The day has come. It's official.

[Fadge]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/22/women-to-begin-serving-on-u-s-submarines

Discuss.

[Fermi2]

Why? Who cares? A sailor is a sailor is a sailor.

[Yaeger]

Wouldn't mind it if the Navy didn't have double standards for two people of different genders to do the same job.

Get with the program, learn from the civilians! Don't discriminate.

Have the same PT requirements for employment for both sexes. Don't have recruiting quotas that specify goal percentages for women and minorities, it's not equal opportunity and doesn't make any sense.

Learn from the European countries with maternal and paternal leave the same length.

[crusemm]

While I agree with your sentiment, I think that you are a little naive concerning civilian hiring practices.  Almost every application I filled out asked for my race/ethnicity/gender.  If not to meet target quotas, then why ask for the data?     I am not an HR expert, Hell, I'm barely even a civilian.  Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Fermi2]

I know a 23 year old Ensign who graduated from this years class at the Academy. I'd serve with her long before I'd serve with most men I knew in the Navy. She's smarter, harder working, works out like a fiend and has more committment to doing a good job than most of the men I worked with in the Sub Force.

[Fermi2]

As opposed to the 7 guys off my boat who either:

1: Broke legs in a skiing accident. Total missed deployments 2.

2: Car accident while racing: Transferred off boat, left Navy.

3: Motor cycle wrecks: 3 missed deployments.

4: Bar fight, Stab wounds: Missed Deployment, transferred off boat.

BTW the total amount of guys missing deployment due to stupid crap has more examples and I'm guessing the 687 was about average in this regard.

The pregnancy arguement is BS and not backed up by any fact. My guess is more guys miss deployments and cause their shipmates more work than pregnancies will cost.

[liam]

The women are all going to be officers (not that it matters).  So what effect will that have on the enlisted men?  None!  BZ is right in his assessment.  We had this argument before and it was shifted to the GM area where presumably it died.    What does it matter if the person is a male or female?  If they are willing to put their life on the line for their country, thereby protecting my family and me, I say more power to them.  Put your 19th century prejudices to rest.
In the civilian world I have worked for good people and bad people.  Gender never seemed to enter the equation as the ratios were equal for both the good and the bad.  If you aren't mature enough to work with a person of the opposite sex, if you can't control yourself emotionally or physically, do we really want you working around the most powerful force we have managed to harness, the power of the atom?

I don't recall hearing that all the female nukes on carriers get pregnant on every cruise.  So the myth that every female is going to get pregnant is stupid and whoever raises that issue needs to be recalibrated. 

Thirty years ago I worked with a female executive officer that was one of the most beautiful women I have ever known.  However I kept my childish boyhood fantasies in check and we had a good working relationship.  The military is about discipline.  If we can't maintain discipline in the military then this world is screwed. 

Sorry for the soapbox.  Prejudicial whining gets me all wound up.

[co60slr]

I don't recall hearing that all the female nukes on carriers get pregnant on every cruise.  So the myth that every female is going to get pregnant is stupid and whoever raises that issue needs to be recalibrated. 

There is a pregnancy statistic.   It's not 100%, but it's not 0%.   

Do men/women assigned to CVNs and Sub Tenders "fool around"?   I think we all know the answer.   Is that a reason to NOT assign women to ships?  Absolutely not.  Dealing with pregnancy is NOT the top issue that an XO who has females assigned to his/her ship worries about!   

The issue here is the tight quarters.  Let's be honest (but PG-13) here...being underway on a submarine doesn't do much for your sex life other than make you extremely frustrated by day 89 of a 90 day underway time.   Now, add a beautiful woman walking around...and unlike a CVN or AS....VERY TIGHT QUARTERS.   That beautiful woman WILL be a distraction, but perhaps not any more than a civilian office with 10 workers...one of which is the same beautiful woman.

Now the next big milestone and news headline will be "LTJG XXX, the first Submarine Qualified Female Officer".  Afterwards, we'll come here or to "The Stupid Shall Be Punished" and find that "she" was pushed through quals, doesn't know her job, and proudly wears the dolphins because they were given to her because she took advantage of the situation (see paragraph above).

As for me, I could care less (active duty or not).  However, the COs, Admirals, and Politicians better make sure that these women become true Submariners and not Barbie Dolls wearing a meaningless gold fish on their pretty uniforms.

Overall, this experiment that assigns a few women to the wardroom will work fine.  Now, when they assign 9 enlisted women to enlisted submarine berthing.   (Laughing)...we'll see how THAT works out.  There are always people willing to succumb to their hormones...we read about it in the Navy Times every week.

On the other hand...allow couples openly (e.g., Star Trek culture?).   Heck, I'd never want to come back from sea!   ...

Co60

[Marlin]

   Interesting how this argument still fights a fight that no one has put forward to oppose putting women on subs. The main argument has been logistics and cost but you guys keep up that thought. There is no job done on a sub that is not done well by a women in the Navy that has never been an issue. I hear the same tired arguments with no regard to the other logistical issues. The women assigned will only be sent to SSGNs and SSBNs where these logistical problems are minimized but not completely gone. I fully expect that the "19th century attitude" and "tired old morals" argument will rise its head again but I have not seen it any documentation that opposes it.


as always my    (I'll double check to make sure they are not nickels  )

[Yaeger]

I know a 23 year old Ensign who graduated from this years class at the Academy. I'd serve with her long before I'd serve with most men I knew in the Navy. She's smarter, harder working, works out like a fiend and has more committment to doing a good job than most of the men I worked with in the Sub Force.

With all due respect BZ, no one here is stating that women aren't capable of performing the job. They are our equals and should have the chance to prove it in the submarine force.

However, it's the special treatment they get because they're women that rankles a lot of people. The Navy keeps shoving all of this 'equal' crap down our throats (most of us agree that they are equal), while at the same time holding them to different (easier) standards to hire/do the same job as the men.

Good ole Navy hypocrisy.

[co60slr]

However, it's the special treatment they get because they're women that rankles a lot of people. The Navy keeps shoving all of this 'equal' crap down our throats (most of us agree that they are equal), while at the same time holding them to different (easier) standards to hire/do the same job as the men.

Good ole Navy hypocrisy.

Bigger than just the Navy:
http://www.opm.gov/diversity/diversity-2.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/10/financial-overhaul-provision-promote-diversity-hiring-federal-agencies-stirs/
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0610/061610e2.htm
http://www.startribune.com/local/101527703.html

I think the argument is based on the debate of "is this the right thing for a submarine environment" where close quarters presents a challenge to a mixed gender population.

I'm sure they'll figure it out, but again, let's not pretend they're all going to be celibate.

Otherwise, there's no debate left.  It's done.  It's happening.

The only thing left is for us to read the forthcoming Navy Times articles when things go wrong. 

[Preciousblue1965]

One question that I think needs to be asked:

What happens if, for legitimate reasons, a female doesn't pass her qualification process?  You can't tell me that some people in Washington, namely the politicians with an axe to grind, wouldn't immediately suggest that there was a conspiracy against said unnamed female.  On the flip side, don't you think that there some political wrangling from the higher ups to ensure that the females get qualified, even if they truly don't cut the mustard, just to prevent said interference from Washington?  

I served, with females, on a carrier.  Yes there were relationships developed, in the same department and cross departments.  Yes there were females that were transferred off the ship due to being pregnant(I know for a fact that one girl got pregnant for the sole reason of missing a deployment, but that is another matter).  Yes there were females that were transferred off for getting pregnant while the ship was underway.  Granted a carrier is much, much larger and has areas where that foolishness can take place, but it did happen.  

Finally, there is the issue of manning.  Granted, as BZ has illustrated, you can lose a guy due to accident with little or no warning.  So what do you do if a female wants to get pregnant with her husband?  Should she give prior notice to the command to let them know they are going to be losing her at anytime?  Also, does the boat have to have a female Corpsman underway along with a male Corpsman to deal with medical issues?

The problem with some of these issues is that peopel who have no idea what a change in policy involves are pushing for these changes.  Same thing with DADT.  Most of us don't care, but it opens up a lot of questions about how to deal with certain issues.  The people pushing for the change, namely a bunch of politicians that have never seen the inside of a sub, think that XXXX sounds unfair and should be changed.

Just my    I will get off my   before I get   or   or

[Fadge]

Both sides of the argument bring up good points, but the fact is women are going to be apart of subs whether or not you like it or not. I personally think it is a good move for the Navy, but if they want true equality then go full force with it. (unequal pt requirements, etc)

[Fermi2]

Both sides of the argument bring up good points, but the fact is women are going to be apart of subs whether or not you like it or not. I personally think it is a good move for the Navy, but if they want true equality then go full force with it. (unequal pt requirements, etc)

BS, most the women sailors I knew could have passed the male PT requirements, in many cases better than the males. So it's a bullshit argument.

[Yaeger]

BS, most the women sailors I knew could have passed the male PT requirements, in many cases better than the males. So it's a bullshit argument.

Then set the standard to the male requirements! Or lower the male standard to female!

Pick a standard for all of your sailors, and hold them to it.

[co60slr]

Then set the standard to the male requirements! Or lower the male standard to female!

Pick a standard for all of your sailors, and hold them to it.

You seriously believe that the physical strength of an average woman and man are identical?

I bet $0.25 that YOU haven't seen a REAL P/T test.   One where someone is actually watching you saying..."Sorry EM2, that pushup didn't count.   Nope...not that one.   Not that one either.   You'd better start making these count!"   Or, is your counter-arguement going to be that in all the P/T tests you've taken in the Navy, ALL of your push-ups and situps that counted towards your exam met or exceeding the requirements?

The "P/T Standards" isn't the top high-integrity nuclear program ready for someone to throw into public forum for debate regardless of your gender.

[KUrunner]

Sure, women should have to meet the same PT standards as men... if the job requires it.  If they ever decide to let women be Seals a la GI Jane, then yes, accept only women who are as physically fit as men.  But does it affect a woman's ability to be an officier on a sub because she runs her 1.5 mile two minutes slower than her male counterpart? 

[JsonD13]

Funny how the same standards that nukes have to follow for PT are the same ones that the guy/gal who sits with a M-16 guarding the base protecting against terrorists have to follow.

Similarily, 10CFR73.46 doesnt differentiate between men and women for security fitness requirements.

Doesn't matter if the program is currently broke, its the difference in standards.  As I was on my way out, the Navy was trying to address the broke program.

I am one to believe that standards should be the same no matter who you are.  If the job requires it, you shouldn't have to do more or less because of your sex and/or age.

Also of interesting note is the civilian nuclear security requirements look tougher than the Navy on the surface (as far as run time goes).  No pushups or situps though.

Jason

[Sun Dog]

But does it affect a woman's ability to be an officier on a sub because she runs her 1.5 mile two minutes slower than her male counterpart? 

It may not impact her ability to be an officer on a sub, but it certainly could effect her ability to be an effective officer.  Lowering qualification standards based solely on sex (or race) is wrong.  It is wrong to lower standards for acceptance into a university, getting a job at the post office, obtaining low cost government backed small business loans, opening a casino, or commanding a sub.  Preferential treatment based on sex or race accomplishes nothing but to drive a wedge between people.

JMNSHO

[Gamecock]

Funny how the same standards that nukes have to follow for PT are the same ones that the guy/gal who sits with a M-16 guarding the base protecting against terrorists have to follow.

The navy has different PT standards based on elevation of the test site, AGE, and gender.  Note also that instead of completing a 1.5 mile run, you can substitute in a 500 yd swim, or something on a bike, or something on a elliptical training machine.

For me (age 37), the minimum acceptable run time is 14:45 (Note that I am considerably better then that ), but for those guys who enter the service between the age of 17-19, their minimum acceptable run time is 12:15.  For a female my age, the minimum acceptable time is 16:38 while for as 17-19 y/o female the minimum acceptable time is 14:45.

If you want to read the PT instruction, the link is below:
http://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/06000%20Medical%20and%20Dental%20Services/06-100%20General%20Physical%20Fitness/6110.1H.pdf

Just more fuel for the discussion.

Cheers,
GC

[Preciousblue1965]

The navy has different PT standards based on elevation of the test site, AGE, and gender.  Note also that instead of completing a 1.5 mile run, you can substitute in a 500 yd swim, or something on a bike, or something on a elliptical training machine.

For me (age 37), the minimum acceptable run time is 14:45 (Note that I am considerably better then that ), but for those guys who enter the service between the age of 17-19, their minimum acceptable run time is 12:15.  For a female my age, the minimum acceptable time is 16:38 while for as 17-19 y/o female the minimum acceptable time is 14:45.

If you want to read the PT instruction, the link is below:
http://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/06000%20Medical%20and%20Dental%20Services/06-100%20General%20Physical%20Fitness/6110.1H.pdf

Just more fuel for the discussion.

Cheers,
GC

And here I always thought for you old timers that all you had to do was cross the finish line and not have a coronary to pass, regardless of the unit of measurement that your time was recorded in(minutes vs days, etc). 

[Marlin]

   I don't know if this still applies but we had someone in prototype who was almost washed out as a nuke because he could not operate a large manual valve in the required time. Safety analysis used time studies on the reaction times and operating times of critical equipment. This was a plant requirement but you will find the same is true of the submarine's safety basis, after refits you may find someone verifying the time to operate critical safety equipment after configuration changes to verify you can still navigate to and operate a piece of gear in the expected time. (long run on sentences where is the grammar police   )

And here I always thought for you old timers that all you had to do was cross the finish line and not have a coronary to pass, regardless of the unit of measurement that your time was recorded in(minutes vs days, etc). 

We had to fit between the bench and the table in the messdeck and be able to lift ourselves into our bunk. 
   

[KUrunner]

If the job requires a specific PT standard then that is the standard. If candidate W runs 1.5 miles two minutes slower than candidate M but that slower time still meets the job requirement, hooray for candidate M and candidate W. If the job requirement cannot be met by either or both candidates, then they are either or both too slow.

To reverse it a bit, why would man have to able to run faster than a woman to be an officer on a sub?

Or,...is that what you were trying to say?!?

I don't think I explained what I was thinking clearly.  I completely agree with your statement about meeting the requirements or both being too slow.  I just don't think that raising the female standards are necessary to ensure that she can perform on the boat.  Can she get from Point A to Point B in a reasonable amount of time?  Can she turn an overhead handwheel if she needed to? 

Of course, if the standards are raised for female sub officers, then they should be raised for women across the board -- enlisted, SWO, whatever.  Physically, why should a surface officer have more lax requirements than subs?  I just don't see that ever happening.  Maybe the male standards should be lowered and age grading eliminated and everyone should have to do the same amount of situps. 

[jay121]

The pregnancy arguement is BS and not backed up by any fact. My guess is more guys miss deployments and cause their shipmates more work than pregnancies will cost.

It is not BS, and the following statement will prove it; just go to any office in Norfolk, and you'll see that most clerks in offices are pregnant ENLISTED sailors.  I rarely see female officers pregnant.  I think I may have seen two or three female officers pregnant, versus at least a whole department composed of mainly enlisted pregnant women. 

Plus, go to NAS Pensacola: the Delta barracks holds a huge amount of gilrs who get pregnant while there, then (when they go to their final duty station) is when they inform their new command about their pregnancy.  If you knew/see how well these girls hide their belly bumps, you'll be shocked!

[Fermi2]

It is not BS, and the following statement will prove it; just go to any office in Norfolk, and you'll see that most clerks in offices are pregnant ENLISTED sailors.  I rarely see female officers pregnant.  I think I may have seen two or three female officers pregnant, versus at least a whole department composed of mainly enlisted pregnant women. 

Plus, go to NAS Pensacola: the Delta barracks holds a huge amount of gilrs who get pregnant while there, then (when they go to their final duty station) is when they inform their new command about their pregnancy.  If you knew/see how well these girls hide their belly bumps, you'll be shocked!

Then I'm certain you'd be glad to show me a statistical studied published by a credible source showing more women miss deployment due to pregnancy than male sailors due to other reasons. Until then it's hearsay and BS.

So far as PT requirements. By Yaegers faulty arguement a 40 year old MM should meet the same PT requirements as a 20 year old MM.
It's a BS argument.