Navy moves to allow women on submarines

[ScottM]

Just put really really ugly women on the subs. Then there's less worry of certain things.

And why aren't you married yet?


















BTW I have been around men enough to know and that would be a deal breaker on a long cruise.

 

[RickH]

In past years I'd probably have argued against mixed gender crews, but since I've been a DMAT team member and have been on deployments where we sleep 20 or so to a 19x35 tent I've come to realize that the privacy issue is overblown. Our cots are about 2' apart and as I've told others; I sleep with the nurses..the one on my left is blond and beautiful, the one on my right is ugly, 6' 3" and chews tobacco. At the end of a long day, you just hope the person next to you doesn't snore. Most of our female nurses can work elbow-to-elbow with any of the guys when we're unloading the heavy stuff off the trucks. I sincerely believe there are few, if any, jobs on a modern nuclear sub that can't be handled by females.

 

[flyersfan31]

Good article from a series on women on the front lines....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/us/17women.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1

 

[Trapper John]

I think all of these concerns have been addressed in one or more episodes of McHale's Navy.


Trapper John

 

[dmccormack]

Now I know why my father -- who served on DEs in the Pacific in WW2 -- said, "Whatever you do, don't join the Navy!"

 

[weilke]

Now I know why my father -- who served on DEs in the Pacific in WW2 -- said, "Whatever you do, don't join the Navy!"

Bbbut they have the prettiest uniforms

 

[ScottM]

Good article from a series on women on the front lines....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/us/17women.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the first in which tens of thousands of American military women have lived, worked and fought with men for prolonged periods. Wars without front lines, they have done more than just muddle the rules meant to keep women out of direct enemy contact.
They have changed the way the United States military goes to war. They have reshaped life on bases across Iraq and Afghanistan.



They have cultivated a new generation of women with a warrior’s ethos — and combat experience — that for millennia was almost exclusively the preserve of men.



And they have done so without the disruption of discipline and unit cohesion that some feared would unfold at places like Warhorse.

Darn pesky facts and reality!!

 

[ScottM]

The Army and Marine Corps declined to say exactly how many women left Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of pregnancies, but it appears to be relatively rare and has had little effect on overall readiness, commanders say. At Warhorse, the First Stryker Brigade, which has thousands of soldiers, has sent only three women home because of pregnancies in 10 months in Iraq, the brigade said.
“There was a fear if we integrate units, you will have a bunch of young people with raging hormones, and it will end up in too many unwanted pregnancies, and it’s more trouble than it’s worth,” said Peter Mansoor, a former battalion commander in Iraq who, until retiring recently, served as Gen. David H. Petraeus’s executive officer. “With good leadership and mentorship, we have been able to keep those problems to a minimum.”

Oops another pesky fact

 

[steingar]

Oh, but Israeli commanders don't like having women in their outfits. That trumps your dumb old facts.

 

[ausrere]

Every time I read this thread, that line from G.I. Jane pops in my head:

Master Chief Urgayle to Instructor Pyro: "She's not the problem. We are."

 

[ScottM]

Oh, but Israeli commanders don't like having women in their outfits. That trumps your dumb old facts.

Drat, a perfectly good argument spoiled by bias, bigotry, and chauvinism!!

BLAST YOU!!!

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Will this kill the old joke: What's long and hard and full of seamen?

Spoiler

A Submarine

 

[Witmo]

Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring the NFL, NBA, and every other professional sport to integrate women fully on their squads. Touchdowns, baskets, goals, runs etc would still get scored and people would still pay money to watch. Success would be declared and all who trumpet PC and women's rights would crow "see, we told you so." As long as the integrated teams don't have to compete against all male teams, they're right-- it works. They probably would do well against all male teams from third world nations whose traditional sports don't include American football, baseball or the like. But how well do you think a mixed gender baseball team would do against a Cuban or Japanese or Dominican Republic all male team?

Those of you who cite commanders saying they've solved the "pregnancy problem" or that women are performing adequately in combat or some other such "quantifiable" evidence of the utility of women in combat fail to cite any quantifiable evidence of mixed gender units being as good or better than all male units. Commanders get promoted by following orders and making do with the hand they're dealt. I wonder how the line grunt feels?

 

[ScottM]

I wonder how the line grunt feels?

Why don't you do some research then?

 

[TMetzinger]

I served in combat (defined as "people are shooting at you") in both military (USCG and detailed to joint operations) and federal law enforcement. I had females as part of my units in both cases. One of them saved my life once. Sleeping in the jungle wasn't an issue either.

Yes, there are certain jobs (tank crewman who may have to crack track comes to mind) where the AVERAGE woman won't be able to physically hack it. But most men can't either. I see no harm in letting anyone try to qualify for any job. If they can hack it, great. If they can't, then they don't get to do the job.

As for "lowering standards" - if our society decides to lower standards, then we get what we deserve from the results. And since the military is volunteer - folks can say "nope, not gonna join up" if they think that the service doesn't value their life properly.

 

[Witmo]

Why don't you do some research then?

I'll get right on that.

 

[bbchien]

I don't have any problem with this order. None at all. Physcial qualifications are physical qualifications, if they can meet 'em, they can serve.

I've met some pretty tough, professional women warriors.

 

[dmccormack]

I don't have any problem with this order. None at all. Physcial qualifications are physical qualifications, if they can meet 'em, they can serve.

I've met some pretty tough, professional women warriors.

Me too.

There are some areas where women would be better performers, IMHO, but other in which they will not. Infantry and Cavalry are two that generally would not be conducive to integration.

 

[Witmo]

I served in combat (defined as "people are shooting at you") in both military (USCG and detailed to joint operations) and federal law enforcement. I had females as part of my units in both cases. One of them saved my life once. Sleeping in the jungle wasn't an issue either.

Yes, there are certain jobs (tank crewman who may have to crack track comes to mind) where the AVERAGE woman won't be able to physically hack it. But most men can't either. I see no harm in letting anyone try to qualify for any job. If they can hack it, great. If they can't, then they don't get to do the job.

As for "lowering standards" - if our society decides to lower standards, then we get what we deserve from the results. And since the military is volunteer - folks can say "nope, not gonna join up" if they think that the service doesn't value their life properly.

Tim,

First let me say thanks for your service. I agree with what you're saying but unfortunately, that's not the way gender integration is implemented here. Some other countries have implemented mixed gender combat units by doing exactly as you suggest: keep the same standards and if a woman can meet those standards, they can serve in those positions. They willingly accept the very small number of women who can hack it. The US however, once the decision to integrate women into a position is made, judge success or failure by numbers. If not enough women volunteer who can pass, lower the bar and get those numbers up. Too many pregnant women, let's spend more time training in gender sensitivity training or birth control and responsible dating, etc. Could that time have been spent on a rifle or pistol range making a more effective soldier? Combat effectiveness is secondary--PC becomes primary as that's what makes the news and fulfills the agenda. As long as the units are not combat ineffective, we can call gender integration a resounding success and just live with the additional casualties.

Driving around in a combat zone and getting shot at and returning fire is part of combat and women are doing that today--getting shot at and returning fire from an MRAP or Bradley is relatively straight forward and may not require a lot of physical prowess. Being told the enemy is entrenched on a hilltop and supported by artillery and your job is to take that hill at all costs is the type of combat that women have no place in. Unfortunately, combat units are expected to be able to survive and thrive in the most extreme combat situations not just the dangerous but relatively benign aspects of nation building. I don't mean to downgrade the casualties suffered today. Those men and women risking their lives are heroes in my book. I am saying our military should be the sharpest and most deadly force it can possibly be and I remain convinced that women in many combat positions would dull that sword, submarine service being one of them.

 

[Trapper John]

I am saying our military should be the sharpest and most deadly force it can possibly be and I remain convinced that women in many combat positions would dull that sword, submarine service being one of them.

Yep, let the menfolk do the killin' and keep the wimmin at home churning out future warriors...

Fortunately, Navy leadership doesn't share that view.


Trapper John

 

[dmccormack]

Yep, let the menfolk do the killin' and keep the wimmin at home churning out future warriors...

Fortunately, Navy leadership doesn't share that view.


Trapper John

Oh, please...

 

[ScottM]

Tim,

First let me say thanks for your service. I agree with what you're saying but unfortunately, that's not the way gender integration is implemented here. Some other countries have implemented mixed gender combat units by doing exactly as you suggest: keep the same standards and if a woman can meet those standards, they can serve in those positions. They willingly accept the very small number of women who can hack it. The US however, once the decision to integrate women into a position is made, judge success or failure by numbers. If not enough women volunteer who can pass, lower the bar and get those numbers up. Too many pregnant women, let's spend more time training in gender sensitivity training or birth control and responsible dating, etc. Could that time have been spent on a rifle or pistol range making a more effective soldier? Combat effectiveness is secondary--PC becomes primary as that's what makes the news and fulfills the agenda. As long as the units are not combat ineffective, we can call gender integration a resounding success and just live with the additional casualties.

.

You might actually want to check your facts, especially when you talk to Tim. The service he served in accepts women to do one the most physically demanding jobs there is. Absolutely opposite to your claim that the services have unilaterally lowered all standards for women. To do the job of rescue swimmer in the USCG one has to meet all the standards regardless of gender. That is a very specific case where the standards apply specifically to the job.

Tim, why are you so scared of women?

 

[ScottM]

Yep, let the menfolk do the killin' and keep the wimmin at home churning out future warriors...

Fortunately, Navy leadership doesn't share that view.


Trapper John

Thankfully most of the US population does not hold that view.

 

[Missa]

I am saying our military should be the sharpest and most deadly force it can possibly be and I remain convinced that women in many combat positions would dull that sword, submarine service being one of them.

Tim, Agian I ask how many of our subs have been boarded and "Combat" has broke out? Being in a sub is as close to "combat" as flying an airplane is. Or are you just ignoring the questions that blow your sexist argumenst out of the water?

You just keep repeating the same sexist drivel.

I relize that no matter how much logic and fact there is to back up my possition, I can't ever change you mind but I am satisfied in the fact that most people who share your view are older males and that sooner rather then later the point of view you profess will just DIE OUT.

Missa

 

[steingar]

Our military is the sharpest force in the world. Period. There isn't another military that can stand against it.

 

[ScottM]

Our military is the sharpest force in the world. Period. There isn't another military that can stand against it.

But that will all change once women start to bring it down.

 

[ScottM]

Tim, Agian I ask how many of our subs have been boarded and "Combat" has broke out? Being in a sub is as close to "combat" as flying an airplane is. Or are you just ignoring the questions that blow your sexist argumenst out of the water?

You just keep repeating the same sexist drivel.

I relize that no matter how much logic and fact there is to back up my possition, I can't ever change you mind but I am satisfied in the fact that most people who share your view are older males and that sooner rather then later the point of view you profess will just DIE OUT.

Missa

+1000000000000000000000000000 Missa.

For a girl, you are pretty smart.

 

[Bob Noel]

I relize that no matter how much logic and fact there is to back up my possition, I can't ever change you mind but I am satisfied in the fact that most people who share your view are older males and that sooner rather then later the point of view you profess will just DIE OUT.

Missa

Thank you for expressing your desire that the views die out, rather
than the people who hold them.

 

[nddons]

I had no idea this thread would get this long, and It's been interesting to hear everyone's thoughts. I posed this question to a good friend of mine and former employee. She is a Senior Officer in the Navy Reserve, and flew the UH-60's and variants in both active duty and the Reserve. She sent me an email, redacted as appropriate:

[redacted] and I have been talking about the Navy’s decision to finally allow women on subs. When I was teaching at [redacted] I actually wrote letters to several congress women outlining why women should be allowed on subs and in Special Warfare (SEALS). In the past the Navy has very adamantly opposed this. The cynical side of me thinks the change is either due to recruiting shortfalls, or as a response to a pending complaint. ADM [redacted] is a pretty forward thinking guy. He was the [redacted].

I was the first woman to deploy on all of the small ships I deployed on. None of them had been modified for women at that point. Some dealt with it better than others – the attitude of the Commanding Officer was the driving force in that. We used the same head and showers as the guys, but there was a sign on the outside that we would flip back and forth depending on who was using it at that time. That system worked pretty well overall. It was a longer and more difficult transition for female enlisted personnel and I suspect that will be the case on Subs as well. I am very curious to see how it all goes and am even more interested in the ground combat exclusion for Navy Special Warfare, and Army and Marine troops. I have thought that integration there was long overdue. There is such a small percentage of women who are even interested and qualified I think they should be allowed to compete for those positions. I am not in favor of changing any of the standards so that more women can qualify. However, if they can compete on the same level then I think they should be allowed.

I guess we will all have to stay tuned and see how it goes.

I respect her opinion more than any other, and agree with her on this issue.

 

[ausrere]

There is such a small percentage of women who are even interested and qualified I think they should be allowed to compete for those positions. I am not in favor of changing any of the standards so that more women can qualify. However, if they can compete on the same level then I think they should be allowed.

I think you'll find most women who want to serve in these positions, think this same way. They want to prove they can do the job under the same standards as the guys IF those standards are an accurate representation of the physical requirements to do the job and not just minimum standards necessary to keep a large portion of the populations from participating.

 

[dmccormack]

I think you'll find most women who want to serve in these positions, think this same way. They want to prove they can do the job under the same standards as the guys IF those standards are an accurate representation of the physical requirements to do the job and not just minimum standards necessary to keep a large portion of the populations from participating.

Agree completely.

But some of the minimum entry tests are merely entry criteria not necessarily the final requirement.

For example, an infantry soldier absolutely needs to carry 1/3rd of his body weight at least 12 miles.

The only way to test this is after a basic training period. It wouldn't be fair or feasible to test this before induction.

 

[Aztec Driver]

If women can meet the same requirements as the men, they should have the chance to, if that is what they want. All female crews would be more prudent, I think, only to keep the costs down. Heck, I think the biggest problem with allowing women to serve on the close quarters of a sub, would be distraction by the men. Men at that age have far more problems thinking about work and keeping their minds focused on the job at hand than women do at that age. (I could be wrong about this, but, based on personal experience, I had a much harder time than my wife, but maybe that was because I was totally uninteresting)

 

[Witmo]

I had no idea this thread would get this long, and It's been interesting to hear everyone's thoughts. I posed this question to a good friend of mine and former employee. She is a Senior Officer in the Navy Reserve, and flew the UH-60's and variants in both active duty and the Reserve. She sent me an email, redacted as appropriate:



I respect her opinion more than any other, and agree with her on this issue.

I respect her opinion and agree with much of what she says. If women had to meet the same standards for being a SEAL fine, but I have yet to see standards being the same for both genders in any of the physically demanding positions. Many men fail to cut the mustard and get washed out of Special Ops training. I would think the number of women who could meet the men's requirement would be...too few to bother with. So the PC solution--change (ie. lower) the standard for females, graduate female SEALs, declare a wonderful social success, and accept a less capable force.

 

[Witmo]

Tim, Agian I ask how many of our subs have been boarded and "Combat" has broke out? Being in a sub is as close to "combat" as flying an airplane is. Or are you just ignoring the questions that blow your sexist argumenst out of the water?

You just keep repeating the same sexist drivel.

I relize that no matter how much logic and fact there is to back up my possition, I can't ever change you mind but I am satisfied in the fact that most people who share your view are older males and that sooner rather then later the point of view you profess will just DIE OUT.

Missa

Combat can take many forms. Submarines experience fires just like any other ship. Fires aboard a submarine can be especially catastrophic and a fire aboard a submarine particularly submerged, can rival the most intense combat. Every submariner is a trained firefighter and as such, requires physical strength to manhandle (no pun intended) heavy equipment through tight compartments, up and down ladders. If a woman can meet those physical requirements that would be one argument favoring their assignment--most can't. On surface ships they decided to lower the requirement to allow women to serve. I guess they figured that one could always jump overboard if the fire got out of hand. Try doing that on a submarine!

 

[TMetzinger]

You might actually want to check your facts, especially when you talk to Tim. The service he served in accepts women to do one the most physically demanding jobs there is. Absolutely opposite to your claim that the services have unilaterally lowered all standards for women. To do the job of rescue swimmer in the USCG one has to meet all the standards regardless of gender. That is a very specific case where the standards apply specifically to the job.

Tim, why are you so scared of women?

Yep. The CG had different GENERAL PF standards for males and females in boot camp, but once you tried for a rating, there were no differences. Wanna be a Gunner's mate? Gotta pass the PF tests. Rescue swimmer? No difference for gender.

I'll state again that Tim may be right that as a society politics may force the service to lower standards to meet number goals. Shame on the commanders who do that rather than resign. But in a democracy, you get exactly the sort of government (and military) the masses deserve.

 

[maddog52]

In addition, the first women put into submarines are most likely to be seasoned officers: Judge Judy types who won't find the humor in many of the arguments against women.

The military has learned how to go about integration.

You would think or at least hope that would be the case. Unfortunately, the Navy has demonstrated in the past that it is willing to alter standards in a rush to integrate women into some combat units. The initial rush to put women in the F-14 is a prime example. Pressure from above on the Replacment Air Group to get women into the Tomcat caused at least two females to be passed whith substandard performance. It ended up costing one of them their life.

Hopefully the Navy and military in general have learned from this mistake. I would like to think so. Making sure their is NO lowering of standards, NO loss of mission readiness and NO loss of safety during the integration process is a very valid concern and should be the number one priority no matter which side of the argument you stand on.

 

[flyersfan31]

Tim, if you can explain to me how manning the conn, or the diving planes, or being a reactor tech, requires NFL-caliber strength and fitness, I'm willing to concede to you the argument.

Some instances of damage control and rescue could take strength. I've seen some sailors, however, who are pretty sad physical specimens in their own right.

 

[weilke]

I've seen some sailors, however, who are pretty sad physical specimens in their own right.

Same could be said for cops, firefighters and other uniformed jobs.

If physical fitness had much to do with the job, any of these organizations would have to boot out everyone who fails the physical fitness requirements down the line. After all, if those standards are based on factual requirements of the job, there is no excuse for letting it lapse later on (if it is a requirement to jump a 6ft wall to be able to perform the duties as a cop, your career should end the moment you can't do that anymore).

Acquaintance of mine was an engineer on a sub. He is short and fat, looking at the pics when he was still in the service, he was short and fat then as well.

 

[timwinters]

From Thom Robb to Tom Tancredo to our own Witmo the buzzwords and rationale used to support segregation are eerily (and terrifyingly) similar.

Note: The above statement was typed by a person who sat down one afternoon and had a "nice" long conversation with Thom Robb when I lived in Harrison, AR. That afternoon was quite enlightening.

You just keep repeating the same sexist drivel.

I relize that no matter how much logic and fact there is to back up my possition, I can't ever change you mind but I am satisfied in the fact that most people who share your view are older males and that sooner rather then later the point of view you profess will just DIE OUT.

Missa

Thank you Missa.

 

[Witmo]

From Thom Robb to Tom Tancredo to our own Witmo the buzzwords and rationale used to support segregation are eerily (and terrifyingly) similar.

If you can't see the how the difference between riding a bus, eating at a diner, or having equal access to education and the like are different than serving on a warship or in a foxhole, maybe you should go to a recruiter and sign up for a hitch. Let's see how progressive your thinking is when confronted with an enemy intent on killing you and you depend on your fellow soldiers to accomplish the mission and return home safe.

Having standards and not enforcing them is a problem not unique to the military. I fault those commanders who don't discipline their troops who don't keep themselves in shape. Those units deserve better. In wartime those units with the overweight and out of shape personnel are just as handicapped as those with personnel who never could meet the existing standard. Seeing an overweight male sailor, soldier, airman or marine is not a very strong argument for allowing women to serve in combat. It's a strong argument for enforcing discipline.

Maybe after women are fully integrated into every combat coded specialty we should look at making submarines handicap accessible. After all, many handicapped people are patriotic and would want to serve. Someone in a wheelchair shouldn't have a problem manning the diving planes or sitting at a nuclear reactor control console and pushing buttons. Just a thought.