. This in fact will not allow a female submariner to choose to start a family without ultimately deciding to choose herself/family before her job/mission. The option there is to tell female submarines on Boomers that they are not allowed to start a family, in which you now have an inequality since male submarines are able to start families of their own.

You also have issues of being short on manning, which are already issues without pregnancies. I have talked to a few women about this, because ultimately logistics will be figured out in the Navy in regards to submarines, however I see pregnancies as a huge issue that has very few solutions. Many of them (including my wife) say that the Navy should say "getting pregnant while at a sea going submarine command is not allowed", however I am not too sure how this measure would ultimately be felt by the vast majority of women (submariners and civilians alike).

Before I get any "hate" bashing, I am not against women going on submarines, other nations do it, and I think it is a necessary course of action that will help with manning issues on submarines and hopefully inject some more of the "best and the brightest". I however have been looking for any country that allows women to serve on nuclear submarines instead of diesel-electric submarines, which we do not have. As far as I can tell the nations that allow women on submarines are all diesel-electric submarines, in which being pregnant, unless there are complications or near pregnancy, are a non issue.

I am sure someone way smarter than me has already thought of these issues, but as it stands I see nothing in place to completely prevent someone from finding out they are pregnant while underway and therefore IT WILL be an issue. As with everything else I am sure it will get fixed in the big scheme of things, but as someone who slept 4 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 3-5 months straight every time I was underway, and that was AT manning, I do not feel envious of what some of my fellow submariners will have to go through and I hope we will be able to continue to maintain our mission throughout any additional unforeseen incidents that we were able to overcome in the past.
 

scoober78

(HCDAW)
pilot
Contributor
Missed the point. My beef is with the "initiatives" of actively targeting certain groups to paint a picture of what we want the DoD to look like, vice how it needs to perform.

Words in between...

I don't care who we recruit/promote/retain, as long as they meet or exceed the standards we have set to ensure combat effectiveness.


Good copy. I think we're on the same page. I see the "quota systems" such as affirmative action etc...as draconian measures to reverse the momentum of a pendulum to long on one side of center...As to how robustly they are used in the current DoD? I have to be honest, it's above my paygrade. I just don't know. I'd like to think not at all...but then again, I'd like to think I'm the best pilot in the world...
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
Women are allowed by NAVSEQ policy to go in a radiation area while preggo. We just choose to be extra conservative because we can. If we can't for national security, they can finish the patrol or mission doing their normal jobs and still be well under the allowed limit - probably somewhere at 1/5 - 1/10, in fact.
 

wlawr005

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Uhhhh...no. We offload people routinely via tugs/pilot craft etc...

It's a bit beyond the scope and classification level of the forum, but suffice it to say that people can be routinely offloaded from a sub...even a boomer fairly expeditiously.
I was speaking in the sense of an emergency...obviously the boat isn't a logistical black hole through which no matter may pass while deployed.
 

scoober78

(HCDAW)
pilot
Contributor
I was speaking in the sense of an emergency...obviously the boat isn't a logistical black hole through which no matter may pass while deployed.

So was I...but by all means, tell me more about what I did for 8 years. :D

Bottom line, the concern for offloading someone in a pregnancy case is a non-issue.
 

helolumpy

Apprentice School Principal
pilot
Contributor
Uhhhh...no. We offload people routinely via tugs/pilot craft etc...

It's a bit beyond the scope and classification level of the forum, but suffice it to say that people can be routinely offloaded from a sub...even a boomer fairly expeditiously.


It could be as simple as "how long can you trad water"?
 

KBayDog

Well-Known Member
It could be as simple as "how long can you trad water"?

Depends - Do you Trad on SNES or Sega Genesis?

thumbnail.asp
 

KilroyUSN

Prior EM1(SS) - LTJG - VP P-8 NFO COTAC
None
So was I...but by all means, tell me more about what I did for 8 years. :D

Bottom line, the concern for offloading someone in a pregnancy case is a non-issue.

I completely disagree with the idea that it is a non-issue, not sure if you were a fast attack guy or what, but it IS a big issue for those on boomers. This is of course if we still follow our own guidance on women not being allowed to work in a radiation area. I understand this is a Navy standard, not a national standard, so it will probably change, but right now it does matter.
 

Renegade One

Well-Known Member
None
What's a cubit?

I'm glad I'm not the only one whose childhood was made more enjoyable by listening to those old records. :)
About 18 inches…YMMV. Seems everyone else's did as well...

Ah yes…Bill Cosby, Bob Newhart, Dick Gregory, Jonathan Winters, Lenny Bruce (only when Mom and Dad were out for the evening….). Classic.
 

helolumpy

Apprentice School Principal
pilot
Contributor
Trad =/= tread. Freaking IPad and autocorrect..... Damn you Steve Jobs!!!
 

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
I completely disagree with the idea that it is a non-issue, not sure if you were a fast attack guy or what, but it IS a big issue for those on boomers. This is of course if we still follow our own guidance on women not being allowed to work in a radiation area. I understand this is a Navy standard, not a national standard, so it will probably change, but right now it does matter.
Again, it's a fairly non-issue because they can finish the patrol if it's really that bad of a national security issue. On boomers you can shift the ridiculously high section officer watchbill to make her stand watch in the fwd compartment. Pregnant women are allowed to take radiation from Naval nuclear power. Just don't make them do primary sample or CDDP strainer monitors. Then barring a reactor accident that would kill everyone anyway, she won't exceed her pregnancy limit.

I don't care who we recruit/promote/retain, as long as they meet or exceed the standards we have set to ensure combat effectiveness.
Maybe this is a function of arcane policies rather than females serving onboard Navy ships, but what happens when we lose otherwise good leaders who couldn't resist mother nature? What about the hit to crew morale when some become jealous of a female's clique, or they perceive she is receiving better treatment for flirting with a superior? What about the hit to morale when someone who paid his dues has to give up his space to a nub?

What about the simple fact that women decide to continue their Naval careers at a rate far less than men, meaning that we would have to have something like 2-3x more female DIVOs, for which there are no billets, in order to make the same amount of DH. If you don't increase DIVO numbers to account, you take a hit to DH manning and your talent pool in the spots that matter more than DIVO spots goes through the floor because now you're selecting anyone with a pulse (and almost exclusively men, anyway, defeating your diversity initiative) due to high attrition. If you increase the numbers, who gets to put a made up job on their one O-3 fitrep before shore duty?

It's possible that the first submarine female CO could be a golden child because she outlasted everyone ala Capt Graff. It's possible that she could be the next VADM Ramage. But the fact that the possibility of the former even exists is frightening, and I don't think anyone could argue that Capt Graff increased combat effectiveness on her ship.

Do these not impact combat effectiveness in a negative way? If so, is that impact really offset by what we think is a more competitive, better talent pool of men and women, or do we just assume it is?

I heard from a buddy that women aren't allowed to serve onboard frigates for space considerations. If that is true, what makes a submarine a more suitable environment?

This question is not as simple as saying 50% of the smartest/most motivated/whatever X people are females, so allowing them to serve on submarines is more better for combat effectiveness.
 
Top