Navy moves to allow women on submarines

Witmo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Reducto ad absurdum.
 
I'd have no problem at all with requiring implantable contraception of women who serve aboard subs. Further, if I ran that particular submarine zoo, I'd require every crew member to meet whatever minimum physical and mental requirements were set, and I'd insist that such physical standards were maintained for the entire cruise. I'd make it clear that all rape accusations would be taken seriously, and both frivolous accusations and actual transgressions would be dealt with as promptly and severely as any other assault, with offenders of both varieties to be blown out of a torpedo tube. Or something. As for sexual 'harassment', I'd insist that adults worthy of my ship would behave with decorum. That means not making idiotic remarks and indulging in insulting and juvenile behaviors AND not whining about every imagined slight. Crybabies would not be welcome on my ship, nor would a junior-high-school locker room mentality. We would all be professionals committed to doing a tough job in an unforgiving environment. Period. Save the silliness until we surface in six months. That is all.
 
Amelia said:
I'd have no problem at all with requiring implantable contraception of women who serve aboard subs. Further, if I ran that particular submarine zoo, I'd require every crew member to meet whatever minimum physical and mental requirements were set, and I'd insist that such physical standards were maintained for the entire cruise. I'd make it clear that all rape accusations would be taken seriously, and both frivolous accusations and actual transgressions would be dealt with as promptly and severely as any other assault, with offenders of both varieties to be blown out of a torpedo tube. Or something. As for sexual 'harassment', I'd insist that adults worthy of my ship would behave with decorum. That means not making idiotic remarks and indulging in insulting and juvenile behaviors AND not whining about every imagined slight. Crybabies would not be welcome on my ship, nor would a junior-high-school locker room mentality. We would all be professionals committed to doing a tough job in an unforgiving environment. Period. Save the silliness until we surface in six months. That is all.
Click to expand...

Strangely, a man with such an attitude would be referred to as a "leader." A woman with that attitude would be referred to as a "*****." :dunno:
 
Biggest problem in an all female ship is menstrual cycles tend to synchronize over time in close quarters. Probably a response to the estrogen, but any ladies who's lived in a dorm or sorority house (or any guys who've dates women who lived in dorms or sorority houses) know what I'm talking about. The day the whole crew from Captain to cook goes through their period all at once, combat effectiveness will be affected. Probably start a damn nuclear war by accident too.
 
steingar said:
Biggest problem in an all female ship is menstrual cycles tend to synchronize over time in close quarters. Probably a response to the estrogen, but any ladies who's lived in a dorm or sorority house (or any guys who've dates women who lived in dorms or sorority houses) know what I'm talking about. The day the whole crew from Captain to cook goes through their period all at once, combat effectiveness will be affected. Probably start a damn nuclear war by accident too.
Click to expand...
Coke all over my computer screen now!!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Witmo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did you just not bother reading this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military

Let me say it plain, just in case there's any miscomprehension: it did not get worse than the Russian experience in the Second World War, and women not only did fine but contributed a great deal in combat.

Missa said it best, I think.

:rolleyes:
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Did you just not bother reading this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military

Let me say it plain, just in case there's any miscomprehension: it did not get worse than the Russian experience in the Second World War, and women not only did fine but contributed a great deal in combat.

Missa said it best, I think.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That integration also had long term effects on women's in society in the Soviet Union -- which we may not want to replicate.
 
steingar said:
Biggest problem in an all female ship is menstrual cycles tend to synchronize over time in close quarters. Probably a response to the estrogen, but any ladies who's lived in a dorm or sorority house (or any guys who've dates women who lived in dorms or sorority houses) know what I'm talking about. The day the whole crew from Captain to cook goes through their period all at once, combat effectiveness will be affected. Probably start a damn nuclear war by accident too.
Click to expand...

Lol. Reminds me of a day I showed up for briefing and discovered every patrol officer in the room except the watch commander was female (purely by accident). He realized this as he stepped up to the podium to give the shift briefing. His comments were: "Having been the only male in a household of four women for the past 20+ years, all I can say is - Lord help any criminals in this city today. I'll be in my office should any of THEM need me. Dismissed!" :D It was a fun shift that day.
 
dmccormack said:
That integration also had long term effects on women's in society in the Soviet Union -- which we may not want to replicate.
Click to expand...

True - there are consequences with everything.

For the sole purpose of refuting the assertions under discussion, though - I think the Soviet experience makes it pretty clear that those assertions are mistaken.
 
Witmo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey look... According to Witmo being a women = being handicaped....:skeptical:

Hey, I'm going down and appling for disability payments right now!!!! :mad2:
 
steingar said:
Biggest problem in an all female ship is menstrual cycles tend to synchronize over time in close quarters. Probably a response to the estrogen, but any ladies who's lived in a dorm or sorority house (or any guys who've dates women who lived in dorms or sorority houses) know what I'm talking about. The day the whole crew from Captain to cook goes through their period all at once, combat effectiveness will be affected. Probably start a damn nuclear war by accident too.
Click to expand...

First, yes it is a funny stero type.

Second, it's true women in close quaters do seem to synchronize

Third, in reality we can still do our jobs even if we are grumpy and good women leaders know when they are predisposed to being grumpy and take extra care to not let that affect their judgment.

Bonus, women get grumpy perdictablly... guys it's random and harder take steps to counter act that mood when it's random. :D

Missa
 
ScottM said:
Also a good response to some of these 'arguments' (and I use that term lightly as most of what has been posted against women is nothing more the sexist drivel)
Click to expand...

I'm not going to take it that far - I think the concept has a "good faith basis" in the common sense idea of "combat requires strength, and men are stronger."

But, when you look at what's actually happened - and when you take into account that we don't fight battles a la Braveheart (and I know, there's always the chance that the Afghanis will charge the field at Bannockburn, fight like warrior poets, and we'll decide the day with claymores, heavy cavalry, and Henry-V-like speeches, and then crown a new king of Scotland, thereby achieving "freedom," even though we continue to live under the same feudalistic system as before, except, wouldn't we be the eeevil English, so we'll definitely have to keep our primary focus on brute strength instead of people with good trigger fingers and good brains) - women clearly do fine in combat in the modern era. If (in light of what Dan rightly pointed out) your focus is solely on combat effectiveness, it's either not decreased or is actually bettered.

Sorry for the parenthetical rant re: Mel Gibson's take on the Middle Ages. Which is also apparently his take on the American Revolution, which was apparently the same as the Scots' struggle against Edward I, except with flintlocks.

Rabble. Rabble rabble.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I'm not going to take it that far - I think the concept has a "good faith basis" in the common sense idea of "combat requires strength, and men are stronger."

But, when you look at what's actually happened - and when you take into account that we don't fight battles a la Braveheart (and I know, there's always the chance that the Afghanis will charge the field at Bannockburn, fight like warrior poets, and we'll decide the day with claymores, heavy cavalry, and Henry-V-like speeches, and then crown a new king of Scotland, thereby achieving "freedom," even though we continue to live under the same feudalistic system as before, except, wouldn't we be the eeevil English, so we'll definitely have to keep our primary focus on brute strength instead of people with good trigger fingers and good brains) - women clearly do fine in combat in the modern era. If (in light of what Dan rightly pointed out) your focus is solely on combat effectiveness, it's either not decreased or is actually bettered.

Sorry for the parenthetical rant re: Mel Gibson's take on the Middle Ages. Which is also apparently his take on the American Revolution, which was apparently the same as the Scots' struggle against Edward I, except with flintlocks.

Rabble. Rabble rabble.
Click to expand...


The interesting fact of Infantry combat is that the combat load carried by the modern US Soldier is actually more than that carried by his WW2, WW1, Civil War, Revolutionary War, and French and Indian War forebears.

It's not the point of contact that wears soldiers down -- adrenaline solves that problem --it's the long slog to/from the battlefield, as Napoleon learned on the way to/from Moscow.
 
Missa said:
Hey look... According to Witmo being a women = being handicaped....:skeptical:

Hey, I'm going down and appling for disability payments right now!!!! :mad2:
Click to expand...


*cough* motorcycle *cough*

*cough* master switch *cough*

What is "appling" ? Is that like bobbing for apples?
 
dmccormack said:
The interesting fact of Infantry combat is that the combat load carried by the modern US Soldier is actually more than that carried by his WW2, WW1, Civil War, Revolutionary War, and French and Indian War forebears.

It's not the point of contact that wears soldiers down -- adrenaline solves that problem --it's the long slog to/from the battlefield, as Napoleon learned on the way to/from Moscow.
Click to expand...

A good point that I certainly wouldn't dispute - extended campaigns have been the death of armies everywhere, and you always have to have as your primary considerations the "best interests," or whatever you want to call it, with an unbiased eye. It does you no good to have otherwise good soldiers that can't fight because they're too tired, undersupplied, half-frozen, whatever.

I'm just sayin' that when it comes to combat itself - without consideration for any of the collateral issues (which probably isn't the best way to look at things) - the facts show that the issues under discussion just aren't the concerns they're being made out to be.

When we do take the collateral issues into consideration, is there more of a concern? I don't know the answer to that, and don't really have an opinion.
 
dmccormack said:
The interesting fact of Infantry combat is that the combat load carried by the modern US Soldier is actually more than that carried by his WW2, WW1, Civil War, Revolutionary War, and French and Indian War forebears.

It's not the point of contact that wears soldiers down -- adrenaline solves that problem --it's the long slog to/from the battlefield, as Napoleon learned on the way to/from Moscow.
Click to expand...

Man, those guys carry a TON these days. It's nuts.

That being said, not as much slogging as in the past. Seems like everyone gets a hummvee ride. No KP either. Modern soldiers, pheh. Sissys, I tell's ya!!
 
flyersfan31 said:
Man, those guys carry a TON these days. It's nuts.

That being said, not as much slogging as in the past. Seems like everyone gets a hummvee ride. No KP either. Modern soldiers, pheh. Sissys, I tell's ya!!
Click to expand...

Ummm....

Think again.

In the Revolutionary War, 10 miles in a day was considered a good rate.

Today's Basic Infantry Soldier needs to complete 12 miles under 4 hours with significant load simply to graduate (Army OCS standard was 12 miles in 3 hours).

Ask Ranger School and Special Forces graduates what they had to carry and how far.

That all pales to what is expected in the Mountains of Afghanistan.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
A good point that I certainly wouldn't dispute - extended campaigns have been the death of armies everywhere, and you always have to have as your primary considerations the "best interests," or whatever you want to call it, with an unbiased eye. It does you no good to have otherwise good soldiers that can't fight because they're too tired, undersupplied, half-frozen, whatever.

I'm just sayin' that when it comes to combat itself - without consideration for any of the collateral issues (which probably isn't the best way to look at things) - the facts show that the issues under discussion just aren't the concerns they're being made out to be.

When we do take the collateral issues into consideration, is there more of a concern? I don't know the answer to that, and don't really have an opinion.
Click to expand...

Tha vast majority of time spent in "combat" is before, after, and in between, therefore it should be considered an ineluctable part of the equation.
 
steingar said:
Biggest problem in an all female ship is menstrual cycles tend to synchronize over time in close quarters. Probably a response to the estrogen, but any ladies who's lived in a dorm or sorority house (or any guys who've dates women who lived in dorms or sorority houses) know what I'm talking about. The day the whole crew from Captain to cook goes through their period all at once, combat effectiveness will be affected. Probably start a damn nuclear war by accident too.
Click to expand...
Cute.:mad2: Modern contraceptives regulate cycles. There are, in fact, methods to reduce the number of cycles to 1 a year.
 
dmccormack said:
Tha vast majority of time spent in "combat" is before, after, and in between, therefore it should be considered an ineluctable part of the equation.
Click to expand...

Good word - I had to look it up. :yes:

Anyway, I agree with you - thanks for pointing it out.

[edit:] I'd still say the Russian experience is a good one to look at. Not only was the combat itself pretty awful, but logistical conditions weren't particularly great, as well.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
Ummm....

Think again.

In the Revolutionary War, 10 miles in a day was considered a good rate.

Today's Basic Infantry Soldier needs to complete 12 miles under 4 hours with significant load simply to graduate (Army OCS standard was 12 miles in 3 hours).

Ask Ranger School and Special Forces graduates what they had to carry and how far.

That all pales to what is expected in the Mountains of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I was kidding. They earn their pay, that's for sure.
 
Missa said:
Hey look... According to Witmo being a women = being handicaped....:skeptical:

Hey, I'm going down and appling for disability payments right now!!!! :mad2:
Click to expand...

You might want to read more carefully. At no time did I equate being a woman and being handicapped as being equal. If you can't defend against my arguments, don't start putting words in my mouth and then attempt to make cute remarks. Besides, if I were to equate being a woman and being handicapped, a handicapped male might take offense and rightly so....:skeptical:
 
Witmo said:
You might want to read more carefully. At no time did I equate being a woman and being handicapped as being equal. If you can't defend against my arguments, don't start putting words in my mouth and then attempt to make cute remarks. Besides, if I were to equate being a woman and being handicapped, a handicapped male might take offense and rightly so....:skeptical:
Click to expand...

Sorry, your arguments have been torn to utter shreds without that.
 
Witmo said:
You might want to read more carefully. At no time did I equate being a woman and being handicapped as being equal. If you can't defend against my arguments, don't start putting words in my mouth and then attempt to make cute remarks. Besides, if I were to equate being a woman and being handicapped, a handicapped male might take offense and rightly so....:skeptical:
Click to expand...
but what you DID say was that if they were going to put women on subs, they might as well put handicapped folks on subs, and the equivalency was clear to most anyone who read it. That's certainly the first thing I thought of, and I see I'm not alone!
 
I think that the concern about morale and unit cohesion (otherwise known as the "men won't stop slobbering on the women long enough to fight" theory) and the concern about physical abilities are two entirely different issues.

When talking about submarines the second concern is laughable, as Missa noted.

The first concern - I think - is blown out of proportion and disrespects the typical sailor...not to mention the officers.
 
alaskaflyer said:
The first concern - I think - is blown out of proportion and disrespects the typical sailor...not to mention the officers.
Click to expand...


Take a platoon of 18-25 year old guys, full of testosterone and bravado, and toss in a few half-decent females and I gauran-damn-tee you that there WILL be "slobbering" go all around.

Damn...I am not sexist, at least not according to the woman that know me, but I was a young solder, I KNOW how we acted, what we thought...and that women were a HUGE part of our psyche during that time (as it fight the good fight, drink the beer, find the girls)....I cannot even imagine what it would have been like in that cauldron of young male hormones to have woman in the unit.

I honestly, all BS and posturing aside, can see huge problems with it....but those who disagree will disagree and someone make sweeping statements like "well these professional soldiers" yada, yada, yada and truly believe that somehow we have transcended to Star Trek like (well hell even Kirk was a womanizer!) future states where 20 year old guys act like 40 year old virgins.

I was there, I was that young, dumb, full of c*m young soldier thrust into combat...and I can tell you that no way in hell would a woman in the unit been a good thing. BTW...I say this as a frontline combat soldier, not a nurse, medic, mechanic or some other, generally rear echelon soldier.
 
tdager said:
Damn...I am not sexist, at least not according to the woman that know me, but I was a young solder, I KNOW how we acted, what we thought...and that women were a HUGE part of our psyche during that time (as it fight the good fight, drink the beer, find the girls)....I cannot even imagine what it would have been like in that cauldron of young male hormones to have woman in the unit.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that the absence of women may have been the cause for that behaviour ?

I honestly, all BS and posturing aside, can see huge problems with it....but those who disagree will disagree and someone make sweeping statements like "well these professional soldiers" yada, yada, yada and truly believe that somehow we have transcended to Star Trek like (well hell even Kirk was a womanizer!) future states where 20 year old guys act like 40 year old virgins.
Click to expand...

The only sweeping statements so far have come from the folks who oppose this, even if the facts (e.g. DoD stats) and actual experience of people who have worked in mixed-gender units directly contradict those statements.
 
weilke said:
Don't you think that the absence of women may have been the cause for that behaviour ?
Click to expand...
That was my thought too. I'm inclined to believe that men and women who work together day in and day out in the same type job have fewer fantasies and misconceptions about the opposite sex and realize that there are more similarities than differences. The other thing I think people forget sometimes is that all women are not alike, which goes for men as well.
 
Witmo said:
You might want to read more carefully. At no time did I equate being a woman and being handicapped as being equal. If you can't defend against my arguments, don't start putting words in my mouth and then attempt to make cute remarks. Besides, if I were to equate being a woman and being handicapped, a handicapped male might take offense and rightly so....:skeptical:
Click to expand...

I did read it carefully and you did draw the comparsion of letting women on subs and letting the handicaped on subs. Equating women to handicapped.

Now it seems I have defended agianst your argumenst but you refuse to even address mine.

Shall I repeate agian, maybe you can follow this time.

When was the last time a US submarine was boarded and combat broke out? Operating a sub is more similare to oprating a spacecraft, a jet fighter or a military vehicle. Women seem to do just fine with that. Their smaller average size make them a better fit to spend a long time in a small space, so if you think co-mingled crews are a bad idea. Why not just use men and women in the servise to their best physical performance and outlaw men on subs?

(Gee some guys just can get it the first 3 times you say it, seems like another reason why women would make better submarniers)

Missa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top