Author Topic: Women on Submarines (Read 1854 times)

nw_hunter · « **on:** April 30, 2010, 03:52:54 AM »

So now the Navy will start placing women on Subs. The Navy wives think it's a bad idea! They don't want their husbands and boyfriends locked up in close quarters with women for those long periods of time. The Navy claims it's having a hard time finding enough qualified men to join the ranks serving on subs.......I think this is pure BS.

Crew members generally sleep 9 to a room. Up to 40 people can share one bathroom. Even officers bunk together.

There was also the unspoken concern: men and women living 24/7 in extremely close quarters might develop uncomfortably close relationships.

Because a junior officer's room was designed to bunk three people, the Navy plans to admit three women -- two junior officers and a senior officer -- onto each of its eight Trident submarine crews by January 2012.

"To bring women enlisted on board we'd actually have to make modifications to the ship," he said. "I can't tell you exactly what they would be, because although we're beginning to look at this, we really haven't gone far enough down the road to determine which submarines we're going to put them on and how we're going to make sure they have privacy."

OH Yea! They also will allow queer sailors (can I still use that word?). Both male and female

Perhaps they could have a sub in the fleet made up of nothing but Homosexuals! Just don't allow any nuclear warheads on board

I think this is another bad idea! What do you think?

magooch · « **Reply #1 on:** April 30, 2010, 04:09:02 AM »

At that certain time of the month, being on a sub with a woman/women ought to be a real fun place to be. This is what you get when you forget what the purpose of the armed forces is. Hint: They're not for social experiments, fairness and equal opportunity.

Dee · « **Reply #2 on:** April 30, 2010, 05:13:10 AM »

Ahhhhhh Gentlemen. Your thoughts are antiquated. Why would you think that submarines or any other military apparatus, or unit, or brigade, or even division of men was to win wars? We have not, since WWII won a war. But we have LOST, a lot of "police actions".
These new policies that upset you so, are something that you fail to comprehend. It is not about winning, it's about playing fair. You know! Like not keeping score in a T-Ball game. Keeping score would only produce a winner, and a loser, and the loser would have hurt feelings.

magooch · « **Reply #3 on:** April 30, 2010, 05:35:59 AM »

Oh, I forgot. It must be the CRS kicking in.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #4 on:** April 30, 2010, 05:54:48 AM »

Quote from: Dee on April 30, 2010, 05:13:10 AM

Ahhhhhh Gentlemen. Your thoughts are antiquated.

You just had to go, and remind me of my age didn't ya?

billy_56081 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 30, 2010, 06:07:58 AM »

I hope they have good birth control for em. From what I heard from some former submariners I work with this may save on a lot of laundry. LOL!

Rustyinfla · « **Reply #6 on:** April 30, 2010, 06:12:57 AM »

As long as everyone feels good about it does it mater how well they perform?

Yea right.

BBF · « **Reply #7 on:** April 30, 2010, 06:18:15 AM »

Quote from: Dee on April 30, 2010, 05:13:10 AM

Ahhhhhh Gentlemen. Your thoughts are antiquated. Why would you think that submarines or any other military apparatus, or unit, or brigade, or even division of men was to win wars? We have not, since WWII won a war. But we have LOST, a lot of "police actions"......................

Good One Dee, ....................I almost laughed .......... if it wasn't so true.

INresponse · « **Reply #8 on:** April 30, 2010, 06:59:44 AM »

You seem to be forgetting that WWII sub nicknamed Operation Petticoat. There wasn't too much trouble on board that boat with a mixed gender crew.

As for needing extra sleeping space to accomidate the women, maybe they can equip the subs with "pop-outs" kinda like on motorhomes.

On a realistic point, I think the subs are a little larger than the WWII versions so they may not be that crouded, but aside from a better view even on an aircraft carrier they are still confined to the ship and men and women still have to work in, uh, harmony. Don't they get paid a little more for sub duty? They may enjoy making a little extra money.

Smokin Joe · « **Reply #9 on:** April 30, 2010, 07:08:40 AM »

Next they'll be puttin' in screen doors...........

Heather · « **Reply #10 on:** April 30, 2010, 07:40:40 AM »

I know these following words will get me jumped by most of my gender, but I do NOT feel that women should be on submarines with men. It is not because I feel that women aren't as qualified in most areas, but I feel that having members of the opposite sex would cause a distraction to the crew. If there aren't enough men willing to go to sea, then make an all womens crew and let them go out separately.

As sexist as this sounds I do feel that the women should be at home taking care of their families, but there are those who have chosen not to have them. If those women want to live on a sub, then give em one! But placing men and women on the same sub is not a good idea in my opinion. We have enough distraction in the military with gay romance gone wrong. Let's not add to the complications with unexpected pregnancies, rape allegations, or all out brawls over who gets the girl.

Heather

beerbelly · « **Reply #11 on:** April 30, 2010, 08:36:32 AM »

A huge percentage of the female sailors that go to sea on aircraft carriers come back from the cruse pregnant. And with a very healthy bank account. What would it be any difference on a sub?
The only job woman should be able to hold in the military is clerical. Queers of either gender should be banned!
Beerbelly

williamlayton · « **Reply #12 on:** April 30, 2010, 09:35:34 AM »

Beerbelly
Give me the documentation for your thoughts on Huge percentage, please.
I think we need a draft.
Blessings

teamnelson · « **Reply #13 on:** April 30, 2010, 10:14:59 AM »

WL, my female sailors tell me the percentage is about half. And of the other half, a couple will be victims of sexual abuse (i.e. formal charges filed, etc.). During my deployments to OIF the statistics were about half. We also had 3 major prostitution rings (according to Gen Kelly), as well as who knows how many independent operators. The Lionness program put female Marines from logistics units forward with Infantry Battalions (like mine) to conduct searches of Iraqi females. Great idea, however we were on the raggedy edge of the supply chain, most often in FOBs of less than 100, in an all male setting with 200 years of proud all male heritage. They sent these brave young ladies two by two out to these posts; most were a credit to their Corps. One lost her life at one of our check points moving to stop a vestbomber. But I know of at least one that ran a side business, and a couple others that enjoyed the attention. I don't think that makes them worse than men at all; but I do think that without their presence the problem is significantly less.

I currently support the largest navy command on Oahu, over 50% female, and mine will be among the first to ride subs. But it will be junior officers, not on the Tridents but on the smaller class, probably in 2011. Mine are also "riders" meaning they are not boat crew; they are part of the mission package. They currently ride ships, and pregnancy and sexual abuse cases persist; I have no rational expectation that subs will be any different. Also, as riders my guys usually wind up sleeping in the torpedo room on one of the racks. Now the boat crew will have to give up a Chief/Officer berthing to accomodate the ladies.

This is another winner from the good-idea fairy. It will not work as hoped; it will denigrate mission effectiveness; we will have social and disciplinary issues to contend with; but we will declare to Congress that we have succeeded in our social experiment.

subdjoe · « **Reply #14 on:** April 30, 2010, 10:25:15 AM »

If they are going the whole PC, everyone is equal, route, then there should be no changes made. Heads and showers stay the same. Bunks assigned in the usual way. And NO complaints about pin ups, dirty jokes, locker room humor. Why should the men always be expected to change how they act?

nw_hunter · « **Reply #15 on:** April 30, 2010, 10:26:36 AM »

Quote from: Heather on April 30, 2010, 07:40:40 AM

I know these following words will get me jumped by most of my gender, but I do NOT feel that women should be on submarines with men. It is not because I feel that women aren't as qualified in most areas, but I feel that having members of the opposite sex would cause a distraction to the crew. If there aren't enough men willing to go to sea, then make an all womens crew and let them go out separately.

As sexist as this sounds I do feel that the women should be at home taking care of their families, but there are those who have chosen not to have them. If those women want to live on a sub, then give em one! But placing men and women on the same sub is not a good idea in my opinion. We have enough distraction in the military with gay romance gone wrong. Let's not add to the complications with unexpected pregnancies, rape allegations, or all out brawls over who gets the girl.

I think you and I are pretty much on the same sheet of music Heather!

There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to stay home and raise their children, and at one time in America, it was right for a man to go out and work for his family, and go to war if necessary to protect them.It appears our gelded leaders would like to reverse the roles.

Actually they just want to control us, and this is one way of doing it.
There are jobs that men are not suited for, as well as jobs women shouldn't attempt to fill.Working with men under the ocean, in cramped conditions is one of them.

And as far as giving a woman control of a Nuke Sub. with the potential of annihilating an entire country....I think is a very BAD notion. GOOD GRIEF Once a month my wife would push the button, and wipe out half the civilized world.Is she smart enough to do the job....."SURE", but she was also very good at raising, and supporting men folk, to do the job's they were created for. JMHO, I know others will vary!

Heather

TheCoachZed · « **Reply #16 on:** April 30, 2010, 12:40:50 PM »

I would think that conditions on submarines would make certain "procedures" such as getting pregnant or running a prostitution ring pretty much impossible without getting caught.

Plus, I don't know if personal hygiene still goes by the wayside in a submarine like it used to, but I doubt anyone's looking to good down there - male or female.

Brett · « **Reply #17 on:** May 01, 2010, 04:01:21 AM »

If personal hygiene were that big of a deterrent our race would have died out back in the middle ages or at least in the pioneer era.

BBF · « **Reply #18 on:** May 01, 2010, 05:46:29 AM »

OK, So now which gender is pushing to get female crew on the subs??

rdmallory · « **Reply #19 on:** May 01, 2010, 05:57:22 AM »

Maybe adding 3 women to the sub will get more men to sign up. Kind of like the moose lottery in Ky. Sign up for a sub you might get one with 3 women. End of lack of men recruits. And most of the women will end up looking like Rosy McDonald or Janet Reno.

Doug

BBF · « **Reply #20 on:** May 01, 2010, 06:00:55 AM »

maybe they can get Pelosi in there, should be good for a dummy load in a torpedo tube.

Dee · « **Reply #21 on:** May 01, 2010, 06:03:21 AM »

Wellllllll, after giving this topic some thought I have decided not to care. The government is not going to allow the sub to do anything constructive anyway. So why worry about it?

crustylicious · « **Reply #22 on:** May 01, 2010, 06:10:16 AM »

Demi Moore has a new movie on the subject- "G.I. Jane goes down"

rdmallory · « **Reply #23 on:** May 01, 2010, 10:32:43 AM »

I got good news and bad news.

The good news is, are now sharing quarters with three women.

The bad new is, their names are janet reno, rosy mcDonald, and nancy pelosi. And the upper case was omitted on purpose.

wreckhog · « **Reply #24 on:** May 01, 2010, 03:14:26 PM »

Many more seamen look forward to joining the "Mile BeLow Club"

teamnelson · « **Reply #25 on:** May 01, 2010, 04:08:47 PM »

Seriously, its the nature of all the jokes posted here that troubles me the most. No one imagines this to enhance mission effectiveness, or promotability of an under-represented population, or even really to reduce the operational stress by opening up the subsurface mission to a larger population. Because a rational person knows better. Its going to create greater stress all around, reduce mission effectiveness and wind up in the termination of many previously successful careers because the Skipper and the COB are handed this mess unasked, then will be held accountable when it fails. All for what again?

nw_hunter · « **Reply #26 on:** May 01, 2010, 05:02:36 PM »

I couldn't agree with you more TN

Sweetwater · « **Reply #27 on:** May 01, 2010, 07:40:17 PM »

Someone will be charged with "dereliction of duty" and will probably be the one trying the hardest to make it work and keep everything on an even keel. It all flows downhill.

There used to be a cartoon in the daily paper entitled "they'll do it everytime" - here we go, again...

Jeff
NRA Life

Dee · « **Reply #28 on:** May 02, 2010, 01:49:57 AM »

I am proud of my sons service, and am grateful not only for their sacrifice, but all those other brave young men and women whom have served, are serving, and will serve. However, given the environment, my youngest son described in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and the feeling toward Americans in those two theaters, and the political BS that has increased over the last 50 years, in Washington, it is beyond me "why they do serve". Both my boys were naive 18 year olds when they went in, and came out with-anew awakening on the political BS going on, and the false propaganda they were fed to get them to do what was wanted by the politicians.
This regime and the last three before it have had us as a nation, and they as soldiers, locked in "PERPETUAL POLICE ACTION". The Iraqi is INCAPABLE OF DEMOCRACY, ant will never stop bickering and killing one another. It is their way of life. The Afghan HAS NO USE FOR DEMOCRACY, and wants nothing to do with it. Alexander the Great, England, the former Soviet Union, and now the United States. All have failed, and we are failing to change a people that do not want to change. They are being themselves, yet we persist, and pour our own blood on their ground for nothing.
We foot the bill ourselves, and defend countries such as Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, while they grow fatter, and richer, and yet they consider us heathens, and most despise us, and are intolerant of even the way our female soldiers dress, and are forced to conform to THEIR ways. When will Americans stand up and say No Mas?

wreckhog · « **Reply #29 on:** May 02, 2010, 02:21:35 AM »

Quote from: TeamNelson on May 01, 2010, 04:08:47 PM

Seriously, its the nature of all the jokes posted here that troubles me the most. No one imagines this to enhance mission effectiveness, or promotability of an under-represented population, or even really to reduce the operational stress by opening up the subsurface mission to a larger population. Because a rational person knows better. Its going to create greater stress all around, reduce mission effectiveness and wind up in the termination of many previously successful careers because the Skipper and the COB are handed this mess unasked, then will be held accountable when it fails. All for what again?

Seriously, do you know any submariners? I do, and the stories are raunchy. Everyone laying their parts on a cold pipe to see who is the shortest, etc. They do whatever they have to to stay sane. If that means getting some, so what.