Women on Submarines

Not really apples to apples - it's about PEOPLE, not men or women having the same opprotunities. Integrating the services was seen as a "social experiment" at the time. Creating Co-Ed Service Academies was seen as a social experiment and many had the same view a gunner - "if it isn't broke don't fix it"
I am not convinced that some of your "obstacles" could not easliy be overcome.

I especially liked Kero's post #10:
Really I think it comes down to American's need to get over this cultural shyness about gender differences. I really feel that eventually everything should just be integrated and I mean "EVERYTHING". Having all unisex facillities would simplify a lot of logistics, not to say there wouldn't be a lot of problems for a couple years but I think eventually we would actually be better off.
Click to expand...
This speaks to the attitudes of his generation. Many college kids and academy kids live side by side. At the academies the living quarters are co-ed on the floor.
At many colleges women and men live side by side and some colleges even have co-ed bathrooms *gasp*. This concept may be hard for us old fogies to imagine but there are generational differences at work.

So far none of the "social experiments" have failed. Heck we even have women serving in combat now - shhhhhh (don't tell Congress).
The attitude that the best woman is worse than the worst man is outdated.

I *think* I know what you mean about clogging toilets but I have known plenty of men who have done their part. There are solutions to every "problem".
 
JAM:
I am not a racist.
I do not care to be accused of being one whether thru insinuation or comparison.

Your view that a solution exists for every problem is correct, but coming up with solutions to a problem that does not exist is counter productive unless the plan is to create the problem. ie putting women sailors on subs.

"Generational differences at work"
is that a fancy way of saying "sowing your wild oats" ???

None of the social experiments have failed. You lost me there. more government initiated "social experiments have failed than succeeded. ie welfare. The failed experiments just don't get the media attention.

To solve all the logistical problems associated with putting female sailors on subs just DON"T DO IT. all problems solved.
 
gunner - you misunderstand. I am not accusing you or anyone else of being a racist.
but coming up with solutions to a problem that does not exist
Click to expand...
The problem that exists is denying women opportunities and advancement in the Navy.
I am simply pointing out that many people made the exact same claims when the services were integrated. It is just an analogy - nothing more nothing less.

The US Military is full of so called "social experiments" - integrating the military was one, as was allowing women access to the service academies and allowing women on Navy ships. None of these were *failures*. Women on Subs will succeed too. Where there is a will there is a way. People just do not like change. I get that, but the train has left the station.

"Generational differences at work"
is that a fancy way of saying "sowing your wild oats" ???
Click to expand...
Not at all. Boys and girls grow up more together than apart these days. Back in the day - girls did not play sports, take math or wood shop.
Lots of girls and boys grow up doing the same activities now. They play sports together and take drafting class together. It is just not a big deal to them. Kids coming out of the Academies and colleges are just used to living and working side by side. They have been doing it for years already.
If you take a few women from the Naval academy and put them on a sub - they and their male cohort (i.e Kero's post) will probably not think of living in close quarters a big deal. (we old folks, however, have a harder time comprehending it)
 
SubSquid said:
Okay! Well done to all. Now let’s add some reality and truth into the discussion.




Okay, my fingers are burned out and your eyes are bleeding! NEXT!
Click to expand...

No my eyes are not bleeding and a great post subsquid, you've made sense of the situation. :thumb:
 
Just_A_Mom said:
They have been doing it for years already.
If you take a few women from the Naval academy and put them on a sub - they and their male cohort (i.e Kero's post) will probably not think of living in close quarters a big deal. (we old folks, however, have a harder time comprehending it)
Click to expand...

JAM, do you have a mouse in your pocket? What is this "we" stuff? "We" parents know there is such a thing as lawsuits for having cohorts cohabit on a sub with someones daughter. It's called a litigious society and real life today. :smile: JMHO
 
Tied in with current events and such, I just do not understand how the military would not be willing to accept anyone with training and credentials they can get. We haven't a draft, so the military is limited to those who choose to join up. In those circumstances, and given the growing threats in places such as Iran (and from other terrorist organisations, militants, etc) why would one deny a perfectly capable soldier merely because she has different anatomy?
 
Here are some more naysayers that have more than my "Been There, Done That" knowledge. If your have time, read the CMR documents referenced at the end of the article.


NEWS-02: Admiral Mullen Risking Birth Defect-Hazardous Duty for Women on
Submarines
Submitted by: Pat Householder on 9/28/2009
---------------------------------------------------------
Constantly Recycled Atmosphere Unlike Surface Ships

Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, has
expressed surprise and disappointment that Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated that he supports the assignment of women
to submarines.

"Chairman Mullen, said Donnelly, "apparently does not understand the most
important reasons why women sailors do not serve on submarines. The problem
is not nuclear power, it is the air, which is constantly recycled in the
undersea environment. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels in the air
are safe for adults but a high-risk cause of birth defects in unborn
children-particularly in the early weeks of gestation when a woman may not
even know she is pregnant."

She continued, "By thoughtlessly pushing for co-ed submarines, apparently to
please military and civilian feminists, Admiral Mullen has demonstrated an
appalling unawareness of the health hazards involved, and a callous
disregard for quality-of-life hardships that are difficult enough for
sailors in the Silent Service."

"Admiral Mullen, Adm. Gary Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations, and Navy
Secretary Raymond Mabus would show far more respect for Navy women by taking
the time to read the most comprehensive analysis on this subject, an SAIC
Report titled "Submarine Assignment Policy Assessment."

She continued, "The report's detailed analysis explains stark differences in
habitability standards between submarines and surface ships.

It also explains the dilemmas future submarine commanders would face when
they must choose between an extremely dangerous mid-ocean evacuation of a
pregnant sailor, which would compromise the stealth of the mission, or a
decision to force the sailor to expose her unborn child to atmospheric
elements (not nuclear power) that are known to cause birth defects."

Donnelly further recommended that the military and Navy's top leaders review
the statement of Rear Admiral Hugh Scott, MC, USN (Ret.), a recognized
expert in undersea medicine, who explained the health risks of assigning
women to submarines in a letter to the House Armed Services Committee.

Among other things, Dr. Scott explained that ectopic pregnancies, which are
not statistically rare, would create additional emergencies requiring
immediate, extremely hazardous evacuations, sometimes in mid-ocean.

She added, "Britain, Canada, and the American Navy do not put women on
submarines primarily because of these irresolvable health risks and
operational complications.

In addition, habitability standards on subs are well below minimum standards
on surface ships. Crowd them even more, in order to provide separate
quarters for female officers and enlisted sailors, and morale as well as
discipline would suffer."

Donnelly also noted that there is a law requiring the Navy to provide
official notice to Congress before any funds are spent to gender-integrate
submarines.

http://cmrlink.org/womensubs.asp
 
SVG said:
Tied in with current events and such, I just do not understand how the military would not be willing to accept anyone with training and credentials they can get. We haven't a draft, so the military is limited to those who choose to join up. In those circumstances, and given the growing threats in places such as Iran (and from other terrorist organisations, militants, etc) why would one deny a perfectly capable soldier merely because she has different anatomy?
Click to expand...

SVG - I am sorry to tell you that Submarines are off limits to you because you might seduce a male sailor and end up with an eptopic pregnancy and it could put the lives of the other men on board at stake and endanger the success of your mission.
Presumably, no male submariner has ever had and apendicitis or heart attack aboard a Submarine; nor is there any concern that may occur.
 
First, as a woman and a Mom, I have no problem with women on a sub when it comes to the fear of becoming pregnant or affairs. It happens on dry land too!

Now, let's remove the rhetoric and talk about realistic space. A sub is not a carrier, squadron or a post/base to reconfigure it for women is very difficult. How many officers are on a sub, maybe 4-5, the JO's share berths. SO now they will have to make sure they have at least 2 female officers on the sub, since they will not place an enlisted female with an officer. That means that a female officer who is not really qualified will get it or if she is the best qualified may be denied, all based on berthing, and not ability. Next, the enlisted personnel hot bunk, which means they will want a female to hot bunk with another female. The questions begs to be asked, does that mean they only assign even numbers of females for hot bunking purposes.

To worry about sexual activity is moot. It should not be a factor for a pro or con. For the comparison of ectopic pregnancy vs heart attack or appendicitis is wrong. A woman can elect to sleep with a man, she or he has no choice/option if their appendix bursts, and some who are extremely healthy have underlying issues out of their control that might cause a heart attack. You can't take the assumption that the pregnancy will only occur in the sub, they do dock and it can happen on liberty too!
 
Last edited:
If women are assigned sub duty, I think it will be due to several high ranking chair polishers at the Pentagon wishing to insure there names are remembered after their military careers.

Rather than pulling a boat out of service for an expensive refit to accommodate sailors of both sexes, why not integrate women into the sub service as men are "welcome aboard shipmate, heres berthing, theres your rack ,yup the top one get your gear stowed and I'll show you around"

The feminist who demand equal rights and treatment as men, start off with well they will need separate berthing, a female only head, all of this is before the first female reports aboard. If these requirement are not met than the female sailor is being set up for failure.
So now you have female sailors aboard with there special living arrangements away from there male counterparts. Won't this set up a it's us against them mind set, not good on a six month deployment.

Women on subs is a no win scenario.
don't create a problem and there won't be a problem to solve.

JAM: how you doing on your runs, better I hope.:thumb:
 
OK. Correct me if I am wrong. We will either deploy six month pregnant females on submarines and they will have to have an emergency evacuation at sea or we will deploy non pregnant females who will have a non viable ectopic pregnancy because of their deployment??:jerry:
 
AF6872:
You forgot that all the male sailors on the sub will suffer heart attacks or acute appendicitis or both leaving the sub running on auto pilot. It sounds as if bubble heads aren't the healthiest bunch maybe it's that reactor thing:yllol:
 
An issue of gender equality?

gunner1zues: I agree with you completely....if women want equality with sub duty, then they should receive complete equality. How is it fair that women receive state rooms on subs when the rest of the crew is hot bunking? It is not right, it is not equal to give women something special just because of their sex....how would people react if it was the opposite situation?

Very Respectfully,

SamAca10
 
AF6872 said:
OK. Correct me if I am wrong. We will either deploy six month pregnant females on submarines and they will have to have an emergency evacuation at sea or we will deploy non pregnant females who will have a non viable ectopic pregnancy because of their deployment??:jerry:
Click to expand...
Women being in proximity of men does not automatically impregnate them... I don't know what century you're living in.
 
I'm guessing that women known to be pregnant would not be allowed to deploy. Yes, that raises the whole "fairness" issue (getting PG to avoid deployment) but that's been around since women were allowed in deployable units.

As one of the few (former) female Naval Officers on this board, let me say that, IMO, there are two issues and only two. First, can berthing and bathrooms (heads) be configured to give women and men sufficient privacy. Second, is there any evidence that a woman who does not know she is PG could be harmed by the close proximity to a reactor for an extended period.

If the answers are yes and no, respectively, then women should have the opportunity to serve on subs. If the answer to the first is "no," this could be addressed in future sub construction. The second issue is a medical one on which I certainly am not qualified to opine. That could potentially be obviated with technology, but is a bioethical issue that the USN may not want to address.

As to the arguments re close proximity breeding infidelity . . . if a man or woman wants to cheat on his/her spouse/partner, there are plenty of other opportunities in life to do so. Port calls. Cheating right at home. It's a mentality -- you either trust your spouse or you don't. You're either faithful to your partner or you aren't.

Just saying . . .
 
1) I think everyone is clear on the "cheating/pregnancy" thingie.

2) I wonder how much stress this would/will put on wives (females...sorry, in this discussion, you never know...:yllol: ) back home when their husband is forced to become part of a PC social experiment.

3) You know the Navy is going to berth females in a stateroom and that's it, deal with it.

4) You know females will sue the Navy for sexual harassment in this environment, it's only going to be a matter of time.
 
SVG:

From the century when a pirate was born two hundred years too late.

From a century when the Mickey Mouse Club was the most anticipated TV show in history.

From the century of Pax America when the United States Stood as a Colossus and stepped back.

From a century when PC meant parental control.

From a century when close proximity lead to unintended consequences.

God Bless your century. To paraphrase Sergeant Major Patrick Harper: "God Save America":beer1:

Even I know it is not automatic or immaculate!
 
Last edited:
AF6872 said:
SVG:

From the century when a pirate was born two hundred years too late.

From a century when the Mickey Mouse Club was the most anticipated TV show in history.

From the century of Pax America when the United States Stood as a Colossus and stepped back.

From a century when PC meant parental control.

From a century when close proximity lead to unintended consequences.

God Bless your century. To paraphrase Sergeant Major Patrick Harper: "God Save America":beer1:
Click to expand...

Here, here! :thumb:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top