Women on Submarines - Thoughts? (boot camp, officer, enlisting, corps)

[FlyerNation]

Originally Posted by stan4

Have to take your word for it. I've toured quite a few, but I've never been stuck on one out to sea for months on end.

How are they not 'rigged' for women?

The berthing spaces and heads are not setup to accommodate females. There are enough limitations as it is onboard submarines, esp. the attack subs. These habitability quarters are not currently designed to accommodate both genders. This is a problem.

Then you have to take into consideration the psychological considerations of being enclosed and isolated, without communications, sunlight, etc. for extended periods of time. Then realize the high stress, high-paced atmosphere during a 18 hour day with very minimal sleep. Medical facilities and creature comforts are quite minimal.

Bottom line, the current structure and arrangement of the Submarine Force is not conducive to female billets. This goes from organizational structure to the design of the boats themselves. The infrastructure simply does not support such a sweeping policy change of this magnitude. We're years away from even bringing this action to legitimacy, let alone paving groundwork towards policy change.

But let's not let anything get in the way of PC. Let's just instead rush to change something without even considering the unintended consequences and planning things out beforehand.

[stan4]

Originally Posted by FlyerNation

The berthing spaces and heads are not setup to accommodate females. There are enough limitations as it is onboard submarines, esp. the attack subs. These habitability quarters are not currently designed to accommodate both genders. This is a problem.

Then you have to take into consideration the psychological considerations of being enclosed and isolated, without communications, sunlight, etc. for extended periods of time. Then realize the high stress, high-paced atmosphere during a 18 hour day with very minimal sleep. Medical facilities and creature comforts are quite minimal.


But let's not let anything get in the way of PC. Let's just instead rush to change something without even considering the unintended consequences and planning things out beforehand.

Ok, I get the part where the sexes can't be separated efficiently and without causing problems. Which is why I wouldn't have them separated. But apparently, I am way ahead of my own time.

That stress comment had to have been a joke, right? Women can't handle high stress? Are you for real?

[Norm24x7]

i dont know ..right now i feel like the incredible hulk ..whenever the issue of gender equality comes up i go green .. lol .. if i'll tell a woman im in no mood to open the cork ..u do it yourself ..i'd be getting some pretty good names lol ..enuff said

[macjr82]

Originally Posted by stan4

That is only a problem if you make it one. On both the men and the women's parts.

I could give a crap if my roommate or bunkmate is a guy or a girl. I've worked in close quarters with both genders for literally over a hundred hours a week (sleeping and eating and working together) without there being issue. It's called being a professional.

Now if a woman is going to be all namby pamby and demand her own bathroom, etc, that's her problem. But saying the guys will be distracted is a problem with the guys, not with the woman.

So what if it's a problem with the guys? the fact is, it's still a problem. A problem you can't make go away with rainbows and unicorns. So many decisions are based on a perfect world/perfect people assumption. It's not a perfect world, we're not perfect people.

I'll expound on this later. I have to head to work. Don't mistake my statement to say females shouldn't be in the military. My mom is a Marine and my MOS has more females proportionally than any other MOS and is 2nd in overall numbers. I know they are capable servicemen and the problems often arise from me, but that doesn't make them not problems.

[Verio]

Originally Posted by stan4

Have to take your word for it. I've toured quite a few, but I've never been stuck on one out to sea for months on end.

How are they not 'rigged' for women?

I take it you've served in the Navy before? Here's the lowdown and dirty.

*Women must have their own separate quarters, they do not share the same berthing area as men. This presents a unique situation for Submarines, as all of the men rack together, with the exception of a few areas;
-JO's
-First Class Quarters
-Div O's
-CPO's
-XO/CO

*Women must have their own dedicated head on board a vessel. This means that the current Submarine design would effectively eliminate half the available toilets and showers on a Submarine.

*Could you imagine the hooplah that would come, if during a Fire drill, or a real fire we're checking racks to make sure everyone's safe, and we find a female who's not clothed properly? Game over.

*I've personally been involved with females on a Submarine. It was hellish.

*What about a pregnancy out to sea in an area during TS ops? Ya'll just ruined the mission.

-------------

I agree with your premise that if men and women were truly treated equally in the Navy, it could possibly work. But they aren't, and they wont be in my lifetime. We're too PC for that. PC enough to force integration in a force that's ALWAYS been 100% male force.... but not PC enough to treat women like men are.

[BlackShoe]

Over on the Great Debate forum is a thread that debates the role of women in the military. It has nearly 400 posts, the last in October. The topic of women on subs is discussed, among others. Those with an interest might want to take a look, or even perhaps revive the thread.

[Submariner]

I served in the US Navy on Active duty for 20+ years. 14 of those years was in the Silent Service.

I served on the USS George C. Marshall SSBN 654 (b). There was multiple berthing areas. The primary berthing was where most of us had bunks, however we also had bunks in the bow compartment so a half dozen crewmen berthed separately there. And in the missile compartment was berthing for up to a dozen. So while there were smaller and separate berths available for females the heads would have been an issue.

I served on board the USS Simon Lake AS-33, a sub tender which was co-ed. A dozen separate berthing compartments provided totally separate berthing and heads for each gender.


I served on board the USS Casimir Pulaski SSBN 633(g) Which was very much like the Marshall. Primary berthing had no privacy. The bow compartment had a half dozen bunks. The missile compartment had a dozen bunks. Heads would have been an issue.

I also served on the USS Alaska SSBN 732 (b). All enlisted berthing is done in nine-person bunkrooms. If females were brought onboard in groups of nine, they would have totally separate and private berthing. In the missile compartment there is two separate heads, one at each end of the compartment, showers, toilets, sinks, etc. It is all there. Many of us thought that when the Trident class was designed, that it was done with female crewmen in mind, assuming that eventually congress would push it through.

There would be few problems with females onboard the modern subs.

When I was on the Simon Lake the biggest problem was pregnancy. It was hard to keep a female onboard, because statistically it took less then 6 months before they got pregnant, on a 3-year tour.

When the Navy went to encouraging Norplant, that problem mostly went away. One injection that works for 5-years and it stopped the pregnancies.

IMHO, as a career submariner, if you required Norplant injections [or a suitable replacement] and only focused on the huge modern subs, it would work very well.

[Crew Chief]

Silly me... I actually believed all that stuff I was told about during my career; treat everyone equally. I never heard that you should "treat everyone equal except______". So I just don't get any of the "Gays shouldn't be allowed to serve". "Women shouldn't be allowed to serve" etc. I thought it was supposed to be about "Can the individual do the job?" Why can't we all just act like adults and do what the taxpayers pay us to do.

[Balad1]

On this subject I'll defer to the sailors that are and have served in the silent service.

Other uneducated opinions are basicly BS.

[Happy Cells]

A totally stupid idea.
Today we see that yet another skipper got canned because of an "inappropriate" relationship with another member of the crew. (read sexual relationship)
Sex has NO PLACE in the military. When you put Men and Women together in highly stressful confined quarters they are going to get together...they are going to copulate, have "sex". That is NOT the job of the military...to provide a time and place for people to grandstand their sexuality or engage in sex. You are in the military to SERVE not get "serviced". Our job is totally stressful ENOUGH with out adding the immeasurably stressful aspect of modern human sexuality to the mix....it's NOT needed....it does NOT make the job easier...faster...better....more efficient....more enjoyable....more productive. It ONLY MAKES IT WORSE!
You are in the military to fight....to prepare for and fight wars...battles. In order to do that you need to THINK ABOUT THE SHIP....not when you're going to get your next "lay"....Sex is like a drug...and people, particularly many young people who's hormones are raging...CAN NOT control themselves when that drug is made available.....if it's there people will take it....and when they are taking it....they ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS!!!
Time after time we have seen that this patently STUPID social-engineering experiment white-washed as some sort of measure of "equality" has in reality become an EPIC FAILURE...seen that it has resulted in nothing but chaos and a disastrous lack of professionalism in the military workforce the Navy Team and elsewhere. Who knows how much all this garbage really costs the Navy and the U.S. Military? All the lost time to "touchy-feely" EO training....courts-martial...JAG's running around ruined careers and idiotic sexual tension on the ship on the base that was never before an issue but now is going far to seriously erode the morale and effectiveness of our forces. For many many centuries...for many HUNDREDS of years we have struggled to eliminate as many of the variables involved with going to sea...and fighting battles at sea as possible...because all of the unknowns all of those variables COST LIVES....Men died because our ships were not good enough...our systems and procedures were not as good as they should have been. We took our beatings at the hands of crazed determined enemies....we learned our lessons and survived....got stronger got better and got SMARTER....Now we (or rather some dizzy fuzzy-haired politicians and liberal mutant "activists") are pushing to have the greatest unknown DELIBERATELY and FORCEABLY INTRODUCED into the military....that of sexuality and the end result of all that prima facie absurd politically motivated liberal mindlessness will be a serious weakening of our strengths and capabilities. The strongest part of our military is our PEOPLE and if we weaken them the whole system is the worse for it....and America will NOT be as ready to meet the next military challenge...
This social-engineering nonsense is best left to the college classroom....let the warriors do their job with out weighing them down with NEEDLESS and ENDLESS garbage!