FACEBOOK
TWITTER
Females May Finally Be Able To Serve on Submarines
It has been reported that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, has notified Congress of plans to permit women to serve on submarines. Who made the rules to ban females from submarines to begin with, and what was the rationale behind the rule? Well, it is about time. If a female is good enough to dock and maintain submarines, she should have the privilege and the right to serve on the darn thing. Though one of the long used excuse for women not serving on submarines has to do with accommodations, it is an excuse that is just that, “an excuse”. Women make up a large part of our troops and would be best served by the military, and the military by them when they are provided limitless opportunities upon enlistment.
The military is currently at a strained capacity due to the back-to-back wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, one would think that military officials would not continue to be so finicky about whether one is female or gay when it comes to serving, or service within a particular occupational specialty. The number of military troops also have not feared much better in numbers from the unwillingness of individuals to flock recruiting stations within the last couple of years. We are currently at a point in our history where service, liberty, and freedom should be considered admirable qualities of those who want to act in servitude to others. However, many decision-makers are so engulfed with gender, sex, and not crossing certain lines that they fail to see the reality and potential of what tomorrow’s military will and could be.
Women serving in the military provide a duality that is necessary for the continuation of tomorrow’s military, and its numerical and intellectual strength. By reducing the opportunities that are available to females simply because of their sex, our leaders are essentially reducing the military population over time without realizing it. According to the US Census (2006), there were 12.9 million single family household with 80% headed by females. There are also many married individuals within the military ranks–either both spouses are military or one is civilian. Whenever decisions are being made for enlistment of family members, the continuation of service to country, females are major influences in the decision-making process.
It is great that females are being considered for service on submarines. However, service on submarines, or for that matter anywhere else in the military should be a given. It is nonsensical to preach equal opportunities in one statement and then take it away in another.
http://www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/cpsmar06.pdf
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=17646
Posted by Debrah McFarlane on Feb 24 2010, With 0 Reads, Filed under Military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
Mrs. McFarlane, are you familiar with the accommodations on submarines? The Los Angeles class fast attack submarine was designed for a crew of 90 people. The average sub has a crew of about 130. Only officers and senior enlisted get their own racks, everyone else has to share (you may have heard about “hot racking”, as we call it). I don’t know of many females who relish the idea of slipping into a bed right after a man (who may or may not have showered in the past day or two) has just gotten out of. The shower stalls are small enough to necessitate undressing, drying, and dressing publicly in the head (that’s a bathroom). Passageways are narrow, it’s hard to get past someone without touching them. I can see this being a source of unintentional “sexual harassment”. As for the “unwillingness of individuals to flock recruiting stations”, the current wait to get into the Navy is over a year.
Thanks for your comment. Actually, from what I understand, crew space would be modified before the changes take place. officers who already have separate living quarters would be the first to go co-ed, followed by crews, with females bunking together. As for the space situation, females would be placed on larger submarines (nuclear-power, missile-carrying submarines such as the SSBN and SSGN). I definitely understand where you are coming from about tight space and issues of possible sexual harassment. However, if money is there to buy weapons, I am pretty sure that a few bucks can be spared to modify spaces. Also, believe it or not, less people are actually joining the military. The navy is but one part of our armed forces. Yes, with the recession, there have been a more diverse population joining. However, David Chu, undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, and other military and data analysts stated that the longevity of the Iraq war, a negative view of military life, and rising obesity rates nationwide were cited as principal reasons for the decline in enlistment. Lawrence Kapp, a specialist in military manpower policy for the Congressional Research Service, said it is difficult to convince high school graduates that the military is a viable and worthy endeavor. CRS studies reveal a large number of people with the “propensity to enlist,” but 85 percent of them don’t.
Right ON! With our nation’s horrific economic status, more perople are turning to enlistment…but many are turned away for the reasons you cited. The Navy and other branches can now afford to be more selective about who they enlist. I still believe in the draft, but with so many peole with criminal records it’s hard to find “A few good (wo)men”. How I wish I was back at the age to enlist all over again and go for a sub!! My Pappy served aboard the Arizona in the 30′s and instilled the love of the Navy in me! My Bro, son and I followed suit…When women were assigned to surface ships my daughter-in-law was furious thinking they would be “jumping” every guy onboard! A tad bit insecure? You better believe it, but my son is not that kind of Navy man!! He unfortunately had to retire as he acquired Type II diabetes at sea-nearly died but the Navy docs went into high gear and got him off is DDG, onto a flat top, then off to Germany where he was stabilized. He served shore duty for nearly 7 years and then his weight went ballistic and that was that-he proudly retired as a MA cheif. He loved “The Big Blue” and missed it terribly, having gone on 6 deployments. I pray these brave women who are selected for sub duty are safe and stand firm against those who would set them up to fail!
After a long time in the military, two wars and two branches, I notice that more and more high schools are keeping the military out. Colleges also are starting more and more to not allow the military in. Often times the high schools kids are told by parents who don’t know that ‘do you want to go to Iraq or Afghan’? In reality a small percentage go to war zones unless they are in a field that warrants it. As far as the national guard and reserves go, many in the past have joined for the money but in recent years they have been activated more and more. There is a percentage of those who will not re enlist and also a number who perhaps wanted to go in but were talked out of it. The times that they are activated are a joke also. WWII and Korean vets were in many cases in war zones until the job was done or for a number of years served. My sister has two stars and recently retired and I am curious to see how she feels about this. I find it very hard to believe the Navy has a long waiting list to get in. Even the Coast guard does not have a long waiting list.
Another issue is this as far as reservists and the national guard is concerned. The active military traditionally does not look kindly as the guardsmen or reservist. I have seen that displayed over and over. A friend of mine who retired as a master chief told me in his thirty years that he witnessed that over and over. I see that putting women on subs a good point but see problems also.
keep women out of subs not a good ideal what is happening to this Country oh wait it’s going to hell
It IS about time the Navy treated women as equals!! Ever since I was a child I dreamed about serving aboard a “Boomer” but in my early days it was: “Secretary or medical”, period! Yup, I’m an old timer of 57…. Now retired, I would give anything to turn back the hands of time and get to serve aboard a sub!!!! I wish those women officers the very best in their endeavors as it’s well-known that guys DO NOT WANT THEM-nor do their untrusting wives. Hey, if a guy is a skunk and a cheater, he’s gonna go find some “skirt” elsewhere-not aboard the sub!! When women were finally allowed to serve aboard surface ships the wives were going ballistic thinking women officers, at first, were just there as “breeding stock”. If their husbands were unfaithful, having a woman officer aboard a ship wasn’t making them available for “servicing” the crew” for God’s sake!! GO NAVY BLUE!!!!
I served as a Navy officer of the Line, when very few positions and promotions were available to women (1965-69). For this reason I left active duty for the Reserve, where I found woman even less welcome than on active duty. Thus, I ultimately resigned my commission; nonetheless, I married a Navy officer. I am very proud of the many strides women have made in the Navy and other branches of military service. For the men who don’t want women on subs, I would remind you of the days women were unwelcome at the Academy, aboard surface vessels, and as pilots. It is only in 2010 that WASPS are finally being recognized for their contribution during World War II.
the love boat
HAS ANYONE LOOKED INTO THE TROUBLE ON AIRCRAFT CARRIERS..ASK THE NAVY HOW MANY WOMEN GET PREGNANT..IDIOTS.. FLOATING LOVE BOATS.
I don’t normally comment on anything but this idea is going to cause many problems. Mrs. McFarlane, please forgive me if I am sounding sexist on this but it is a really bad idea in my opinion. Women definitely do not belong on a Los Angeles class submarine because no one ever cared about the Los Angelese class personnel (try getting meat with a stamp saying “Rejected by so and so State Prison). As for SSBN and SSGN’s, granted there is more room (and they get better food). Navy has to spend more money to make the restrooms bigger and adjust where equipment may go so that means less room for everyone on the bigger subs.
But face facts. Try spending more than 20 days underwater at a time in a row. What are the things that limit a nuclear submarine from staying underwater indefinitely? Parts and food. Food really has no factor in this discussion. Parts do. Here is why and what pertains to this discussion. Hypothetically, what if a part is not on board and showers have to be secured due to something breaking or something is wrong with the ventilation system. Everyone that is supporting this have not spent time on a sub and have know idea what the smell is like due to hygiene and other equipment on the sub. Ever stand on a pier and smell the sub come in from a mile away from a deployment. And here is where I don’t want to sound sexist but that certain time for women does not help everyone on the sub. Let’s face it women change personalities at that time and crew moral will follow and I don’t want to get into the hygiene involved with that. Everyone is still cramped together in a bigger class sub and it will not change the fact that personality changes will cause more conflict. It is not just about sexual harrasment. It is about the rest of the crew if women were to serve on subs. A man can leave for his wife’s birth, sometimes. A woman has to stay for her pregnancy. That time off is really bothers everyone else on the crew cause then someone else has to get trained up to replace that woman. Since there is a limited crew no one else is coming to replace that person so the men are the ones that gets screwed because the woman is probably coming back after she is medically cleared.
I can go on and on but this is really a mistake. My opinion will not matter and those of the sub crews still out there will not matter cause the ones that do matter are those that never have served on a sub and spent so much time underwater. When you start giving 100 reasons why prison life is better than sub life then you will understand. And yes I can still come up with 100 answers.
Honorably discharged ex nuke
Thanks for participating.
I definitely understand your stance on this matter. You have indeed painted a clear picture of why we should not permit women on submarines. However, times are changing and it would be great to change with the time. One individual on here stated that maybe an “all female crew sub” would be a better ideal. Sounds like a plan to me but they definitely have to train somewhere before that can happen. In any sense, it is definitely not a bad idea to open up opportunities on subs for females. I had worked in a department with 99% women who docked and maintain submarines; and, I am very sure that when necessary, individuals will make whatever accommodations necessary to suit their specific goal. I still believe that despite the smell, the days without showers, and all the other reasons out there for maintaining an all male crew, it is not a bad idea to give females the chance to serve in a field that they qualify for.
I may be somewhat dated in my outlook, the first sub I rode was the 571 boat while waiting for my boomer finish her run.
First, docking and maintaing a boat is no where the same as going to sea; not no way, not no how.
I worked back aft in Disney Land, MM, and I don’t know if you or the other women can appreciate the wonderful working conditions back there. We made X gallons of water a day, and showers etc. has last priority; water wasters got to clean my high pressure brine pump down in the bilge. While on a run, sub sailors do have a set of rules that best not be broken nor the resultant ” consequences” spoken of. Well 30 years and more that was so.
Now I have alway been in favor of all female boats. With regard to training, they can start their with their first boat in new construction; may need limited number of men for first year for quals.
Ships with women on them are floating bordellos and are a management nightmare, the results are pregnant sailors who become single parents placing undo burdens are their shipmates, especially when they have to be removed leaving a billet empty, they became parents without skills.
I go along with all female subs, not mixed, mark my words. The public does not get a clear and honest view of male and female behaviors on ships, pregnant females on both on shore and ship, of illegitamte births, the social problems the military is forced to handle as a result.
Who says we shouldn’t dictate morality?
Money is better spend on armament.
MIGHT work, IF you build a fleet of real-life SeaQuest DSV’s. But I’m skeptical. Methinks you’ll see a whole hell of a lot of pissed-off Navy spouses and a surge in the divorce rate.
I’m okay with this so long as the women meet the SAME physical and mental requirements that their male counterparts must prove. I wouldn’t support lowering any of the standards for anyone, any gender or any race. I also agree with Cynic2 that with the integration of women into the services, you SHOULD EXPECT more pregnancies and divorces (from both sides) to occur; which is already true with women serving on the battlefield in the Army. Which brings up a good point, what should the Navy do when they find out that one of their female submariners is say 4-5 months pregnant and they just got underway on a 12 month maneuver to some critical hot-spot? Do they pull her off and replace her with someone the Navy had to fly out to meet the sub? Personally, I’m beginning to think that this would create more problems than it would solve.
Absolutely terrible idea, I served on an Ohio class submarine, and while to a fast attack sailor this ship might seem “bigger” there is in no way “plenty of extra space”….also there are multiple scenarios,(watch standing, drills, inspections) where sailors are not permitted to leave their stations, how would this affect lets say a menstruating female. I’m sure the “honorably discharged nuke can vouch, engine room personnel are not permitted to leave their watch station to use the bathroom, it is common practice to urinate down a funnel, it is even fairly common that men will defecate in a bag. I think it is a logistical nightmare and enough money is already wasted on these archaic boats. There is also a strong bond amongst submariners, it is commonly referred to a brotherhood, I believe it is these ideals that allow male submariners to cope with the amount of bulls*%t that is dealt with down there. Until you have been underway, slept in a bunkroom, used a head or gone through a major inspection you really have no perspective as to how detrimental this would be to the submarine force. I’m all for equal rights, but if that’s the case why is no one questioning the use of women in Seal programs? Would that be cruel???
We go up, we go down….
TM2
You all may as well make up your mind. These girls are coming aboard whether
you like it or not. My 20 year navy career was at a period when the girls
starting being assigned to harbor tugs, etc. Then it was the larger ships
and it has progressed since then – thirty years now since I retired. You are
much better off to resign yourself to the fact that women are a large
percentage of our military and they deserve their opportunities. If their are
some (and there will be) found to be unfit, they will soon be found out not
only by the men, but also by the women. Will any of them get pregnant?
That will depend but they should not be denied their chance to see the world
anymore than a man, and enjoy military life.
There is another problem here that is a legitimate reason to prevent women from being allowed to perform sub duty. A submarine’s atmosphere of recycled air presents a health risk to the unborn babies of female sailors, who become pregnant. It has a certain concentration of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Those concentrations are safe for adults, but not for a developing embryo that becomes oxygen-starved because of the way the atmosphere is in the submarine. This is a legitimate health concern, that I have not seen addressed elsewhere.
I keep hearing the term, “Modify to accommodate”. It doesn’t really make sense to me. For one, the Submarine Force has been operating at a loss for human comfort since they were originally conceived. And through every new class of submarine, this has continued to remain the same. So why would that policy suddenly change to allow women to have a standardized portion of the boat to themselves?
I mean if we are just throwing money around in the military nowadays, then go right ahead. I just remember back when I was Repair Parts Petty Officer (RPPO) for my division I could never get funding or manning for material and equipment issues that were constant deficiencies on the Operational Reactor Safeguards Exam (ORSE).
It seemed that they had more pressing issues to spend on. (Like the new standardized uniform)
All in all it seems that the top navy officials are caring more about becoming politically correct than actually ensuring that the ships to carry this political correctness can go out to sea.