So logging in today the news story on Mil.com's front page was this. There is a link to a discussion, but ah heck....why not discuss it in our ranks.

Personally, I think that such an idea would hurt the relationships from the men currently on subs. I mean we all know when a sub goes out with 100 guys....fifty couples come back.
(yes, I'm joking here bubbleheads)


http://www.military.com/featur...15240,201577,00.html

Oh yeah, I figure I would put the discussion here so those of us who rarley go to the sub discussions can get their licks in too.

Fckn wunderfull.

Since I'me a grumpy old bstrd who never liked the idea of women on ships to start with why should I think women on subs is a good idea.

Coming from a woman BAD IDEA!!!! Gerry ahhhhh come on!!!

At some point it is going to happen. I think it should just be replacement crew members with no special considerations other than telling people they can't run around naked. No separate berthing. No separate heads. No special dispensations. If we're to break down one of the last areas of segregation then everyone just needs to be treated the same. The only thing special that I would consider is birth control with products like Yaz or Mirena.

I certainly don't think that the officers should come on any higher than a division officer as department heads should not be doing JO quals. I don't know if enlisted should be capped below chief (I've seen a couple of non-qual first classes in the past). These are for the initial women assigned to the boats. Once they get qualified and a steady stream comes out of sub school then nothing special about assignments.

quote:

Originally posted by mturnb:
At some point it is going to happen. I think it should just be replacement crew members with no special considerations other than telling people they can't run around naked. No separate berthing. No separate heads. No special dispensations. If we're to break down one of the last areas of segregation then everyone just needs to be treated the same. The only thing special that I would consider is birth control with products like Yaz or Mirena.

I agree with all, except the last line. There are no long term studies to determine the effects on women on altering hormone levels over multiple years.

Do what other countries do and have a box o condoms sitting there !

My thoughts are, if there aren't enough men to job (which is the case as they are forcing all male OC's to go subs-if you don't "vollunteer" subs you are not given a comission and sent straight to sea) then you have to resort to women at some point. But, then everything eeds to be equal. If we want equality, then full equality. Force women into infantry as they can do to men, don't make it optional for women. Force women into female Officer nuke posistions as they are the guys, again, don't make it optional. It's all or nothing.

Personally, the boys can have it if they want. I dont want it, but, it's inevitable at some point, so if we're going to be equal, make it fully equal.

Catherine I agree with you. I was looking at it more of a money stand point to converting the subs for women. However, when you raised the whole equality subject I tend to agree with you. No special treatment for us girls! No separate heads, berthings, etc etc. But only under these conditions should we be allowed on subs.

A person can almost assume that there will be a monkey wrench thrown into the situation and subs will be converted for woman.

Just as I was typing this I thought of something as well. Once women get qualled on subs and have proven they can handle it. Why not make some subs all women crews?

quote:

Originally posted by gonavyjdi:
Just as I was typing this I thought of something as well. Once women get qualled on subs and have proven they can handle it. Why not make some subs all women crews?

Because, whether women remain a minority in the US Navy or not, it would be a manning nightmare.

PERSO: There's good news and there's bad news Admiral, what would you like to hear first?
Some Admiral: The good news.

PERSO: The good news is we have more than enough qualified holders of [insert critical NEC that every sub/ship/squadron must have]."
Admiral: Great, and the bad?

PERSO: Well, 10% of the subs are crewed by females and 90% by males, but 95% of the NEX holders are males.

Admiral: Great, looks like we'll have to pick the next couple female crewed subs scheduled for an avail, accelerate the avail to get the male-mod, and hope the dynamic doesn't swing the other way by the time it's finished.

PERSO: Very well sir. In the mean time, I'll tell the NEC holders on the sub that they're getting opheld pending completion of the mod.

Combining crews only to separate them again is ridiculous on so many levels, and manning of critical NEC's would only be one of them. Then of course there's always the whole "We spent 20 years getting some female O's qualed to command subs, and now that we've finally beaten the all-male culture out of subs, we're going to go back to the way things were and split up the sexes just for kicks."

ETA: And oh, by the way, it's not a question of whether or not women can "handle it," I'm sure they can. I'm sure the CNO is sure too. If they can handle a small boy, they can handle a sub.

I think it would be very difficult to integrate a sub to that degree. I just think that there would be too many opportunities for sexual harassment claims. Even with strict rules, practical jokes and what not could get out of hand. (we can get kinda squirley after 60 days on patrol) Here is a an example of stict rules not working. We were using liquid nitrogen for freeze seals. The Captain told us that anyone caught playing with the liquid nitrogen would go to mast. Did that stop us from playing with it? No. Were were jsut mroe carefull not to get caught

I SURE don't give a flyin **** about Jules V. and the rest of his pretenders of the title of Sailor.

But I think its only fair that you nitrogens breathing wanna'be's should share in the ERA.

Generationational commets folks.

The above is why (I) recommended that we have a "Crumudgeons Forum" to beguin with.

Hey women on subs worked in Down Periscope.

quote:

Originally posted by DC2crabby:
Hey women on subs worked in Down Periscope.

Yep but that was Hollyweird.
Now if one of them gets pregnant, do we still call them Bubble Heads or Bubble Belly's

Sorry couldnt resist.

Definitly time to move over to the curmudgeon thread where we can have a serious discussion without facts and stuff like that.

I am just wondering how they are going to be berthed. There is not enough room now for the crew. That is why there is hot racking. Also how is showering going to work? Now I wouldn't mind seeing that.

OOPS that is not PC.

I guess I am glad I am no longer on the boats.

Almost all the "objections" were heard about women on ships in general in the 70's but it happened and it was "made to work" you heard them in the 90's when it was combat ships again it was made to work.

On the one hand you can say that maybe it was more "trouble than it was worth" and from some that is the Sub argument but considering the % of women in te Navy these days they can't all just be YN's in some staff shore duty command forever which is where we once were and some would wish we could have stayed.

As an ET I never thought it was "fair" that a female ET could and many did because of lack of sea billets go 20 plus years and never set foot aboard a Navy ship. Especailly when lack of sea duty didn't seem to slow them down career path wise.

I taught A school in the early 90's after all the USS type "supply ships" went USNS but before any of the combat types changed.

The vast majority of female students just knew corectley as it turned out that at the end of the pipeline for them was shore duty some place and more shore duty after that.

A ship was not only likely and in their minds it was not even really a possibility. Where as males who maybe wanted shore duty just as bad knew that a ship was not only possible but more than likley it was practically guaranteed!

Maybe things are different now, more than 15 years later but back then you got the feeling from the vast majority of female students that if sea duty had been as much of a guarantee for them as males they would not have joned.

Would have waited and joined the Air Force.

quote:

Originally posted by mpwimmer:
I am just wondering how they are going to be berthed. There is not enough room now for the crew. That is why there is hot racking. Also how is showering going to work? Now I wouldn't mind seeing that.

OOPS that is not PC.

I guess I am glad I am no longer on the boats.

_________________________________________

Come to think about it, it does give a whole new meaning to Hot racking.

quote:

Originally posted by DC2crabby:
Hey women on subs worked in Down Periscope.

might be a NEW definition to UP PERISCOPE

quote:

Originally posted by hockeybear:

quote:

Originally posted by DC2crabby:
Hey women on subs worked in Down Periscope.

might be a NEW definition to UP PERISCOPE

Nice.

quote:

Originally posted by ETCPJ:
Maybe things are different now, more than 15 years later but back then you got the feeling from the vast majority of female students that if sea duty had been as much of a guarantee for them as males they would not have joned.

but I bet even then there were still those that wanted to go to sea. Wasn't Jen in then?

Easy solution:If they don't want to go to sea, throw 'em out....but I've known a few guys who tried all they could, and succeeded, to stay off sea duty. SO all things equal, throw them out too. Also, what do you do with those who want to go to sea but every time they ask are told "there are no sea billets for females"-my sister falls into this catagory. has for the last 6 years.

My brother -a former sub nuke- argues that a woman would take a bunch of crap if she didn't qualify on time (so does any female nuke). Only reason his comment REALLY ****ed me off is he qualified everything extremely late, and the only reason they let him stay on his boat is they could get no one to replace him. One of the first classes I had in NY was the same way, and used to brag about qualifying SRO late, then qualified everything late in NY. If they had the bodies available to replace him the boat could have gotten rid of the dead weight. I love my brother, but both my husband and I are in agreement that if we worked with him he would have been caused physical harm.

There are plenty of females out there who are non-pc. I'm one of 'em.

quote:

might be a NEW definition to UP PERISCOPE

WOW!!!!! LOL!!!! !

Sub, Tin Can, Birdfarm, Gator Freighter, or Sweeps.

Makes not one iota of difference, Boys are gonna be Boys and Girls are gonna be Girls.

Put them together in CLOSE proximity, and ANY fool with half an ounce of COMMON sense knows whats gonna happen.

And please. Spare me the tongue lashing about my oh so Non political correctness.

Now then having stepped on my crank here, you'll find me drinkin beer with Gerry and the rest of the broken down, outta tune with reality, old has beens, over in the Curmudgeons cell block.

quote:

Now then having stepped on my crank here, you'll find me drinkin beer with Gerry and the rest of the broken down, outta tune with reality, old has beens, over in the Curmudgeons cell block.

I am with ya there Rat. I will buy the first round.

The Curmudgeon Tavern, I love that joint!

See nothing wrong with them being assigned to submarine duty so long as the appropriate protocols are in place - for example, a schedule for when you can use the showers, etc. I agree with Catherine - someone wants equality, then it's all the way.

If there are conversions required insofar as berthing and personal hygiene are concerned, I imagine those would be addressed during the ROH periods. I don't think we're ready for the type of berthing/hygiene facilities used in "Starship Troopers".

quote:

Originally posted by catherine0830:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ETCPJ:

but I bet even then there were still those that wanted to go to sea. Wasn't Jen in then?

Yes I was in from 92-96. I went directly to a "supply ship" that was not a USNS(most were still USS ships) from A school. And toward the end of my enlistment is when women were first being allowed on combantant ships. Ships like gators and carriers.

I totally understand where you are coming from ETC I knew a RM2 that reported to my ship the same time as I did and that was her first ship in something 16 years of service. She wound up being kicked out because she didn't likle it.

As an ET I never thought it was "fair" that a female ET could and many did because of lack of sea billets go 20 plus years and never set foot aboard a Navy ship. Especailly when lack of sea duty didn't seem to slow them down career path wise.
On the flip side of that there were more female ETs on my ship than there were males. 2 purposefully gained weight to fail the PRT requirements to get out again because they didn't like it!


I agree with Catherine. Dammit you are in the Navy why would you not expect to go to sea??? Kick them out if they don't want to go to sea!! This question has always baffled me!!! Then too what really ****es me off is girls before deployment would get pregnant on purpose so they would not have to deploy. WTF?? Yes we all miss our loved ones But don't you think the guys do to??

Sorry I got a little pizzy!

Jen I've never been a fan of women on warships because of the problems it causes. You've never seen a one sex ship as a crewmember so you can't realy compair it to a mixed crew.
I firmly believe that the PC part of the Navy is way overboard because of the presence of women aboard. You've got crews with an average age of 20 or 21 and thats the time of life when hormons run wild anyway, so why stoke the fire by mixing the sexes. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Gerry I understand what you are saying to an extent. I am married to a Navy guy who feels the same way you do. But feel that there is a time and a place for women on ships. Maybe it has something to do with my mindset. Who knows!! LOL.

I saw way too many instances while on board my ship the hormones flying and many cases of women winding up pregnant. I personally didn't care for all of the drama that a mixed crew involves. It only takes one person to **** off the whole berthing with their penny ante antics and relationship drama. I was in the Navy for a reason and that was because I wanted to be a sailor. I was there to do a job and not find a man. My husband and I were at separate commands when we met.

I had a good chuckle today on this subject. I read a news story where someone who is not in the navy nor has ever been on a submarine was talking about how "EASY" it would be to convert berthing and heads on a submarine.

Shaking head I guess more of our money is going to be taxed to pay for this project.

Must have something to do with "The Great Right Wing Conspiracy".

quote:

Originally posted by GerryRM3:
Jen I've never been a fan of women on warships because of the problems it causes. You've never seen a one sex ship as a crewmember so you can't realy compair it to a mixed crew.
I firmly believe that the PC part of the Navy is way overboard because of the presence of women aboard. You've got crews with an average age of 20 or 21 and thats the time of life when hormons run wild anyway, so why stoke the fire by mixing the sexes. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

I don't know Gerry. I cam in a couple years after Jen and went to a frigate with an all male crew. When that ship decommed I went to a carrier with a mixed crew. In reality I didn't see much more of a difference, especially when it came down to doing the job.

However, my experience was not long in that area, the only underway time was maybe a month for shakedown etc, I never made a deployment on the carrier. I do agree with the PC crap though.

Now while on that fig, I have been on a few SNFL cruises and deployed with foreign navies...several countries operate with a mixed crew and have been doing so longer than the U.S. However, they also have beer while underway too, so that is a double hit for them, but they seem to make it work.

quote:

Gerry I understand what you are saying to an extent. I am married to a Navy guy who feels the same way you do. But feel that there is a time and a place for women on ships. Maybe it has something to do with my mindset. Who knows!! LOL.

I saw way too many instances while on board my ship the hormones flying and many cases of women winding up pregnant. I personally didn't care for all of the drama that a mixed crew involves. It only takes one person to **** off the whole berthing with their penny ante antics and relationship drama. I was in the Navy for a reason and that was because I wanted to be a sailor. I was there to do a job and not find a man. My husband and I were at separate commands when we met.

Amen!

In the end, it really comes down to numbers. If people really had an issue with females enterng service, then they would be petitioning congress to bring back the draft. You cant make the military run on the number of guys who are willing to vollunteer (or lack there of), so it becomes necessary to let women in.

I also agree that it's ****ed up that some (definately not all) females get pg to get out of leaving or fulfilling obligations. But, I've seen guys do the fat boy thing, and I've seen guys lie about being gay to get out (we've even had a few of those on here recently). Why is it we only discuss those females who **** up and stereotype all of them? Why don't we discuss the guys who fake it? My guess is because it's harder to follow, but when a guy gets out and a week later is married....

I've also seen guys that are little PC *****es and whine about everything. Had one in E-div that everyone wanted to choke. Kid did nothing.

quote:

However, they also have beer while underway too, so that is a double hit for them, but they seem to make it work.

I think we should bring back rum rations. Everyone would be less uptight.

99 bottles of beer on the wall...

quote:

Originally posted by GerryRM3:
Jen I've never been a fan of women on warships because of the problems it causes. You've never seen a one sex ship as a crewmember so you can't realy compair it to a mixed crew.

I don't know... My first ship (DDG) was all male except for the officers, we had I think 6 female O's when I showed up and only one by the time I left. It may very well have been the closest thing to an all-male ship in the US Navy at the time and I'm pretty sure the last female left shortly after I did (2005-2007). I really haven't noticed any new problems on a fully mixed gender carrier. Stupid people still do stupid things, it's just there's a few more ways for that stupidity to show now.

As for heads, we only had one female head and it was up forward, so we just put a flip sign on the aft officer head. Never had an issue.

This seems like a friendly enough conversation here so I won't unleash my tirade here as a lot of us did on other threads. Most of my concerns about women aboard ships, and submarines in particular, are concerns "other" than illicit sex between men and women and the Navy families ashore that will be broken and devastated. But since we are on the subject, what will be the price paid by the sailors who are focused on the mission and the mission becomes compromised because of those who want to play? When the operation of a submarine is compromised on a deterrent or war patrol, disciplinary action means absolutely nothing when people get killed and the boat is lost.

Perhaps because our nation hasn’t been in a shooting war at sea against another technologically advanced maritime country in awhile where thousands are killed in a single action, the big concern now appears to be the desires and rights of women to get a shot at qualification and promotion. The reality is that America’s submarine service is the cornerstone of our capability of winning a war at sea. It is no longer just a … primary … contributing factor; it is … the … determining factor to victory in war. Is this the time to experiment? I don’t think so.

I am a Cold War veteran of the submarine service, so I know more than the SECNAV and the CNO about the rigors and dangers that lurk in the belly of the beast. Likewise, I am a recent DoD veteran of the Iraq War, MNF-W, Al-Anbar in support of I MEF. Women Marine warriors served in direct support of combat operations and they were sure needed. However, women Marine warriors; while trained to fight, armed to fight, and prepared to fight, were never as a matter of Marine Corps policy purposely or recklessly placed in harm’s way as they were in the other services, including the Navy. This very successful “Marine model” that still defines and differentiates the roles of men and women Marines in the battle space is unique in the armed forces. Perhaps the SECNAV and the CNO should follow the lead of their Marines whose success in the GWT is near flawless and undeniable, instead of indulging this administration, non-military activist groups, Hollywood, and the mainstream media elites. The issue should not be political correctness and a perceived need for career starters. The issue should be the mission of the Navy, the defense of the country in a projected offensive war, and winning wars.

quote:

Originally posted by Nanjing:
But since we are on the subject, what will be the price paid by the sailors who are focused on the mission and the mission becomes compromised because of those who want to play?

Probably the same as when someone pops positive or misses ships movement just before a deployment.

Bad idea I think. The integrations are going to be a PITA, but that's really for the higherarchy to worry about. But what about the mission? Is a sub going to have to pull off station to disembark a female submariner because nature happened? Last time I checked, subs don't exactly have helo decks, and helo's don't do well under water.

I think this is just a huge fiasco being brought on by those who want the cuddly, friendly navy to be everywhere. Tell you what, if someone onboard fell behind on their quals, there wasn't anything cuddly or friendly about the life.

Call me old fashioned, but I'm against it. Not that it's going to make much of a difference, but that's my two cents. Glad I'm already out.

quote:

Originally posted by 7698305:
But what about the mission? Is a sub going to have to pull off station to disembark a female submariner because nature happened?

Nature happens? huh?

either way, they'll get the girls off the same way they get guys off now when stuff happens to them, BSP.

The "sewer pipe" environment of a sub is just NOT the place for females...the sanitary constraints are considerable, and hot-racking, "water hours/days", and the demanding pace of typical sub ops---strenuous drills, watches, etc---are not conducive to the kind of sanitation females physically need and should have. That females can jump ahead of others with higher quals and sea time by their simply being females so as to get "boomer" duty is wrong. You can't change the "femaleness" and physical aspects of them. The opportunity for legal and many other real problems from idealistic, unrealistic, politically-correct, hypersensitive, "thin-skinned" female submates will be profligate and can ruin morale, crew cohesiveness, and interfere with the whole reason the boat(sub) trained and deployed in the first place! Is this VOLATILE mix a wise choice, just to "accomodate" females and the P.C./liberal crowd? I think not. Let's say a crew mwmber has to access a control valve quickly that is located alongside a rack occupied by a sleeping female off watch/duty. He has to act very quickly...so he reaches across the female after warning her that he must sccess and operate the valve, and quickly operates it, as ordered. She's mad because he woke her from her sleep, and inadvertantly bumped her breast as he spun the tight valve handwheel, and his damp hand slipped off the handwheel, so he bumps her body innocently. She gets MAD, and soon, there is a SERIOUS problem; the crew is distracted, and she pushes for a sexual harrassment claim. He suffers, she is villianized, the mission and crew morale are compromised. Unlikely? In these dangerous and litigious times, ANYTHING can happen. Why even allow the conditions that can lead to ANY such wasteful and destructive scenarios to occur? I give a firm "NO" vote. MISSION tops 'P.C.' and frail "I WANT IT...NOW!" egos anytime, every time; GET OVER IT, females! Let's move on down the road! CNO needs to LISTEN to the "Fleet that KNOWS the DEEP"...because "the DEEP ALWAYS PLAYS FOR KEEPS!" This is no GAME...too much is at stake here, and it's basically simple COMMON SENSE! "Old school"? Maybe. It WORKS!

quote:

Originally posted by LHA_3Rusty:
You can't change the "femaleness" and physical aspects of them.

Nor would I want to....I never cared for the butch type.

quote:

Originally posted by DC2crabby:

quote:

Originally posted by LHA_3Rusty:
You can't change the "femaleness" and physical aspects of them.

Nor would I want to....I never cared for the butch type.

LMAO!!!

quote:

Originally posted by DC2crabby:

quote:

Originally posted by LHA_3Rusty:
You can't change the "femaleness" and physical aspects of them.

Nor would I want to....I never cared for the butch type.

Canadian Navy has several of those. One night long before I met my dh, I was at a bar with some guy friends (soccer team I managed) and this one tried to hook up with him, I became his gf shield. It still makes me laugh actually because she was scary and I had never seen them act like that before.

quote:

Originally posted by LHA_3Rusty:
The "sewer pipe" environment of a sub is just NOT the place for females...the sanitary constraints are considerable, and hot-racking, "water hours/days", and the demanding pace of typical sub ops---strenuous drills, watches, etc---are not conducive to the kind of sanitation females physically need and should have. That females can jump ahead of others with higher quals and sea time by their simply being females so as to get "boomer" duty is wrong. You can't change the "femaleness" and physical aspects of them. The opportunity for legal and many other real problems from idealistic, unrealistic, politically-correct, hypersensitive, "thin-skinned" female submates will be profligate and can ruin morale, crew cohesiveness, and interfere with the whole reason the boat(sub) trained and deployed in the first place! Is this VOLATILE mix a wise choice, just to "accomodate" females and the P.C./liberal crowd? I think not. Let's say a crew mwmber has to access a control valve quickly that is located alongside a rack occupied by a sleeping female off watch/duty. He has to act very quickly...so he reaches across the female after warning her that he must sccess and operate the valve, and quickly operates it, as ordered. She's mad because he woke her from her sleep, and inadvertantly bumped her breast as he spun the tight valve handwheel, and his damp hand slipped off the handwheel, so he bumps her body innocently. She gets MAD, and soon, there is a SERIOUS problem; the crew is distracted, and she pushes for a sexual harrassment claim. He suffers, she is villianized, the mission and crew morale are compromised. Unlikely? In these dangerous and litigious times, ANYTHING can happen. Why even allow the conditions that can lead to ANY such wasteful and destructive scenarios to occur? I give a firm "NO" vote. MISSION tops 'P.C.' and frail "I WANT IT...NOW!" egos anytime, every time; GET OVER IT, females! Let's move on down the road! CNO needs to LISTEN to the "Fleet that KNOWS the DEEP"...because "the DEEP ALWAYS PLAYS FOR KEEPS!" This is no GAME...too much is at stake here, and it's basically simple COMMON SENSE! "Old school"? Maybe. It WORKS!

I dont know whether to laugh or be ****ed.
In all honesty I think that if the above valve scenario occured then the majority (as in 99.9%) of us would understand. Mission readiness, and crew safety is much more important that if he accidentally touches my boob. Now, purposeful groping. Thats another story.
With that said. I dont think I'd ever volunteer for sub duty. I like my fresh air way to much. and then when I have a LT that has told me on more than one occasion if he could do it again he'd go aviation. It doesnt leave feeling I'd need to do something like subs. If there any ladies out there that want to do it. If it's authorized then go for it. More power to ya. I just dont think it'd be for me.