NukeWorker Forum

Career Path => Navy Nuke => Topic started by: Yaeger on Sep 04, 2010, 10:09

Title: Women on submarines
Post by: Yaeger on Sep 04, 2010, 10:09
At the risk of sounding sexist, I'm just after some answers.

Here's a quote from Elaine Donnelly, in a report to the Pentagon in 2007 who is contracted to oversea gender issues for the military.

"A plan to assign female sailors and officers only to larger Trident submarines (SSBNs, also known as “boomers”) would create an unacceptable two-tiered officer community: one group that can serve
on any submarine, and another that can only be assigned to Tridents.

Without the opportunity to assign sailors to both types of submarines, in order to broaden experience in each, it would become increasingly difficult to maintain a properly balanced and experienced officer community.

This would disadvantage women in any fair selection process for command. Additionally, assigning women only to the larger Trident subs would create a perceived inequity within the community."


I've always hated creating double standards in any community. It creates resentment, inequality, and hurt feelings. Already men and women that serve in the military have two different standards, but I'm asking why do we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot?

I'm all for equality, I think that anyone can serve in any position they qualify for, just don't give us two different standards for people trying to do the same job.

I have faith that the nuclear pipeline won't accelerate training like the aviation community did in the mid-90's which led to some preventable accidents. Do you think we'll see the same type of accidents brought on by rushed training/promotions brought on by political pressure once they reach the fleet?

Does the civilian nuclear community have the same "Double Standards" based on gender? Do you guys foresee this having a negative impact on the submarine fleet?
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Yaeger on Sep 04, 2010, 10:51
We more that one-upped you.  We have standards for hes, shes, shes who want to be hes, and hes who want to be shes.



That's a lot of different standards. Do the requirements to hire change with the respective category?
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Sun Dog on Sep 05, 2010, 04:47
That's a lot of different standards. Do the requirements to hire change with the respective category?

There are no official biases one way or the other when it comes to hiring.  Having double (or triple) standards would be illegal.  Like the scales of justice, HR is blind.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: JsonD13 on Sep 06, 2010, 03:15
I definetly see a problem with it in the sub fleet (not that I was a submariner, though).  The problem could come from the men being jealous of the women since they can only have the more "cushy" boomer asignments versus fast attacks.

But then again, like you said, nothing new.  PRT (performance, not weight/BF) standards have been different for many years.

Jason
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Marlin on Sep 06, 2010, 03:53
I definetly see a problem with it in the sub fleet (not that I was a submariner, though).  The problem could come from the men being jealous of the women since they can only have the more "cushy" boomer asignments versus fast attacks.

But then again, like you said, nothing new.  PRT (performance, not weight/BF) standards have been different for many years.

Jason

Jealous? Irrate and indignate may be the right term. When women were first introduced into the Nuclear Propulsion program they were not allowed on any warship so they took up shore billets forcing some men to take longer Sea-Shore rotations, they weren't jealous they were mad. Apparently it's only fair if its PC and hateful if you expect equal treatment.

There is no way to make this change and be fair so you will have to expect some of those who get set aside to be angry. But that is just the way it is, and to denigrate those set aside to make up for past inequalities they had nothing to do with is a bit small minded, especially if you are not one of the ones who will have to pay that price.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: retired nuke on Oct 25, 2010, 07:00
Well, here it comes, ready or not boys....

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/22/women-to-begin-serving-on-u-s-submarines/?hpt=Sbin (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/22/women-to-begin-serving-on-u-s-submarines/?hpt=Sbin)

 :o
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Fermi2 on Oct 25, 2010, 04:03
It's about time.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: retired nuke on Oct 25, 2010, 05:41
It's about time.

Yep. 8)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: JsonD13 on Apr 07, 2011, 01:56
Some might consider getting back in if they really looked like that.

But then again I would have to ask permission, and she would say NO!
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Styrofoam on Apr 07, 2011, 02:17
Some might consider getting back in if they really looked like that.

But then again I would have to ask permission, and she would say NO!

It doesn't mean you're ugly; it means she's smart.  [coffee]
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: JsonD13 on Apr 07, 2011, 02:31
I am not talking about asking the girl in the picture permission, I was referring to my wife.

So in a sense, youre right.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: DLGN25 on Apr 07, 2011, 07:27
Will this be in store for all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ttd48u0J0&feature=player_detailpage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ttd48u0J0&feature=player_detailpage)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: HydroDave63 on Apr 07, 2011, 09:07
Will this be in store for all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ttd48u0J0&feature=player_detailpage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2ttd48u0J0&feature=player_detailpage)

Lots of torpedoing, anyhow  ;)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: MacGyver on Apr 08, 2011, 10:57
Lots of torpedoing, anyhow  ;)

Aye Aye .... Captain!

Quote


"Polishing the Old Torpedo Sir?" (quote at 2:42)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Cycoticpenguin on Apr 09, 2011, 10:35
Women do not need to be on subs. The cost/benefit ratio doesnt compute. Maybe an ALL woman sub, but definitely NOT a coed one.

Human nature prevails, only a matter of time before the pregnancies and rape accusations begin to trickle in for the problems to become evident.

Now, perhaps a couple officers (akin to down periscope, but obviously a little more respectful) on a sub would be ok (A doctor or supply officer), but I just dont see the benefit of having coed submarines. Sexist???? If thats what it has to be O.o

Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: JustinHEMI05 on Apr 10, 2011, 01:02
Women SHOULD be on submarines.... when they build a class specifically designed to house a coed crew.

I like the plan now... test the waters with officers.

They should NOT waste time or money reconfiguring the current classes for women (fast attacks that is).
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Cycoticpenguin on Apr 10, 2011, 01:57
Women SHOULD be on submarines.... when they build a class specifically designed to house a coed crew.

I like the plan now... test the waters with officers.

They should NOT waste time or money reconfiguring the current classes for women (fast attacks that is).


I was never on a submarine, how feasible is it to "build in" a separate berthing for women blue shirts?

Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: andrewnavy on Apr 10, 2011, 02:05

I was never on a submarine, how feasible is it to "build in" a separate berthing for women blue shirts?



Not worth the time or mountains of money.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: JustinHEMI05 on Apr 10, 2011, 10:00

I was never on a submarine, how feasible is it to "build in" a separate berthing for women blue shirts?



It isn't feasible... IMO. I agree, not worth the time or money.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: playswithairplanes on Apr 11, 2011, 05:44
I had an 'er... um' moment with this topic about 3 weeks ago. My 5 year old daughter was looking at my shadow box and asked about my dolphins. I explained what they were, and how I got them. She then says, I want to be on a submarine too daddy...

Yea... er... um... yea, honey. /sigh
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: HydroDave63 on Apr 11, 2011, 05:54
I had an 'er... um' moment with this topic about 3 weeks ago. My 5 year old daughter was looking at my shadow box and asked about my dolphins. I explained what they were, and how I got them. She then says, I want to be on a submarine too daddy...

Yea... er... um... yea, honey. /sigh

(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/ssgn-002.jpg)

Convert the 102 Spec Ops bunks into 40 female berths, 6 commodes, 12 shower, 2 huge honkin' make-up mirrors and a modest Day Spa, and you are there!
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Cycoticpenguin on Apr 11, 2011, 06:47
I had an 'er... um' moment with this topic about 3 weeks ago. My 5 year old daughter was looking at my shadow box and asked about my dolphins. I explained what they were, and how I got them. She then says, I want to be on a submarine too daddy...

Yea... er... um... yea, honey. /sigh

Time for some tough love buddy ;) haha
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Smooth Operator on Apr 12, 2011, 09:44
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/ssgn-002.jpg)

Convert the 102 Spec Ops bunks into 40 female berths, 6 commodes, 12 shower, 2 huge honkin' make-up mirrors and a modest Day Spa, and you are there!

I would not put it past that our politically correct knee jerk government would sacrifice the mission of fast attacks just to get females on board.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: HydroDave63 on Apr 13, 2011, 01:10
I would not put it past that our politically correct knee jerk government would sacrifice the mission of fast attacks just to get females on board.

More like a 12,000 ton 20-knot capable "slow approach", but with 4 dedicated Twitter and Facebook terminals, and small gift shop just forward of the NFO tank (gotta be able to buy some Febreeze for the bunks when you run out!) it would be such a party! Just watch your step, so you don't slip on all the stuffed unicorns on the deck from angles-n-dangles  >:(
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Cycoticpenguin on Apr 13, 2011, 09:40
More like a 12,000 ton 20-knot capable "slow approach", but with 4 dedicated Twitter and Facebook terminals, and small gift shop just forward of the NFO tank (gotta be able to buy some Febreeze for the bunks when you run out!) it would be such a party! Just watch your step, so you don't slip on all the stuffed unicorns on the deck from angles-n-dangles  >:(

If thats not sexist I dont know what is ;) You clearly werent on a carrier either lol
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: playswithairplanes on Apr 13, 2011, 11:22
Febreeze is an Atmospheric Contaminant... Geeze doesn't anybody pay attention to the Atmospheric Control Manual anymore???? 
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: drayer54 on Apr 13, 2011, 09:01
More like a 12,000 ton 20-knot capable "slow approach", but with 4 dedicated Twitter and Facebook terminals, and small gift shop just forward of the NFO tank (gotta be able to buy some Febreeze for the bunks when you run out!) it would be such a party! Just watch your step, so you don't slip on all the stuffed unicorns on the deck from angles-n-dangles  >:(
Where do we sign up for this force? Do they have a swimming pool and McDonalds too?

Febreeze is an Atmospheric Contaminant... Geeze doesn't anybody pay attention to the Atmospheric Control Manual anymore???? 
Ships are only bearable because of Febreeze. As long as our recruiters continue to bring in swamp things, this manual is on the back burner.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: HydroDave63 on Apr 13, 2011, 10:10
Where do we sign up for this force? Do they have a swimming pool and McDonalds too?
Ships are only bearable because of Febreeze. As long as our recruiters continue to bring in swamp things, this manual is on the back burner.

1. The swimming pool will be the justification for the future Patricia S. Schroeder  (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/30/us/representative-schroeder-plans-to-quit.html) class of SSGN having a electro-mechanical lockout of 5 degrees on any control plane.

2. NOOOOOO McDonald's. What, are you from Texas or something?!? A slim sailor is a happy sailor. At least a sailor that the khakis are happy to look at.

3. Playswithboeings has a point. No Febreeze, but I'm certain the the gift shop forward of the NFO will sell generously-sized potpourri sachets woven with Fair-Trade organic raw silk. Or you can borrow some lavender bath beads from the coners ;)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: spekkio on Apr 20, 2011, 09:40

I was never on a submarine, how feasible is it to "build in" a separate berthing for women blue shirts?
Depends on how exclusive you need the berthing to be.

It's feasible if you had about 21-30 of them and they were all relegated to 21 man.

It's going to be interesting when the first green E-2 makes a fully qualified E-5 hot rack because she's not allowed to share berthing with men, or when a lone female officer takes up an entire stateroom to herself, resulting in two empty racks and 4 more people hot racking. That won't create dissent on a submarine at all.

Or, you could set up some makeshift curtains to "separate" berthing in a pinch, but I doubt that would satisfy the PC crowd.

The only way to logistically integrate women on submarines is to get rid of the exclusive berthing restriction. But then that opens up a whole new can of worms to maintain "good order and discipline."
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Mike_Koehler on Apr 21, 2011, 10:43
Depends on how exclusive you need the berthing to be.

It's feasible if you had about 21-30 of them and they were all relegated to 21 man.


Our percentages of "hot racking" was such that almost all of 21 man was hot bunking..... may have been 2 or 3 racks that weren't. So figure 3+(9*3)= 39 women. But that was a long time ago on an old pig boat.

Mike
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: 730SMAG on Apr 21, 2011, 12:04
Oddly enough, my concern about women on submarines is less logistical and more physical.

I don't know about the other guys with fish, but I personally will have a hard time believing the legitimacy of any DC checkout for someone who can't one-hand and haul a submersible pump from ERUL to ERLL and back, drag a full coil of firehose in an SCBA, put the gronk on a bandit kit, etc.  Anyone who physically cannot perform every DC role, up to and including dragging a 280-pound guy in an SCBA and FFE out of a compartment, should not be on a submarine.

Berthing can be solved.  Medical needs can be dealt with.  Politics can be handled.  Women are going on submarines, simple as that; there's nothing we can really do about it.  All we can really hope for is that they're qualified to be there.  And part of that qualification is being able to support the ship during a casualty. 

Admittedly, I come from the slow boat fleet, so, it's not that hard for us to go "meh, designate one 9-man bunkroom for women and call it good," and we never really had hot-racking issues as far as space goes, between MC2L, MC3L and MCLL berthing spaces.  Boomers have the room, but from everything I've seen about 688's and Virginias, they physically cannot support segregated berthing.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: drayer54 on Apr 21, 2011, 01:52
Oddly enough, my concern about women on submarines is less logistical and more physical.
I don't know about the other guys with fish, but I personally will have a hard time believing the legitimacy of any DC checkout for someone who can't one-hand and haul a submersible pump from ERUL to ERLL and back, drag a full coil of firehose in an SCBA, put the gronk on a bandit kit, etc.  Anyone who physically cannot perform every DC role, up to and including dragging a 280-pound guy in an SCBA and FFE out of a compartment, should not be on a submarine.
Not to fear! This has been tested before and is currently working onboard our surface ships as we speak.  When I was onboard the Mighty Warship Eisenhower, we had a Nucleus Fire Party. The NFP was responsible for all damage control efforts outside of the engineering spaces. In the engineering spaces, the Nukes were the first responders who would turn over DC efforts to the NFP. ie.  Nukes were taking IA’s and initial DC actions while the NFP was in route with full FFE’s and their own equipment. Yes, we didn’t even get out of our racks if the fire wasn’t in the plant. We have a designated group who is focused on DC. The overwhelming majority of the people on this team were indeed females.

They had all of the same responsibilities and took the same actions while facing the same casualties. I was on our drill team and had a chance to watch them in action several times and they did just as good of a job as their male counterparts. The fire on CVN-73, back in 2008 wasn’t combated by a bunch of big strong men. This has been tested and it would work just fine. You would have to get used to hearing, “Hey, can you go downstairs and open that valve, she is on watch.” That is definite downside.
Now if you wanted to make the case that to stand watch in a plant that you had to pass a nuke version PRT, I’d be all for it. I would propose swinging a combined exhaust/relief valve and then running from the 7th deck to the 2nd deck through two Zebra set hatches and then donning an SCBA. It would be an immense waste of time in already loaded work environment, but then again, so is our current process.

Agree with it or not, the navy is starting to not sort out sailors by gender or sexual preference in every environment.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: 730SMAG on Apr 21, 2011, 04:31
Not to fear! This has been tested before and is currently working onboard our surface ships as we speak.  When I was onboard the Mighty Warship Eisenhower, we had a Nucleus Fire Party. The NFP was responsible for all damage control efforts outside of the engineering spaces. In the engineering spaces, the Nukes were the first responders who would turn over DC efforts to the NFP. ie.  Nukes were taking IA’s and initial DC actions while the NFP was in route with full FFE’s and their own equipment. Yes, we didn’t even get out of our racks if the fire wasn’t in the plant. We have a designated group who is focused on DC. The overwhelming majority of the people on this team were indeed females.

They had all of the same responsibilities and took the same actions while facing the same casualties. I was on our drill team and had a chance to watch them in action several times and they did just as good of a job as their male counterparts. The fire on CVN-73, back in 2008 wasn’t combated by a bunch of big strong men. This has been tested and it would work just fine. You would have to get used to hearing, “Hey, can you go downstairs and open that valve, she is on watch.” That is definite downside.
Now if you wanted to make the case that to stand watch in a plant that you had to pass a nuke version PRT, I’d be all for it. I would propose swinging a combined exhaust/relief valve and then running from the 7th deck to the 2nd deck through two Zebra set hatches and then donning an SCBA. It would be an immense waste of time in already loaded work environment, but then again, so is our current process.

Agree with it or not, the navy is starting to not sort out sailors by gender or sexual preference in every environment.

Interesting perspective on it, drayer; I'll admit that most of what I know about women in the fleet is anecdotal from the guys I know who've served in the surface fleet.  And most of the opinions I've heard are...less than completely positive, to be blunt.  I'm fully aware that the Navy's moving towards integration, and I personally have no problem with it.  Great career opportunities, increased manning, etc, etc, as long as they can do their jobs.

But there's one part of your statement that really, really worries me.  “Hey, can you go downstairs and open that valve, she is on watch.”  Maybe it's just me, but...  That a little concerning.  I stood ERF, and on that watchstation alone - at least on a 726 - we had several large (>1 ft handwheel) valves that we had to sling for casualties.  Not to mention the FRVs in manual control can require a decent amount of muscle to wing open and shut in response to transients; ours were sticky, to stay the least.  And don't get me started on the ship's service hydraulic plant isolation valves, which required a T-handle and a cheater bar on some of them.  

And that, I note, is my only concern.  We don't have the manning to have someone run down and help someone open up a valve or isolate a system for a casualty, especially if it needs a prompt response.  I mean, sure, you have the CAT back there in a couple minutes, but underway steaming, we have 12 guys in the ER.  Four of whom are in maneuvering, with the EWS and ERS as the only 'roving' watchstanders in the ER.  And if the person on watch, in that space, can't handle every immediate action for that casualty by themselves...  I don't think they belong there.  It's unsafe for plant operations, to say the least, if you need that person plus someone else to handle the job.

How would you suggest being able to deal with that sort of thing?  
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: spekkio on Apr 21, 2011, 05:44
Quote
Anyone who physically cannot perform every DC role, up to and including dragging a 280-pound guy in an SCBA and FFE out of a compartment, should not be on a submarine.
You have to get off your high horse a lil' bit there killa...most submariners, particularly nukes, can't carry a 280 lb person out of a compartment by themselves. Fire extinguishers and portable submersible pumps aren't so heavy that a female wouldn't be able to handle them, unless they are trying to pretend to be a priss to avoid pulling their own weight...and if they do that, the submarine community and culture will take care of that quickly, I'm sure. The only problem would be how long it takes for one of them to cry discrimination against women when it's really discrimination against stupid and lazy.

Quote from: drayer54
Nukes were taking IA’s and initial DC actions while the NFP was in route with full FFE’s and their own equipment. Yes, we didn’t even get out of our racks if the fire wasn’t in the plant. We have a designated group who is focused on DC. The overwhelming majority of the people on this team were indeed females.
There are only 110-120 crewmembers on a submarine, and not all of them are qualified; you simply don't have enough personnel to make up for a qualified watchstander being unable to perform basic DC roles. You especially don't have the personnel to make up for a crew that is 20% comprised of them.

Quote
Our percentages of "hot racking" was such that almost all of 21 man was hot bunking..... may have been 2 or 3 racks that weren't. So figure 3+(9*3)= 39 women. But that was a long time ago on an old pig boat.
Well, then you buy yourself into the opposite situation where a female E-6 hot racks over a male E-4. Except the women can claim sexism and cause a lot more heat than the men.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: drayer54 on Apr 21, 2011, 05:47
How would you suggest being able to deal with that sort of thing?  
It's very easy and common for some surface nuke to run off on a woman sailor bashing rant and I'm sure this is what you have heard. You would hear the obvious lines about them getting pregnant before deployments and hiding in their spaces away from everyone. You would also hear some stories about some being bad in general. Although, I also remember some guys who weren't worth the $1.75 a week they were getting paid. The sad part of the stereotype is the minority who work hard and do everything right. The VAST majority of the ones I served with did not finish their time and did the stuff that the stereotype said.I never understood the girls who dated around the department, especially on deployments. It's hard to explain this adequately without running off on a sexist opinionated tangent that wouldn't be appropriate for the forum...

As far as them not operating every valve in the plant, well that one is more difficult. I remember for certain evolutions having people cover for them, but we would have done the same for a smaller weaker guy(Who easily passed a PRT).We have some tough valves that were a tough job for some guys. We had two very short girls who couldn't reach or move some of the tougher valves and they required someone to constantly cover them. That's the reality of steaming a plant in that environment. You know what has to be done during a casualty and you usually know as a supervisory watchstander who will need the most help (either due to workload or capability). We had some guys who believed that they wouldn't receive help and therefore didn't feel the need to go sweat for them, that usually just slowed things down dramatically and ended up helping. I will say that despite it's issues, it has been working in for surface fleet and would have to work in the sub fleet. I don't think the two are different as some submariners would like to think. I know we usually end up fighting the same types of BS and most of the stories sound about the same. I would have done sub if I could go back and do it all over again for sure. This issue is one that will draw some strong opinions and I am trying to choose my words wisely, but I just don't think that you will ever see a way to keep everything fair. Fair varies from person to person......
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: 730SMAG on Apr 21, 2011, 05:49
You have to get off your high horse a lil' bit there killa...most submariners, particularly nukes, can't carry a 280 lb person out of a compartment by themselves. Fire extinguishers and portable submersible pumps aren't so heavy that a female wouldn't be able to handle them, unless they are trying to pretend to be a priss to avoid pulling their own weight...and if they do that, the submarine community and culture will take care of that quickly, I'm sure.

There's a reason I said drag. :P  But more seriously, yeah, that is something of a high horse.  But it's probably a consistent opinion that will be encountered; I know I'm not the only one to feel that way.  And most males will, frankly, come closer to being able to drag someone out of a compartment than a female, it's simply a matter of peak upper body strength, and that's simple biology.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: spekkio on Apr 21, 2011, 05:56
And I'm telling you that I look around my boat, and either two cases are true:

1) I have the most fat, out of shape crew in the entire submarine force OR
2) The laws of average have taken effect and the average submariner is not going to be able to handle a 280 lb person by himself.

Mind you, this is 280 lbs...that's someone who already weighs over 200 lbs before he put his gear on, ie he is also fat and out of shape, since most submariners are under 6'.

Also, DC training has you leave the down person in the compartment and fight the fire. The EMAT team gets him out later, AFTER you put out the fire that's threatening the other 119 people on board and a multi-billion dollar warship. No female ERS watch is going to have to evacuate ERLL by herself during a fire. She's going to be faking out the hose as trained with the RT, AEA, TRW, and LTOW and applying water as necessary until relieved by the FFE hose team.

How often have you heard the line "fitness doesn't have anything to do with how well I can do my job?" Simple biology doesn't automatically make you stronger. You still have to do exercise to gain strength. Your argument is the classical, sexist "women can't do this because they are inherently weaker," except that you are vastly over-estimating the amount of physical strength it takes to conduct damage control efforts and you're using an example that is contrary to submarine fire fighting doctrine anyway.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: 730SMAG on Apr 21, 2011, 06:20
And I'm telling you that I look around my boat, and either two cases are true:

1) I have the most fat, out of shape crew in the entire submarine force OR
2) The laws of average have taken effect and the average submariner is not going to be able to handle a 280 lb person by himself.

Mind you, this is 280 lbs...that's someone who already weighs over 200 lbs before he put his gear on, ie he is also fat and out of shape, since most submariners are under 6'.

Also, DC training has you leave the down person in the compartment and fight the fire. The EMAT team gets him out later, AFTER you put out the fire that's threatening the other 119 people on board and a multi-billion dollar warship. No female ERS watch is going to have to evacuate ERLL by herself during a fire. She's going to be grabbing the nearest fire extinguisher to put agent on the fire as trained.

How often have you heard the line "fitness doesn't have anything to do with how well I can do my job?" Simple biology doesn't automatically make you stronger. You still have to do exercise to gain strength. Your argument is the classical, sexist "women can't do this because they are inherently weaker," except that you are vastly over-estimating the amount of physical strength it takes to conduct damage control efforts and you're using an example that is contrary to submarine fire fighting doctrine anyway.
Okay, you have a point there.  Completely destroyed my argument, in fact; I'd gotten too fixated on the being able to haul someone out of the compartment thing and neglected the actual DC manual requirements.  Forgive me, it's been a while since I've looked at the thing.  And the 280-pounds thing was just an extreme, we had some pretty big guys on my boat.  I would agree that most people aren't at that weight. 

And I agree, simple biology doesn't make you stronger.  I know there are women out there who can bench more than I can.  But it also turns around and says that the physiological makeup between men and women are different in the terms of peak cardiovascular capacity, muscle strength, etc.  Putting in the time to work out and get in shape matters, but biology still has a final word for both ease of gaining strength and final peak strength potential.  I don't think I'm being too sexist here when I'm stating facts. 

And no, most DC efforts do not take that much physical strength.  Some do; I believe my other example was hauling a submersible pump.  No, I don't remember exactly how much it weighed, but it was a good forty, fifty pounds?  Could you check on that for me when you get a chance?  Or any of the other tasks onboard which require, in the end, brute physical strength.  If a female sailor can meet those goals and satisfy those responsibilities, then there's nothing wrong with them standing the watch. 

It's going back to - yes, I'm retreating here - the ability to do the job.  I threw out a couple extreme examples, you shot'em down.  That means they were bad examples, really, and I do admit that I'm overstating some things here. 


It's very easy and common for some surface nuke to run off on a woman sailor bashing rant and I'm sure this is what you have heard. You would hear the obvious lines about them getting pregnant before deployments and hiding in their spaces away from everyone. You would also hear some stories about some being bad in general. Although, I also remember some guys who weren't worth the $1.75 a week they were getting paid. The sad part of the stereotype is the minority who work hard and do everything right. The VAST majority of the ones I served with did not finish their time and did the stuff that the stereotype said.I never understood the girls who dated around the department, especially on deployments. It's hard to explain this adequately without running off on a sexist opinionated tangent that wouldn't be appropriate for the forum...

As far as them not operating every valve in the plant, well that one is more difficult. I remember for certain evolutions having people cover for them, but we would have done the same for a smaller weaker guy(Who easily passed a PRT).We have some tough valves that were a tough job for some guys. We had two very short girls who couldn't reach or move some of the tougher valves and they required someone to constantly cover them. That's the reality of steaming a plant in that environment. You know what has to be done during a casualty and you usually know as a supervisory watchstander who will need the most help (either due to workload or capability). We had some guys who believed that they wouldn't receive help and therefore didn't feel the need to go sweat for them, that usually just slowed things down dramatically and ended up helping. I will say that despite it's issues, it has been working in for surface fleet and would have to work in the sub fleet. I don't think the two are different as some submariners would like to think. I know we usually end up fighting the same types of BS and most of the stories sound about the same. I would have done sub if I could go back and do it all over again for sure. This issue is one that will draw some strong opinions and I am trying to choose my words wisely, but I just don't think that you will ever see a way to keep everything fair. Fair varies from person to person......
I'd agree, most of the comments I've heard were woman sailor bashing rants, with the occasional positive comment.  And I agree with you; there's no point in going off on that tangent.


But that still comes back to my main concern.  We simply don't have the manning to be able to have people cover for them.  There's 180 people on a boomer, 40 of whom are nukes when we're fully manned (we're usually not).  A bare-bones, three-section underway watch means we have 5 ELTs, 12 MMs, 10 EMs, 7 ETs, and the EDMC.  35 nukes.  And that's three-section on all watchstations, with the division chiefs and EDMC standing 4-section EWS, 4-section ERS with the LELT, and an underway ELT.

And if a casualty occurs, we can't afford anyone that's not pulling their full weight, or needs someone to back them up. 

The reality of the situation on a submarine is that every watchstander has to be able to perform the IA's on that watch, because things are much more time-critical and sensitive.  It's apples and oranges, as far as I can tell, when it comes to DC response.  We lose the ER, we're screwed.  A carrier loses an ER, they still have the ability to steam, etc.  These are extremes, I agree, but that's what people are going to look at.  On the day-to-day operational level, I don't think women will have any issue operating the plant.  But in a casualty situation, when everything is on the line, we need people who can, without hesitation or need for backup, operate everything on that watchstation to fight the casualty.

And going back to what spekkio was saying, the vast majority of things can be handled without concern.  It's the outliers that are problematic, and as I said previously, they're the ones that will matter when people are looking at the worst-case scenario.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: spekkio on Apr 21, 2011, 06:53
Quote
And I agree, simple biology doesn't make you stronger.  I know there are women out there who can bench more than I can.  But it also turns around and says that the physiological makeup between men and women are different in the terms of peak cardiovascular capacity, muscle strength, etc.  Putting in the time to work out and get in shape matters, but biology still has a final word for both ease of gaining strength and final peak strength potential.  I don't think I'm being too sexist here when I'm stating facts. 

And no, most DC efforts do not take that much physical strength.  Some do; I believe my other example was hauling a submersible pump.  No, I don't remember exactly how much it weighed, but it was a good forty, fifty pounds?  Could you check on that for me when you get a chance?  Or any of the other tasks onboard which require, in the end, brute physical strength.  If a female sailor can meet those goals and satisfy those responsibilities, then there's nothing wrong with them standing the watch. 
I agree that men, on average, are stronger than women. But this only matters when the people involved are performing tasks that require a high level of physical strength. I contend that lifting 50 lbs does not fit that definition, and the vast majority of both men and women can handle lifting that weight without having to hit the gym. Additionally, rigging the portable submersible pump is a supplementary action that is handled by the DC party. While it's still inexcusable, it's a lot easier to work around the runts who can't handle the thing when you have quite a few people standing by on crew's mess by that time.

I have also seen scrawny guys who can't handle some valves in the plant. What do they do? They get a bigger mechanic, who helps him, then usually makes a sarcastic comment about the other dude's strength/manliness/nubliness, the other dude turns it into a your mom joke, and they carry on smartly. I have also had a male ET nuke whine about/refuse to carry something that is 60 lbs by himself because the "procedure" says it's a 2-person lift.

Quote
It's going back to - yes, I'm retreating here - the ability to do the job.  I threw out a couple extreme examples, you shot'em down.  That means they were bad examples, really, and I do admit that I'm overstating some things here.
And with some very rare exceptions that would probably require extra manpower anyway, women are fully capable of doing the same job as men on a submarine. The real challenge is working with a ship design that was not built for coed inhabitants. The options to fix this are: a) expensive overhauls that change the layout of berthing b) somehow managing manpower so you have X amount of women on board at all times so that they can take up one berthing compartment alone without wasting racks c) coed berthing or d) wasting 7 racks in 9-man to accomodate having 2 women on board. Knowing the Navy, I bet they go with d.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: 730SMAG on Apr 21, 2011, 07:18
I agree that men, on average, are stronger than women. But this only matters when the people involved are performing tasks that require a high level of physical strength. I contend that lifting 50 lbs does not fit that definition, and the vast majority of both men and women can handle lifting that weight without having to hit the gym. Additionally, rigging the portable submersible pump is a supplementary action that is handled by the DC party. While it's still inexcusable, it's a lot easier to work around the runts who can't handle the thing when you have quite a few people standing by on crew's mess by that time.
My counter-contention is there shouldn't be a need to have a situation handled differently based on "working around the runts," as you call it.  Which is my sole contention in this argument; if women want to be on submarines, they should be able to perform the same tasks as a male.  I don't remember DC party assignments being made by strength/fitness; if you got assigned the job, you went and did the job.

And you're more than correct, there are work-arounds for the problem.  I believe - and drayer may be able to back me up on this - that it's what they do on surface ships with some of the heavier and bulkier DC gear.  My argument is that there shouldn't be a need for this, because it'll start creating friction.  Imagine, say, the coner/nuke liberty difference, but applied to DC or maintenance.  "Oh, she can't do X, we'll get a guy to do it." 

I'm not saying it'll happen, but that's something I suspect will happen.  My experience with female sailors is limited, so, I can't speak from experience when it comes to that.  If drayer could chime in on that, with how it works out in the surface fleet?

I have also seen scrawny guys who can't handle some valves in the plant. What do they do? They get a bigger mechanic, who helps him, then usually makes a sarcastic comment about the other dude's strength/manliness/nubliness, the other dude turns it into a your mom joke, and they carry on smartly. I have also had a male ET nuke whine about/refuse to carry something that is 60 lbs by himself because the "procedure" says it's a 2-person lift.
 And with some very rare exceptions that would probably require extra manpower anyway, women are fully capable of doing the same job as men on a submarine. The real challenge is working with a ship design that was not built for coed inhabitants. The options to fix this are: a) expensive overhauls that change the layout of berthing b) somehow managing manpower so you have X amount of women on board at all times so that they can take up one berthing compartment alone without wasting racks c) coed berthing or d) wasting 7 racks in 9-man to accomodate having 2 women on board.

Knowing the Navy, I bet they go with d.
Oh, I agree that that's the solution, but how often does it come up?  I don't think there was a handwheel'd valve in the ER I couldn't have operated, and I'm not on the high end of the strength scale.  There were ones that left me sweating and panting - the MFP isolations come to mind - when I was done, and there were definitely guys who could shut them faster than I could, but the thing is, I could shut them without needing to call someone to help me. 

I'm not disagreeing with you here, mind you.  The vast majority of operations onboard can be handled by women without any issues whatsoever.  It's those outliers and certain casualty actions that have me hesitating before I completely agree with women on submarines.  If they have the demonstrated ability, then by all means, there's absolutely nothing wrong with having them onboard.  I'd just like to see, well, proof first.  Call it failing conservatively on grounds of safety.


And...yeah, the berthing issue is going to be interesting, to say the least.  I'm not familiar with the berthing on a fast boat, but on a SSBN/SSGN, we could probably lose one of our bunkrooms to be converted into female berthing without too much issue, it'd just mean that the nonquals get to hotrack instead of getting their own bunk.  And I believe that's what they're doing with the officer staterooms, for when the first female officers hit the fleet.  One of them is being converted to female berthing, with the officer's head getting a little flippable 'female present' sign to warn off guys when a female is in the head.  Admittedly, there's the watchstander's head right across the corridor from the officer's head in the forward compartment, so that's not as big of a deal as it would be on a fast boat.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: spekkio on Apr 21, 2011, 08:03
Quote
My counter-contention is there shouldn't be a need to have a situation handled differently based on "working around the runts," as you call it.
Yea, but I wasn't referring to women when I said runts. While ideally we shouldn't have to work around the weak ones, reality is different.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: 730SMAG on Apr 21, 2011, 08:15
Yea, but I wasn't referring to women when I said runts. While ideally we shouldn't have to work around the weak ones, reality is different.
Good point.  Although I don't remember anyone who had that problem - now, the ones we didn't trust to do their jobs, that's another story...
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: GNowakowski on Apr 21, 2011, 08:22
Quote from: andrewnavy link=topic=27234.msg142160.#msg142160
It is going to be great when this becomes a Fast Attack problem.  What already at minimum manning? Oh, I am pregnant I will see you in a couple of years boat.  I weep for the future.    Oh before anyone gets their feelings hurt about women on subs, just remember it only takes one person to make a whole division go port and starboard.

My opinion has no value; but the aforementioned from http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,27234.msg142160.html#msg142160 (http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,27234.msg142160.html#msg142160) thread seems like reason enough for close consideration. 

It would seem to me that women can and will do any job that men do, but men will never have the capacity to get pregnant.  Unfortunately this predicament requires special attention and makes for a situation which I'd be interested to see if there is any reliable solution to.  Not sexist; just realistic.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: 730SMAG on Apr 21, 2011, 08:28
My opinion has no value; but the aforementioned from http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,27234.msg142160.html#msg142160 (http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,27234.msg142160.html#msg142160) thread seems like reason enough for close consideration. 

It would seem to me that women can and will do any job that men do, but men will never have the capacity to get pregnant.  Unfortunately this predicament requires special attention and makes for a situation which I'd be interested to see if there is any reliable solution to.  Not sexist; just realistic.
I have faith that people will be responsible and act like adults while assigned to mission-critical billets.

...oh, who am I kidding?  It'll be a nice, big can of worms the first time that happens. 
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Mike_Koehler on Apr 22, 2011, 11:22
  Well, then you buy yourself into the opposite situation where a female E-6 hot racks over a male E-4. Except the women can claim sexism and cause a lot more heat than the men.
The problem is not with the # of women present, but with keeping exactly the ratio of female 1st classes to female nubs (who hotrack) as you originally assigned to the boat (and female to men ratio). The issue is tough as it sits right now with no gender assignments to worry about. I remember finally becoming senior enough to have my own rack for a West-Pac only to lose that halfway through when someone more senior transferred to the boat at the midpoint and how that felt. I accepted it as part of the Sub life, but I probably wouldn't have been as easy with it if it were specifically caused by having a mixed gender crew. I feel this way as a male and I am sure that there would be females that also would feel that way.

Mike
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: spekkio on Apr 23, 2011, 01:56
Quote
It would seem to me that women can and will do any job that men do, but men will never have the capacity to get pregnant.  Unfortunately this predicament requires special attention and makes for a situation which I'd be interested to see if there is any reliable solution to.  Not sexist; just realistic.
You're right, men don't get pregnant. However, how many men in your career have you seen get married to the wrong women and, as a result, suffer extreme job performance degradation? This happens quite frequently...wifey can't handle the long hours, the time underway, or refuses to move with hubby. Let's also not forget the people who go through divorces with women who make it their mission to take everything that they can. The result is hubby can't get his head back in "the game," and fails to perform up to the standards of his position. The big difference is that this guy stays on the boat instead of getting transferred, so not only does he become as useful as someone 2 paygrades lower, he continues to eat up a billet.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: drayer54 on Apr 23, 2011, 02:03
You're right, men don't get pregnant. However, how many men in your career have you seen get married to the wrong women and, as a result, suffer extreme job performance degradation? This happens quite frequently...wifey can't handle the long hours, the time underway, or refuses to move with hubby. The result is hubby can't get his head back in "the game," and fails to perform up to the standards of his position. The big difference is that this guy stays on the boat instead of getting transferred, so not only does he become useless, he continues to eat up a billet.
This can happen to anyone in a relationship, even one of our new openly gay sailors.

I think your pushing it to the limit. The pregnancy issue is a far bigger hassle because the stork tends to do wonders in the month before a deployment. Getting to that bad part of the shipyard avail? Here comes the stork again.

You ever seen a sailor do 4 back to back prego tours on shore duty? I have.... just this week actually! This is not an all woman rant... This is a statement of observations.

The point that my sub friend was making here is that the smaller crew would feel the effect to a greater extent if an undermanned division were to have some preventable personnel losses before a deployment. I think the amount of women on the crew would make this a minimal pain, but that is what I believe he was trying to say.

Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: GNowakowski on Apr 23, 2011, 02:55
You're right, men don't get pregnant. However, how many men in your career have you seen get married to the wrong women and, as a result, suffer extreme job performance degradation? This happens quite frequently...wifey can't handle the long hours, the time underway, or refuses to move with hubby. Let's also not forget the people who go through divorces with women who make it their mission to take everything that they can. The result is hubby can't get his head back in "the game," and fails to perform up to the standards of his position. The big difference is that this guy stays on the boat instead of getting transferred, so not only does he become as useful as someone 2 paygrades lower, he continues to eat up a billet.

In my line of work I've seen both.  The degradation on a persons capability to safely continue their job is largely based on their own personal predelictions.  As such; its not an affect merited only to men, or women.  Both can be effected in this way.  The nature of the beast is that all things can be called effectively equal - and at the end of this equilibrium there is one item on the female list that isn't on the male's.  Once again I'm not being sexist, this is merely an observation.

If women simply don't get pregnant - then its simply not a problem.  Wouldn't it be nice if we could just keep it that simple?
Hopefully we do.

The point that my sub friend was making here is that the smaller crew would feel the effect to a greater extent if an undermanned division were to have some preventable personnel losses before a deployment. I think the amount of women on the crew would make this a minimal pain, but that is what I believe he was trying to say.

Spekkio - I'll once again recede by stating that I have no valuable opinion, as I've never been on a Submarine and therefore am completely uninformed as to the "going-ons" on-board.  My response was merely observation from the points brought up by others and the logical progression of common sense type thinking.  

I'm certain you're right.  I'm just uncertain as to how the Navy will effectively solve its upcoming challenges

...Note the use of the word "hopefully" in a discussion regarding Nuclear Reactor/Ordinance safety.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: spekkio on Apr 23, 2011, 03:49
Quote
This can happen to anyone in a relationship, even one of our new openly gay sailors.
Yea, but while we're playing stereotypes, on average women don't get themselves into this kind of thing. I don't know if it's a matter of emotional maturity/strength or just the way we're "wired," but women tend to handle relationship issues better than men.  Additionally, while a divorce is stressful on both parties, the woman usually doesn't have to worry losing one quarter to half her pay for the rest of her life.
Quote
again, why not?
Because in 2011, those standards no longer apply.

I go back to the fact that women on submarines is a function of trying to fill manning. If the submarine force was at or over manning, we wouldn't even be considering this conversation. The Navy wants another pool of people to fill bodies, and their solution is to allow women on board. I don't know about you, but I haven't encountered any women who make a stink about not being able to serve on board submarines as it is. If you mandate birth control, you might as well not even bother allowing women on board because so few will want the job.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: HydroDave63 on Apr 23, 2011, 03:52
We used to have a poster on the boards adamantly opposed to women on submarines because you cannot tell them to not get pregnant,....

again, why not?


Make the kids part of the crew!

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1DAvV1yCG40JlZk4gTSbg2E0CifPrV1ruyJC1g46JnGdn36xi)

Just convert some of the racks to a Montessori daycare/preschool in the Aft Berthing space of the SSGN Schroder  (http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg142587.html#msg142587) class!
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: 730SMAG on Apr 23, 2011, 03:58
Make the kids part of the crew!

(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1DAvV1yCG40JlZk4gTSbg2E0CifPrV1ruyJC1g46JnGdn36xi)

Just convert some of the racks to a Montessori daycare/preschool in the Aft Berthing space of the SSGN Schroder  (http://www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php/topic,25368.msg142587.html#msg142587) class!
Training the next generation of submariners early, hrm?
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: DSO on Apr 24, 2011, 12:53
The only solution to having women on submarines is having all women submarines and all men submarines where we don't mix hormones and decrease the dependability of our fighting force. The homosexuals should have their own berthing area and shower on either  submarine as to separate individuals of opposite sexual preferences as has been the norm since the inception of the Navy.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: RDTroja on Apr 24, 2011, 01:20
The only solution to having women on submarines is having all women submarines and all men submarines where we don't mix hormones and decrease the dependability of our fighting force. The homosexuals should have their own berthing area and shower on either  submarine as to separate individuals of opposite sexual preferences as has been the norm since the inception of the Navy.


There is a flaw in that logic -- If the straight men bunk with straight men, no conflict since they are not attracted to each other (theoretically... I have heard the long deployment stories.  ;)) Same with the straight women. But if you bunk all the homosexual men in the same berthing area, how is that different from berthing men and women together? Since they are attracted to each other, how is that any kind of separation? Same with homosexual women, of course. And if you bunk the homosexual men with the straight women and vice versa, that would create its own kind of awkwardness if one of the straights is attracted to one of the homosexuals... or any of them is Bisexual.

Another flaw of the all-women ships is based on a curious, but verifiable, fact: Any group of women living together have a tendency to 'synchronize' their cycles. Can you imagine the problems arising with a whole ship full of women all having 'that time of month' with nuclear weapons at their disposal?

No thanks!   :o

Please don't shoot, it is all in fun!  ;D
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: drayer54 on Apr 24, 2011, 01:28
The only solution to having women on submarines is having all women submarines and all men submarines where we don't mix hormones and decrease the dependability of our fighting force. The homosexuals should have their own berthing area and shower on either  submarine as to separate individuals of opposite sexual preferences as has been the norm since the inception of the Navy.

I would truly fear the sight of an all female sub crew. That thing would attract bears. The Navy has not and will not now seperate people by sexual preference, not sure where you are getting that. Perceived sexual preference maybe, but even now the DOD is not going to keep a database of who likes boys and who likes girls. Sailors, including myself , have shared berthing areas and shower facilities with homosexuals before and will continue to. It didn't really bother most of us and didn't present any real issues. We all knew who was and it wasn't a big deal for the majority of us.

Also, deployment couples and hormone swapping are not a new concept to ships at sea. I wish it wasn't that way, but it's not new.

There is a flaw in that logic -- If the straight men bunk with straight men, no conflict since they are not attracted to each other (theoretically... I have heard the long deployment stories.  ;)) Same with the straight women. But if you bunk all the homosexual men in the same berthing area, how is that different from berthing men and women together? Since they are attracted to each other, how is that any kind of separation? Same with homosexual women, of course. And if you bunk the homosexual men with the straight women and vice versa, that would create its own kind of awkwardness if one of the straights is attracted to one of the homosexuals... or any of them is Bisexual.
Very true. I'm sure the women wouldn't of approved of some the not appropriate or normal things that happen there either. I hated it when the women would feel welcome to hang out in our berthing. I had a universal policy to don my less than professional and far more natural uniform at those times and do my calisthenic routine. Although, I bet the gay berthing would smell better and generally be neater. Ours was a genuine sty....
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: moochiebubble on Apr 26, 2011, 06:25
RDTrojan , an all woman crew would be formidable , especially at that time. LOL
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Styrofoam on Apr 26, 2011, 06:33
I really hope I'm not the only one who thinks this conversation has deteriorated. Period jokes? Seriously?
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Cycoticpenguin on Apr 26, 2011, 09:51
I really hope I'm not the only one who thinks this conversation has deteriorated. Period jokes? Seriously?

Hmm. This is good practice for you when you finally get in the navy. You will be an extreme minority and half the guys will try to get in your pants, and the other half will act completely innapropriate to you. Get used to it now while you can at your leisure and you will be far ahead of the game....

That said, these jokes are awfully mild to what you are going to see in the nav.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: 730SMAG on Apr 26, 2011, 10:13
Hmm. This is good practice for you when you finally get in the navy. You will be an extreme minority and half the guys will try to get in your pants, and the other half will act completely innapropriate to you. Get used to it now while you can at your leisure and you will be far ahead of the game....

That said, these jokes are awfully mild to what you are going to see in the nav.

Now, now, Charlie.  The Navy consists entirely of outstanding professional sailors who would never dream of doing the sort of thing you suggest.  Why, it's completely contrary to the core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment, and nobody would ever dream of stooping to that base, foul level like a Marine or something.

Why, I look back on my service days with a certain amount of pride, knowing that there was absolutely no sexual harassment or discrimination aboard the US Navy vessels upon which I served.  Because the sailors I worked with in the fleet are all professionals, mission-oriented, and dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of all those who oppose it.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: drayer54 on Apr 26, 2011, 10:59
Now, now, Charlie.  The Navy consists entirely of outstanding professional sailors who would never dream of doing the sort of thing you suggest.  Why, it's completely contrary to the core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment, and nobody would ever dream of stooping to that base, foul level like a Marine or something.

Why, I look back on my service days with a certain amount of pride, knowing that there was absolutely no sexual harassment or discrimination aboard the US Navy vessels upon which I served.  Because the sailors I worked with in the fleet are all professionals, mission-oriented, and dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of all those who oppose it.
Yup, sounds about right. That is exactly how I remember it too. I'm glad to see someone steer this conversation back in the right direction.

I don't know what Charlie is talking about. What ship was he on anyways?
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Cycoticpenguin on Apr 26, 2011, 11:13
(http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0810/professionalism-demotivational-poster-1224093914.jpg)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Styrofoam on Apr 27, 2011, 02:47
Yeah, everybody has been telling me that. :)

I was just hoping to steer the thread back to a constructive debate. I've been enjoying lurking in it. :)

JustPlainLo and drayer: Are you guys being sarcastic? Because I can't tell.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: 730SMAG on Apr 27, 2011, 04:48
JustPlainLo and drayer: Are you guys being sarcastic? Because I can't tell.
Shipmate, I would never be sarcastic; sarcasm doesn't fall under the guidelines of the Navy's core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: HydroDave63 on Apr 27, 2011, 07:50
Shipmate, I would never be sarcastic; sarcasm doesn't fall under the guidelines of the Navy's core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment.

Especially not in those way-cool Chinese digital camo knockoff outfits ;)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: RDTroja on Apr 27, 2011, 02:27
Yeah, everybody has been telling me that. :)

I was just hoping to steer the thread back to a constructive debate. I've been enjoying lurking in it. :)

JustPlainLo and drayer: Are you guys being sarcastic? Because I can't tell.

I was never in the Navy, but I can tell you this: If you can't tell if that is sarcasm or not, you are in a world of trouble.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: MacGyver on Apr 27, 2011, 02:57
I really hope I'm not the only one who thinks this conversation has deteriorated. Period jokes? Seriously?

(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/27/from_the_internet.jpg) (http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id=749)


ON TOPIC.  Living on a submarine is kind of like a "groundhogs day" meets "gilligans island" event.  You're trapped on an island (sorta) with a bunch of folks you really don't like while trying to escape the island.

(http://hrminion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/groundhog_day.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KP0BYctB-O4/SLRDsB7n8fI/AAAAAAAAAi8/J-9aMIyrrBI/s400/plus-sign.jpg)

(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/30/minnow.jpg) (http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id=2561)




Plus a measure of physical and mental torrture.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: OldHP on Apr 27, 2011, 11:16
I really hope I'm not the only one who thinks this conversation has deteriorated. Period jokes? Seriously? 

JustPlainLo and drayer: Are you guys being sarcastic? Because I can't tell.

 ??? You lead CM on for quite a while because he didn't look at the left side, and you can't tell?  ???
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Styrofoam on Apr 27, 2011, 11:20
Yeah. What's your point?
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Cycoticpenguin on Apr 28, 2011, 03:34
Yeah, everybody has been telling me that. :)

I was just hoping to steer the thread back to a constructive debate. I've been enjoying lurking in it. :)

JustPlainLo and drayer: Are you guys being sarcastic? Because I can't tell.


(http://www.stanceiseverything.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/mother-of-god-super-troopers.jpg)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: 730SMAG on Apr 29, 2011, 12:31
(http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Sarcasm-sarcasm-343356_225_174.jpg)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: OldHP on Apr 29, 2011, 10:11
Yeah. What's your point? 

JustPlainLo and drayer: Are you guys being sarcastic? Because I can't tell.

Just exactly that!  You seem to enjoy being very sarcastic, however, you don't seem to recognize it when it is directed back at you!  Can I be more specific?
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: GNowakowski on Apr 29, 2011, 10:52
It kills me that Styrofoam just played all of you.

Which ones couldn't read the sarcasm?
10 awesomeness pts. go to Styrofoam.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: RDTroja on Apr 29, 2011, 11:01
It kills me that Styrofoam just played all of you.
Which ones couldn't read the sarcasm?
10 awesomeness pts. go to Styrofoam.

For her sake I hope she was being sarcastic. Somehow I doubt it though, based on previous posts.

If you are impressed with her 'awesomeness' you are a bit too easy to amaze.

Just my opinion, of course.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: HydroDave63 on Apr 29, 2011, 11:06
For her sake I hope she was being sarcastic. Somehow I doubt it though, based on previous posts.

If you are impressed with her 'awesomeness' you are a bit too easy to amaze.

Just my opinion, of course.

Personally I think he's Jonesin' for a date.  8)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: RDTroja on Apr 29, 2011, 11:16
Personally I think he's Jonesin' for a date.  8)

 <3 <3 ROFL
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Styrofoam on Apr 30, 2011, 12:54
Whether or not I was being sarcastic will remain one of the world's great mysteries.

Anybody else think the idea to have female-only subs is a bit ridiculous?
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: 730SMAG on Apr 30, 2011, 02:55
Whether or not I was being sarcastic will remain one of the world's great mysteries.

Anybody else think the idea to have female-only subs is a bit ridiculous?

I'd find it ridiculous just on the training and tradition basis. 
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Cycoticpenguin on Apr 30, 2011, 03:22
Whether or not I was being sarcastic will remain one of the world's great mysteries.

Anybody else think the idea to have female-only subs is a bit ridiculous?

ridiculous is an understatement.  Its not going to happen. Theres no reason for it.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: spekkio on Apr 30, 2011, 11:14
ridiculous is an understatement.  Its not going to happen. Theres no reason for it.
Plus it would be contrary to diversity, which ADM Mullen and ADM Roughead have ordered to be the most important initiative in the Navy.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Gamecock on Apr 30, 2011, 12:07
Whether or not I was being sarcastic will remain one of the world's great mysteries.

Anybody else think the idea to have female-only subs is a bit ridiculous?

Quoting myself....



It takes 15+ years to grow a CO......

Who will command your all-female boat?

It takes 10+ years to grow an XO....

Who will be #2 on your all-female boat?

It takes 7+ years to grow a DH.....

Get my point???

An all-female boat can't happen for a long, long time.

Cheers,
GC
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Cycoticpenguin on Apr 30, 2011, 01:05
Your point about WWII Stuff isnt very valid because they were not nuclear submarines dude....

Back then it was "just another boat" that happened to be able to go under water for half an hour on batteries.




Maybe its just me, but why the hell is the Navy so caught up on being so politically correct all of a sudden. It is NOT a business, it is a war machine meant to spear head any attack on anyone anywhere in the world. Why are we so caught that we have an equal amount of white/black/latin/hispanic/asian/arabic/etc on there, thats not the point.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Gamecock on Apr 30, 2011, 01:16
Your point about WWII Stuff isnt very valid because they were not nuclear submarines dude....

Back then it was "just another boat" that happened to be able to go under water for half an hour on batteries.




Maybe its just me, but why the hell is the Navy so caught up on being so politically correct all of a sudden. It is NOT a business, it is a war machine meant to spear head any attack on anyone anywhere in the world. Why are we so caught that we have an equal amount of white/black/latin/hispanic/asian/arabic/etc on there, thats not the point.

Because "Big Navy" believes that the demographics of the navy should mirror the demographics of society, in all ranks.  

If anyone cares to hear my real unfiltered thoughts about this "diversity initiative" stuff, start a topic in the GM navy section.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: DDMurray on May 01, 2011, 07:43
Back then it was "just another boat" that happened to be able to go under water for half an hour on batteries.
This over-simplification shows that you have no understanding, or appreciation, whatsoever of what it means to be a submariner.  I'd prefer you leave it at "the sub fleet saved our butts in the early stages of WWII". 

WRT to women on subs.  I look at it as it's not something I'd like my daughter or sister to do.  That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it will lead to more situations where guys will be distracted from their primary duty over worries about who's tapping the new girl.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: drayer54 on May 01, 2011, 11:28
This over-simplification shows that you have no understanding, or appreciation, whatsoever of what it means to be a submariner. WRT to women on subs.  I look at it as it's not something I'd like my daughter or sister to do.  That doesn't mean its wrong, but it will lead to more situations where guys will be distracted from their primary duty over worries about who's tapping the new girl.
This over-simplification of the surface navy shows that you have no understanding or appreciation of what it means to be on a crew with both men and women.  Sailor tapping is your reason? Seriously?

The Reagan, Enterprise, Patricia Schroeder and Vinson are all out  and about right now and onboard those ships we have deployment couples, in-port buddies ;), and some unduly familiar relationships in progress. Every time a new girl checks in she can go spend her evening being reviewed and mingling with the male clientele at the trendy "Club Mess Decks," not to be confused with the "Motel Fan Room." Those new girls get checked out and discussed in ways that nobody would ever want a daughter discussed, agreed. However, why do all submariners have this regal attitude that their beloved old boat should be above that? The rest of the diversity initiative based co-ed and equal opportunity Navy is getting by all while being a global force for good. The rest of the navy isn't swabbing decks in dress whites while singing musicals as we skip from port to port. They look back on the situation and think about how hard they worked and stick their nose to the air and think women can’t be trusted to do that.

Women on ships do bring issues forward, the same issues that my old ship, the Love Boat (http://www.historyking.com/American-History/political-history/dwight-eisenhower/History-Of-Women-On-The-Uss-Eisenhower.html) faced in 1994 when women began serving onboard carriers. The questions that they asked were pretty similar and the guys like me were upset because it meant we had to wear more clothes and speak in a more PC manner. The questions of ability to swing valves and high tendency of stork visits and the effect it would have on a small crew are valid. However, the MCM class of ship seems to work it out with a similar sized crew.  
I just don’t think that the dating and casual relationship angle between sailors is going to sway anyone away from putting a woman on a boat. I am in the crowd that would like to see an end to sailors “tapping” sailors, but this is a Navy issue that isn’t on the top priority list of the leadership.

Submarines could just implement the effective measure that my ship did, place neatly done posters by the shipboard High School Journalism/Media Dept. that say “Shipmates, Not Dates!” Everybody thought twice about sailor tapping after seeing those…….
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Cycoticpenguin on May 01, 2011, 12:03
Murray -> my point was that sub CO's are now nukes exclusively. I was NOT making light of what submariners do. My point was the Sub itself, not really the crew. Would you trust a diesel crew to man a nuke boat? That was my point.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: drayer54 on May 01, 2011, 12:36
I'm a numbers guy, I make a living parsing statistics....
So these numbers tell me a lot,...
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WeAJo839qIUJ:https://www.persnet.navy.mil/NR/rdonlyres/5E76F8C5-B291-4295-81CC-39406C862BB7/69640/PregnancySurvey07ExecutiveBrief.ppt+single+pregnancy+rates+in+us+navy&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj38IJEwc7FT5mJYgT_4PbQk4S5WLB3hvLRGPGIJxsVzIugWhDywxT5eFiZ-YfAvYOSXoF4aDHO-ropNJ13sWAm7Os9DAsWke8jjs5pHhYNSPUC1ns-kL57oh6Z9lmKkZ9E1kz8&sig=AHIEtbQAX9XSe2geFaAxy-GENXdZhSz8Iw
This was not an easy address to work around, it may even become a dead link when the Navy guys who watch these threads get a load of it, then again I may be a bit too suspect of intentions,....
But, these are some seriously parsed statistics,... [coffee]
I threw my BS flag at the screen when I saw the slide that said "This debunks the myth that female sailors will get pregnant to avoid deployment."
I hold Marssim accountable for the screen damage that happened during this slideshow, bill is in the mail :-[. I was glad to see the 13% of males who wanted out of the Nav due to Big Navy rewarding unplanned pregnancies with extended shore tours. I think it's good that were making it possible to dodge a deployment and a shipyard with first enlistment shore tours or dodging sea all-together with back to back pregnancies. This is a good use of the training pipeline and it's good for shore billets.  :->
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Cycoticpenguin on May 01, 2011, 01:54
I served with Barbel and Blueback sailors,....

The answer is yes,...

All three of them were sharp enough to make it through the NNPP if they had chosen to,...

That "best of the best of the best" NNPP kool-aid they're serving you guys is getting long on chest thumping nowadays,...

The fact that they "could" doesnt mean they did. We arent trained on just academics man, you should be wiser then that.  Average, run of the mill coners could not complete the NNPP, same as the average run of the mill airdale could not either. 

You dont get to pick and choose which sailors go where, we are speaking fleet wide. While there are notable exceptions, we, simply put, ARE the best of the best of the best. *Thumps chest*


Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: DDMurray on May 01, 2011, 03:56
This over-simplification of the surface navy shows that you have no understanding or appreciation of what it means to be on a crew with both men and women.  Sailor tapping is your reason? Seriously?

The Reagan, Enterprise, Patricia Schroeder and Vinson are all out  and about right now and onboard those ships we have deployment couples, in-port buddies ;), and some unduly familiar relationships in progress. Every time a new girl checks in she can go spend her evening being reviewed and mingling with the male clientele at the trendy "Club Mess Decks," not to be confused with the "Motel Fan Room." Those new girls get checked out and discussed in ways that nobody would ever want a daughter discussed, agreed. However, why do all submariners have this regal attitude that their beloved old boat should be above that? The rest of the diversity initiative based co-ed and equal opportunity Navy is getting by all while being a global force for good. The rest of the navy isn't swabbing decks in dress whites while singing musicals as we skip from port to port. They look back on the situation and think about how hard they worked and stick their nose to the air and think women can’t be trusted to do that.

Women on ships do bring issues forward, the same issues that my old ship, the Love Boat (http://www.historyking.com/American-History/political-history/dwight-eisenhower/History-Of-Women-On-The-Uss-Eisenhower.html) faced in 1994 when women began serving onboard carriers. The questions that they asked were pretty similar and the guys like me were upset because it meant we had to wear more clothes and speak in a more PC manner. The questions of ability to swing valves and high tendency of stork visits and the effect it would have on a small crew are valid. However, the MCM class of ship seems to work it out with a similar sized crew.  
I just don’t think that the dating and casual relationship angle between sailors is going to sway anyone away from putting a woman on a boat. I am in the crowd that would like to see an end to sailors “tapping” sailors, but this is a Navy issue that isn’t on the top priority list of the leadership.

Submarines could just implement the effective measure that my ship did, place neatly done posters by the shipboard High School Journalism/Media Dept. that say “Shipmates, Not Dates!” Everybody thought twice about sailor tapping after seeing those…….

Our "regal" attitude probably comes from the fact that submariners typically feel we are superior to our surface counterparts.  The fact that we are is immaterial.  The attitude allows us to excel where others give up.  We both have the same jobs: 1) Keep the core covered.  2) Answer the ordered bell.  Any "social" problems are made worse on a sub due to the smaller crew and tighter quarters.  "Tapping" was used for effect.  If it hurts your sensitivities I could use more politically correct terminology, but it's a problem that is inevitable IMHO.  Now back to audit preps.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: spekkio on May 01, 2011, 07:28
The fact that they "could" doesnt mean they did. We arent trained on just academics man, you should be wiser then that.  Average, run of the mill coners could not complete the NNPP, same as the average run of the mill airdale could not either. 

You dont get to pick and choose which sailors go where, we are speaking fleet wide. While there are notable exceptions, we, simply put, ARE the best of the best of the best. *Thumps chest*

Yea man, actually learning 62.5% of the curriculum was SO HARD.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: goobs22xx on May 02, 2011, 05:08
Yea man, actually learning 62.5% of the curriculum was SO HARD.

The required gpa is irrelevant to the point that he doesn't think that others could do it.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Cycoticpenguin on May 02, 2011, 05:16
The required gpa is irrelevant to the point that he doesn't think that others could do it.

Exactly.... Some people in my NLO class couldnt pass it... Im 100% confident of this.


oops.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Mike_Koehler on May 13, 2011, 01:02
Here we go, ready or not........ :o

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/naval-submarine-base-new-london-in-conn-welcomes-1st-female-officers-for-sub-training/2011/05/09/AFEm87YG_story.html


Mike
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: FishyT on May 20, 2011, 07:02
I apologize for not reading this entire thread (it's pretty long and I have the midwatch, so I need to get some sleep o.O), but I just wanted to throw in some personal experience with women on boats.
In fall 2010, I rode on the HMCS Corner Brook (SSK878). It's one of the pride of the Canadian submarine fleet (ie, one of 2 that actually get out to sea). I was onboard for about 2 weeks during an exercise that my boat (Memphis) and her were doing. On the Corner Brook were 3 women that I dealt with on a regular basis. They didn't have a special berthing, they didn't get any special treatment, and they were just as rude and crude as the other sailors onboard. In the Canadian Sub Fleet, men and women aren't men and women, they're all submariners (or SPUTs, their equivalent to NUBs).
Now, before I get flamed on my first post, I will point out that Canadians /are/ a slightly different culture than us. Though not nearly as different as they like to think. Our culture (or if nothing else, our Navy) is actually more uptight about the male/female relations thing than they were. But the women on the Corner Brook didn't get any preferencial treatment, and I think that to succeed in this endeavour, the US Navy needs to have the same mindset.
Everyone onboard the Canadian subs were volunteers from the surface fleet, by the way. You actually have to put in a request and be screened to join the sub force...and it's difficult to do, no matter who you are.
Do I think that women on boats is a good idea? Ehh. Do I think it's a bad idea? Ehh. Does the concept kind of worry me? Most certainly. There are quite a few guys that I know who aren't fit to work with women, let alone be deployed with them. We have quite a few things to worry about, especially with submariners being, well, submariners. If you've ever met a guy on a boat, you know what I mean (can't speak for the surface fleet, I don't know anyone from up there).
It's progress, which is something our Navy fights on a daily basis. Good or bad, it is change. My brother is on the Maine, and my good friend is on the Georgia...Hope they survive.  :-[
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: retired nuke on May 21, 2011, 09:16
My last joint mission with the Canadian Navy was 30+ yrs ago. But I do remember there was a bar aboard their ship (surface)... and that while off duty, and in port, drinks were cheap (beer - 25c, shots 10c)  [clap] [clap]

We had an A-ganger from GA that grew up on moonshine, match their Engine Rm Chief shot for shot for 20+ shots.... [prize]

Yup, the Canadian Navy is different   8)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: bigdog46 on Jun 18, 2012, 01:09
See the link from the Tri City Herald

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/06/17/1990330/women-say-theyre-fitting-in-on.html
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Mike_Koehler on Jun 19, 2012, 10:21
Notice how they are all Junior Officers???? In about 5-7 years get ready for an all female sub. They are grooming the CO/XO first, the next group will be Dept. Heads then the last group through will be the Div-O's. The enlisteds will start to run through about the time the Dept. Heads do...... All female except CO/XO and E-7/8's at first then final rotation will be all female......  Just my prediction..... [2cents]

Mike
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Marlin on Jun 19, 2012, 03:09
Notice how they are all Junior Officers???? In about 5-7 years get ready for an all female sub. They are grooming the CO/XO first, the next group will be Dept. Heads then the last group through will be the Div-O's. The enlisteds will start to run through about the time the Dept. Heads do...... All female except CO/XO and E-7/8's at first then final rotation will be all female......  Just my prediction..... [2cents]

Mike

Doubt it, think personell rotation. This was about removing barriers not creating new ones.

 ;) my  [2cents]
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Gamecock on Jun 19, 2012, 07:49
Notice how they are all Junior Officers???? In about 5-7 years get ready for an all female sub. They are grooming the CO/XO first, the next group will be Dept. Heads then the last group through will be the Div-O's. The enlisteds will start to run through about the time the Dept. Heads do...... All female except CO/XO and E-7/8's at first then final rotation will be all female......  Just my prediction..... [2cents]

Mike

FYI...we've had women in the surface navy for many years....even have women CO's...... women are at all levels of the chain of command in the surface fleet.....

We don't have any all women surface ships!

Just sayin' [coffee]
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: GLW on Jun 19, 2012, 08:59

...We don't have any all women surface ships!....


I always thought all surface ships were manned by women!!!!!!

 ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

 [navy sub]

 :P ;) :) 8)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Gamecock on Jun 19, 2012, 09:23
I always thought all surface ships were manned by women!!!!!!

 ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

 [navy sub]

 :P ;) :) 8)




   [prize]   That was a good one  [prize]
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: NukaTex on Oct 01, 2012, 09:00
I know this thread is a bit old, but I thought some might want to read up on the lack of responsibility  involved in this gender diversity fiasco

http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=385
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: radbrat on Oct 02, 2012, 12:39
I havent read all of this thread, but does anyone remember a tug, Norfolk D/S piers circa 1976 with the zig-zag man on their smoke stack, had a crew member that could have been the poster child for breast cancer awareness?
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: eaton1981 on Oct 04, 2012, 11:29
I know this thread is a bit old, but I thought some might want to read up on the lack of responsibility  involved in this gender diversity fiasco

http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=385


This "news" story is nothing but sensational reporting hype. The women on our subs are doing perfectly fine. This last year has proved unquestionably that life at sea functions equally well UNDER the surface as ABOVE it when the two genders sail together.

If you think this story has merit or value, you're a) not a submariner and/or b) have no idea about men and women working together in their 20's (aka sexist and bigoted).

Any claims that the subforce doesn't work with women as part of their crews isn't based on fact. Merely conjecture.

I taught a few of these women at the MARF plant, as well as a coule other members of this forum. The women aren't perfect by any means, but they are in many cases better than a LOT of the maleJO's I had come through my section.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: jwhite on Oct 06, 2012, 11:01
Women shouldn't be in any branch of the military! Period
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: HydroDave63 on Oct 06, 2012, 03:03
Women shouldn't be in any branch of the military! Period

Next thang ya know, they'll want ta wear pants, vote, drive a car and work in a nuclear power plant down in the South  :P
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: jwhite on Oct 06, 2012, 07:23
Look back, things started going down hill when they gave women the right to vote.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: MacGyver on Oct 06, 2012, 08:11
Look back, things started going down hill when they gave women the right to vote.

Looking back ...

(http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/imgLib/20120627_PHOTO_B.jpg) (http://www.wingsacrossamerica.us/)

Seems to have worked out good for us back then too.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: DSO on Oct 06, 2012, 09:54
The solution is to have an all female submarine from CO down to the "seawoman" recruit. They will be responsible to fill the sea billets "only" from the female ranks so if a female at sea has female problems or gets pregnant...then a female on shore duty will get her shore duty cut short (or get temp sea duty if required) and fill her spot. I dont believe for one second that a mixture of males and females on a submarine will be anything other than what has occurred with the mix on surface ships...yea look at some of the objective data, maybe even worse in such confined quarters so lets not pretend its all good in the name of politics
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Xenon_Free on Oct 08, 2012, 09:19
Looking back, things started going down hill on this thread when we gave jwhite the right to post.  8)

Please stop posting.

XF
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Zog on Oct 09, 2012, 10:37

I taught a few of these women at the MARF plant, as well as a coule other members of this forum. The women aren't perfect by any means, but they are in many cases better than a LOT of the maleJO's I had come through my section.


I had the first (new) class of females at MARF, we had no idea what to expect, sure there were a few that should not have been there but same goes for the guys, but overall I was very impressed with the caliber of nuke operators that came through those first few classes at MARF.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Ksheed on Oct 10, 2012, 11:14
Women shouldn't be in any branch of the military! Period

Complete nonsense. The one good looking woman (there was about 10 women total) on the boat I spent 6 months on (31st MEU) was very necessary. She was much easier on the eyes than the ugly mugs that you typically deal with on a ship. Even though I didn't have a snowball's chance in Okinawa with her, she was still nice to look at.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: HydroDave63 on Oct 10, 2012, 11:43
Look back, things started going down hill when they gave women the right to vote.

Dare ya to say that to the lady pumping pool boxes at yer plant! ;)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: jwhite on Oct 17, 2012, 03:13
She would probably do a better job than that short red headed guy that use to do it.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Marlin on Dec 06, 2012, 10:14
Three women become first to qualify as sub officers

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/6/three-women-become-first-qualify-sub-officers/
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: retired nuke on Dec 08, 2012, 02:41
Three women become first to qualify as sub officers

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/6/three-women-become-first-qualify-sub-officers/

Awesome...   :)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Marlin on Mar 02, 2017, 05:45
16 out of 100 on sea duty!!!  :o  If this is an impact on the Navy in general what is the impact to a small vessel such as a submarine?

Deployed US Navy Has A Pregnancy Problem, And It’s Getting Worse

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/exclusive-deployed-us-navy-has-a-pregnancy-problem-and-its-getting-worse/?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=TheDC%20Morning&utm_campaign=TheDC%20Evening (http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/01/exclusive-deployed-us-navy-has-a-pregnancy-problem-and-its-getting-worse/?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=TheDC%20Morning&utm_campaign=TheDC%20Evening)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: fiveeleven on Mar 02, 2017, 10:33
Ahoy there shipmates - Lets meet at the scuttlebutt, ingest some gnarly geedunk and up periscopes me laddies !! Fair seas and following winds, or is that fair winds and following seas? All that seafaring garble and other assorted USN benny suggs, has little to no effect on how MM2 Adams and MM3 Eves off duty PM schedules are conducted. "You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall". MM2/ELT USS Nimitz CVN-68. 80-84. BOHICA.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: RDTroja on Mar 02, 2017, 11:37
Ahoy there shipmates - Lets meet at the scuttlebutt, ingest some gnarly geedunk and up periscopes me laddies !! Fair seas and following winds, or is that fair winds and following seas? All that seafaring garble and other assorted USN benny suggs, has little to no effect on how MM2 Adams and MM3 Eves off duty PM schedules are conducted. "You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall". MM2/ELT USS Nimitz CVN-68. 80-84. BOHICA.

Is that going to make any sense when you sober up?
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: fiveeleven on Mar 03, 2017, 03:18
Yellow matter custard Dripping from a dead dogs eye Crabalocker fishwife Pornographic priestess Boy, you've been a naughty girl You let your knickers down. It makes sense to me while sober, it would make sense to me if a tad starry eyed post libations. Tread litely mr. condom man, and id your target before firing. In 32 or so years, nary a once have I been within the protected area as I currently, and was, at previous post time, under the influence of anything but life and occasionally ion pairs and peroxide. If it is within your skill set to determine an individuals sobriety level based on your interpretation, understanding - or lack there of - of his written words, then perhaps CNN awaits your arrival. Good day.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: RDTroja on Mar 03, 2017, 07:26
I get it. Sober and still a bunch of worthless drivel. Post away.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Marlin on Mar 03, 2017, 12:59
Ahoy there shipmates - Lets meet at the scuttlebutt, ingest some gnarly geedunk and up periscopes me laddies !! Fair seas and following winds, or is that fair winds and following seas? All that seafaring garble and other assorted USN benny suggs, has little to no effect on how MM2 Adams and MM3 Eves off duty PM schedules are conducted. "You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall". MM2/ELT USS Nimitz CVN-68. 80-84. BOHICA.

   Yes we need them on the wall, that is the point. If you get badly sunburned or other wise injured due to neglect you potentially can be NJPed. If you get pregnant (that removes you from sea duty for up to two years) when you know there is a long deployment coming not so much of a negligence issue but it is a readiness issue, but I think you get the idea. Most would be more responsible but that one or two on a small vessel that has a high bar for replacement would degrade readiness and morale. It is because the bar is high that many supported women on warships in the first place it doubles the pool of recruits that have the acumin to perform in an ever increasingly technological environment. Men and women may be equal but that does not mean they are the same. What happens if a female sub CO becomes pregnant just before a long deployment? Just some perspective.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: spekkio on Mar 04, 2017, 12:28
What happens if a female sub CO becomes pregnant just before a long deployment? Just some perspective.
This is the typical 'glass ceiling' conundrum facing almost every professional woman. You can liken this to the civilian analog question: "Why are there so few female CEOs?" At some point, women have to make a choice between career advancement and family. It's a lot tougher of a choice for most women, since they feel a greater obligation to be home to take care of children than men typically do. As a result, more women will default to 'safe' jobs that allow them to work steady but not too strenuous hours (35-45/wk realm), but there is little advancement opportunity. Men are much more willing to go for the jobs that require working unpaid overtime, weekends, holidays, etc. but have a chance at making it big.

The Navy is implementing initiatives to avoid making women make this choice, such as the career intermission program (CIP). Actually, this program always existed, but the Navy is starting to advertise it more. At some point, though, the woman has to go back to being in the Navy, and for a mother deploying with a 2 1/2 year old isn't much easier than deploying with a 6 mo old.

Bottom line though: I think a woman who makes it far enough in the Navy to a CO at sea understands her obligation to deploy as CO, and would take the required steps to avoid pregnancy.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Marlin on Mar 04, 2017, 01:27
This is the typical 'glass ceiling' conundrum facing almost every professional woman. You can liken this to the civilian analog question: "Why are there so few female CEOs?" At some point, women have to make a choice between career advancement and family. It's a lot tougher of a choice for most women, since they feel a greater obligation to be home to take care of children than men typically do. As a result, more women will default to 'safe' jobs that allow them to work steady but not too strenuous hours (35-45/wk realm), but there is little advancement opportunity. Men are much more willing to go for the jobs that require working unpaid overtime, weekends, holidays, etc. but have a chance at making it big.

The Navy is implementing initiatives to avoid making women make this choice, such as the career intermission program (CIP). Actually, this program always existed, but the Navy is starting to advertise it more. At some point, though, the woman has to go back to being in the Navy, and for a mother deploying with a 2 1/2 year old isn't much easier than deploying with a 6 mo old.

Bottom line though: I think a woman who makes it far enough in the Navy to a CO at sea understands her obligation to deploy as CO, and would take the required steps to avoid pregnancy.

Good answer I agree. My statement was more devils advocate than expectation that it would occur but then there was the 0-6 Navy captain astronaut who put on a diaper and drove hundreds of miles to kidnap her romantic rival over a married man. YMMV  ;) 
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: HeavyD on Mar 06, 2017, 01:45
Before my last deployment in 2008 (carrier), we had an E-6 ET get pregnant with her 3rd kid, about 2 months before deployment.  Both times before she had gotten pregnant within several months of her ship's scheduled deployment.  3 kids, 3 missed deployments.

Coincidence?  No way to reliably determine that she got pregnant to miss deployment, but the idea was there.  During her last pregnancy tour, her detailed told her that if she reenlisted, her only options would be something either on deployment or that was deploying within a couple of months.  She elected to leave Active Duty, at her 12 year point.

Her husband was a civilian, as another data point. 
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Chimera on Mar 09, 2017, 02:35
So . . . how about assigning a couple of extra Corpsmen on a surface ship and clear a space to be a daycare/nursery.  That way the career motivated pregnant sailor could stay aboard ship and complete her tour of duty before rotating to a shore billet like everyone else.  If assigned to a submarine, she would have to transfe to a surface ship since there isn't room on a submarine for a daycare/nursery.  Problem solved . . . have your cake and eat it, too.  No more "glass ceiling".  Or transfer to the Air Force where you won't mess up somebody else's shore billet rotation.

 O:)  (I was looking for a pot stirring smiley but couldn't find one)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: GLW on Mar 09, 2017, 02:43
So . . . how about assigning a couple of extra Corpsmen on a surface ship and clear a space to be a daycare/nursery.  That way the career motivated pregnant sailor could stay aboard ship and complete her tour of duty before rotating to a shore billet like everyone else.  If assigned to a submarine, she would have to transfe to a surface ship since there isn't room on a submarine for a daycare/nursery.  Problem solved . . . have your cake and eat it, too.  No more "glass ceiling".  Or transfer to the Air Force where you won't mess up somebody else's shore billet rotation.

 O:)  (I was looking for a pot stirring smiley but couldn't find one)





you have to click on the [more] button below the line of emoticons              [stir]


children on a warship?!?!?!


give it up, no one can wade into this cesspool and come out clean,.... ::)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Marlin on Mar 09, 2017, 03:06

children on a warship?!?!?!


Not until NCC 1701-D is commissioned
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: MMM on Mar 09, 2017, 07:01
No. I had to go into female berthing a couple times on the ship. It already smells terrible. I can't imagine how bad it would be after babies spit up, vomit, and poop everywhere. Then, where would they sleep? Would baby boys be allowed to sleep in female berthing?
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Chimera on Mar 10, 2017, 06:58
I find it mildly ironic that women in the services demand to be treated equally until they invoke that whole "separate but equal" thingy about berthing, going to the bathroom, physical qualifications and anything else they don't like.  It was bad enough back in my day when we couldn't rotate into a shore billet because some woman was sitting there demanding the right to be aboard a ship.  Now they're aboard the ships - even submarines - and they still aren't happy.  I guess expressions like "man up" aren't considered politically correct anymore.  You want to be part of the crew?  That includes everything from scrubbing the bilges to manning the ratlines (yeah, I know, they don't have those anymore except on the USS Constitution).

 [stir]
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: RDTroja on Mar 10, 2017, 08:19
It's like Woody said on Cheers... "Women. You can't live with them... pass the mustard."
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Marlin on Apr 14, 2017, 09:45
Not specific to women on subs but still applicable.

The Navy's Love Boats Sail Again

https://townhall.com/columnists/suzannefields/2017/04/14/the-navys-love-boats-sail-again-n2313236?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad= (https://townhall.com/columnists/suzannefields/2017/04/14/the-navys-love-boats-sail-again-n2313236?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Chimera on Apr 17, 2017, 11:08

children on a warship?!?!?!


I know we call them "warships" but it's been a long time since they actually did "war".  However, I will concede the point even though, during the Cold War, we never did any "war" other than evading the Russian trawlers and backing off the spy planes and ships that followed our fleets like badly dressed camp followers.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: GLW on Apr 17, 2017, 05:40
I know we call them "warships" but it's been a long time since they actually did "war"......

that
is the greatest testament to their mission,....
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Marlin on Jun 07, 2017, 10:23
Astronaut Candidate Kayla Barron

Barron was commissioned as a Navy officer in 2010 and immediately attended graduate school. Her graduate research focused on modeling the fuel cycle for a next-generation, thorium-fueled nuclear reactor concept. Following graduate school, Barron attended the U.S. Navy’s nuclear power and submarine officer training before being assigned to the USS Maine, an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine homeported in Bangor, Washington. Barron qualified as a submarine warfare officer and completed three strategic deterrent patrols while serving as a division officer aboard the Maine. At the time of her selection, Barron was serving as the Flag Aide to the Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy.

https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/kayla-barron/biography (https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/kayla-barron/biography)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Red Gold on Jun 08, 2017, 09:12
Nice work! Would she be the first Navy Nuke astronaut, of any gender? I don't know of any prior, so that's a double win.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Marlin on Jun 09, 2017, 10:38
Astronaut Candidate Kayla Barron

Barron was commissioned as a Navy officer in 2010 and immediately attended graduate school. Her graduate research focused on modeling the fuel cycle for a next-generation, thorium-fueled nuclear reactor concept. Following graduate school, Barron attended the U.S. Navy’s nuclear power and submarine officer training before being assigned to the USS Maine, an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine homeported in Bangor, Washington. Barron qualified as a submarine warfare officer and completed three strategic deterrent patrols while serving as a division officer aboard the Maine. At the time of her selection, Barron was serving as the Flag Aide to the Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy.

https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/kayla-barron/biography (https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/kayla-barron/biography)

NASA unveils new class of 12 astronauts

https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/06/07/nasa-unveils-new-class-of-12-astronauts/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/06/07/nasa-unveils-new-class-of-12-astronauts/)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Druid on Jun 09, 2017, 11:32
Nice work! Would she be the first Navy Nuke astronaut, of any gender? I don't know of any prior, so that's a double win.

Born in Pocatello, ID. Must have gotten inoculated by nuclear tumbleweeds from the very beginning!

D
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: spekkio on Jun 11, 2017, 05:51
I find it mildly ironic that women in the services demand to be treated equally until they invoke that whole "separate but equal" thingy about berthing, going to the bathroom, physical qualifications and anything else they don't like.  It was bad enough back in my day when we couldn't rotate into a shore billet because some woman was sitting there demanding the right to be aboard a ship.  Now they're aboard the ships - even submarines - and they still aren't happy.  I guess expressions like "man up" aren't considered politically correct anymore.  You want to be part of the crew?  That includes everything from scrubbing the bilges to manning the ratlines (yeah, I know, they don't have those anymore except on the USS Constitution).

 [stir]
Yea, the audacity of those women to ask for the same customs we follow in everyday society to be followed onboard a US warship.

Also, the initiative for women to be onboard submarines is crafted almost entirely by men.

Your ability to use references is Significantly Below Average for someone who was/is a nuke.
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: FlatCan on Feb 04, 2018, 01:47
If you haven't already, check out this young woman who is a 2017 astronaut candidate (she's also stated as having been part of the first integrated class of woman-submariners).

https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/kayla-barron/biography (https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/kayla-barron/biography)
Title: Re: Women on submarines
Post by: Marlin on Feb 04, 2018, 02:49
Astronaut Candidate Kayla Barron

Barron was commissioned as a Navy officer in 2010 and immediately attended graduate school. Her graduate research focused on modeling the fuel cycle for a next-generation, thorium-fueled nuclear reactor concept. Following graduate school, Barron attended the U.S. Navy’s nuclear power and submarine officer training before being assigned to the USS Maine, an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine homeported in Bangor, Washington. Barron qualified as a submarine warfare officer and completed three strategic deterrent patrols while serving as a division officer aboard the Maine. At the time of her selection, Barron was serving as the Flag Aide to the Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy.

https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/kayla-barron/biography (https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/kayla-barron/biography)

Yep I did  ;)

If you haven't already, check out this young woman who is a 2017 astronaut candidate (she's also stated as having been part of the first integrated class of woman-submariners).

https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/kayla-barron/biography (https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/kayla-barron/biography)