Women and Submarines

In My Humble Opinion
21

I tend to trust the opinions of my enlisted sister and her friends. Being a woman in the Navy is a lot different than being a man in the Navy. She does not feel that she is a part of the “close knit atmosphere” that the males share. She does feel it with the women, but of course they are only 10% of the personnel on board the ship (and it’s likely that percentage would be much lower on a submarine.) Women would be a very small minority. We obviously have no way of knowing ahead of time whether the closeness of a sub crew could overcome this. My sister is inclined to think not. And my male friend, who did serve on a sub, says he believes women would be most unwelcome aboard a sub. He doesn’t think men would want women invading that bastion of male exclusivity, for a variety of reasons.

As for a lack of privacy–I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve heard of gang-rape, both from women in and out of the military. There have even been postings on this board about experiences of gang-rape in which non-participants saw what was going on and did nothing to intervene. I thus do not believe that lack of privacy would necessarily exclude the possibility of victimization of female crewmembers. In an atmosphere where women are resented, it’s not an unlikely scenario.

Maybe it could work out. All I know is, I would not want my sister to be one of the enlisted women who was a part of the initial experiment. And I know she and her friends wouldn’t want to be a part of it either. To me, that speaks volumes.

22

I remember years ago going on a tour of a submarine (Australian, I think…though possibly US) and thinking, anyone who would voluntarily serve on this is NUTS!

If they can find enough men that mental…then let them have it.

23

Luxury! I had to sleep in the torpedo tube. :stuck_out_tongue:

not actually true

24

Of course they should be allowed to serve in submarines. It is the policy of the US Armed Forces to encourage women to serve into nontraditional roles.

It would take a couple of years to modify the subs a bit.

If we have sailors with personality disorders, we do not need them near our boats.

25

Being a submariner is totally different than being a target… err… surface sailor. It’s like two different Navies. Your sister does not feel she is part of a “close knit atmosphere” because she is on a ship with over 5000 people on board. Even the men don’t feel like they are part of a “close knit atmosphere” on an Aircraft Carrier.

Yes, women would be “most unwelcome” on a submarine. But, so what? Blacks were “most unwelcome” when the military became desegregated. Homosexuals were “most unwelcome” when “don’t ask, don’t tell” came out. And, now women will be “most unwelcome.” The Navy will adapt. The sailors will overcome. It’s what they do.

Yes, it could happen. But, as you yourself have stated, it could happen anywhere. So why should this preclude women from serving on a submarine?

You need to remember that submarine service is one of the few things that is voluntary in the military. There is no one on those subs that does not want to be there. Perhaps, your sister would not want to be a submariner, but that should not prevent women who do from becoming one.

26

I don’t think that women would be in more danger. Even thieves were not tolerated when I was in. Anybody that assaulted a woman in the crew would probably accidently fall down several ladders before he was brought to the CO.

But the psychology in a sub is very unusual to say the least. People play mind games on others for entertainment. They find the weakest guy and ride him to see if he’ll crack. They’ll even talk about each others wives in order to taunt guys.

The camraderie you hear about on subs has limits. You’re all in the same boat (so to speak) so when there’s an emergency you all come together but little personality differences can become incredibly irritating. Any mix of people will have this. Ideally a sub crew would be as homogeneous as possible to aviod problems. Adding women to a male crew would be a bad idea. I consider it a bad idea on skimmers as well.

EB_5307 - separate quarters for women would piss off a lot of the crew. It would also never be private. In an emergency access to everywhere is required.
- Women is not the same as homosexuals. They’re still males. The don’t ask don’t tell stuff actually worked pretty well when I was in. Gays on subs never seemed to be problematic.

And just as an aside, sub crews are much less formal but I can’t imagine calling my CO by his first name.

27

EB_5307 At least when I was in sub service was all voluntary, but you couldn’t unvolunteer. There were definitely people on the boat that did not want to be there.

28

Since most rapes are acquiantance rapes, I don’t see why this would change anything.

29

Boy, all these entries and no one mentions Operation Petticoat (The 1959 movie and the 1977 TV series):

30

There were several people I knew that felt they couldn’t handle submarine service and were transfered to a surface ship at the Navy’s convinience with no repercussions. Maybe this policy was ship specific.

Yes, this happens. Some women may become victom to this, others may be the aggressor. Just like the men.

Yes camraderie has limits. People are different, there is no argueing that. But, a person’s gender is just one of many things which makes us different. Most people, including submariners, can deal with differences in religion, culture, sexual orientation, and a slew of others. Why can’t they deal with gender also?

Yes they are different. That’s the problem with analogies, they never quite fit just right… But, some of the arguments I’m hearing are very similar and they still have the same problems. They require that the sailors do not have the ability to control themselves, that including the excluded group will lead to bickering and loss of perfessionalism. This is not necessarily the case.

I agree, they most likely could not be private, but they could be restricted. There are several sleeping quarters which are currently seperate just due to compartment size. If one of these were reserved for females, a male would definately get a :dubious: for being there when there is no emergency and they are not on watch.

I do recall don’t ask don’t tell working very well. But, before it was enacted, some would have you believe that it was going to be the downfall of the military. Luckily, they were wrong.

Yes. :eek: I would never have even thought of doing this! I think my CO’s first name was Captain.

But, that aside, there were many opportunities to talk to the CO and the CO new everyone’s name. He would have frequent “Level of Knowledge” interviews with the crew, one on one. These usually degraded to BS sessions. So you did feel that you knew your CO on a personal level.

31

Tell that to my husband who thought he wouldn’t mind subs and now dreads every minute he has to be on one. They’re not letting him off of the boat though.

Growing up around military and being married to a sailor now, I wouldn’t want to be trapped anywhere with some of those guys. Sub or surface, some of those guys have real issues. I wouldn’t want to risk being raped or beaten by them. And I doubt the Navy would back me in any action I’d try to take against anyone.

32

Sorry to hear that. But, I already said that this could have been ship specific. I’m not sure. I don’t understand the logic behind forcing someone to serve in such a harsh environment as a submarine. It’s not for everyone. But, there quite a few things the military does that I don’t understand, or agree with.

I respect your view, and many share it. But, there are women who do not feel this way and want to serve on submarines. If there were not, this would not even be a discussion. These women can’t serve on submarines, just because they are women and it would be inconvenient for the military. I think this is wrong.

33

[QUOTE=EB_5307]
But, there are women who do not feel this way and want to serve on submarines. If there were not, this would not even be a discussion.

[QUOTE]

Yes it would. There would still be a rule against it and that would piss some people off and some would lobby against it. I think women should not be forbidded to serve any where a man serves. No one has privacy in a sub, I don’t really see why women should be the exception. It should be no more acceptable to harrass or oogle women than it is to do so to other men. If the navy needs to deal better with how its personnell deal with each other, then it should do so.

We need to better address the problem of our service memebers committing rape, but that is a separate issue.

34

Different races, different cultures etc. do not hold a candle, in my opinion , to different sexes. I’m not even talking about how the women would be treated. I’m talking about how the dynamic would change among the men. You’re stuck in a 300 foot tube with some jerk that is constantly describing his expolits with women. Now he’s talking about some woman you work with and see constantly. Another guy hates women and constantly harasses one of the crewmwmbers. How do I handle this when I see it. There’s a rumor that ET3 Betty Lou is giving it away down in Machinery 2 lower. Do I tell her about this rumor? Do I tell anybody?
I agree that these kinds of situations can exist to some extent in an all male crew. I’m saying it would be waaaay worse with a mixed crew. Then there are the wives back home. How would they feel about it.
I don’t think the Navy’s mixing crews on surface ships has been any raging success. They do it because of societal pressure, I think(read politics). And I don’t think the military thinks anybody has the RIGHT to serve anywhere. It’s always according to their needs (which is probably why, once you’re on the boats it’s hell to get off)

35

Well, my local SubWay doesn’t have showers or a place to take a nap (although you could splash you pits in the bathroom and take a snooze in the booth…)

but

they have never claimed I was ineligible for my 6" Tuna on Wheat. :smiley:

Just reading this thread is giving me a claustrophobia attack. The thought of bunk beds can send me over the edge - not to mention sleeping bags! I’m gonna go ahead and sit on my back deck for a minute and pet the dogs.

PS - Girls on submarine duty- No. Too many problems. Not that the gents covering our butts underwater have a problem controlling themselves, but the logistics of it seem to be ruling it out from the beginning.

Women are on air craft carriers, right? Aren’t they small too? How to they do it?

36

An aircraft carrier is a good bit bigger than a submarine. Stands to reason, since it has to carry, you know, aircraft.

The ones I was on had separate spaces for libraries, a chapel, more than one ship’s store. They even had gyms.

On a sub, by contrast, the mess decks doubled as library and chapel and store. Maybe an exercise bike could be squeezed in somewhere aboard. All in all, it was like living under a car hood.

The two aren’t comparable much, except that they are vessels of the United States Navy.

37

There is a big distinction between gender discrimination and racial discrimination. Our laws recognize that racial discrimination has no rational basis. On the other hand, the laws of this country recognize that in many cases, there are perfectly valid and sensible reasons for treating the genders differently.

I happen to be of the opinion that this is one of those times. Some of you don’t agree. Vive la difference. I doubt we’ll ever convince each other.

I would be perfectly amenable to the idea of submarines with all-woman crews.

38

Is it not true that the American or British navy conducted experiments and found that men would delay closing hatches if there were a woman on the other side? I was told this a long time ago and have always wondered of the veracity. Any delay could obviously have disastrous results on a submarine.

39

Sounds specious to this (ex) sailor.

I served in submarines, and later on a sub tender (with women). While I was on the tender, I went into more than one fire with women on the hose with me. Sometimes I lead, and sometimes I followed, but no one did anything but their duty. I experienced a near-disasterous flamible/corrosive/toxic spill in heaving seas with the propulsion offline, and a woman and I leapt to action together. If anything, she responded a fraction of a heartbeat faster than I did, and I sure as damned hell didn’t take a moment’s consideration for her gender as we cleared extranious pople from the space and took immediate actions to prevent blowing the ass-end clear off the tender.

IMO, there’s no practical reason why women couldn’t serve on submarines. There’d be some unpleasant adjustments as they invaded our ‘old boy’s club,’ but the Nav has dealt with that before, and successfully so. All I ever required of my shipmates in the boats is that they worked hard, and qualified dolphins. That even goes for those few I suspected were gay… So long as they wore dolphins and pulled their weight, all else was secondary. The same, for women.

No, IMO, the only reason women aren’t allowed to serve on submarines in the US Nav is political. Service politics, Congressional politics, national politics.

40

Seriously…

One possibility is that the resistance to women on submarines, and in other dangerous conditions, is based in chivalry. It doesn’t have to be a conscious desire to dominate women, it’s the simple idea that a military commander sometimes has to select people to die- and that they would be less comfortable with ordering women to die.

Yes, you could work beside someone- but could you close that hatch knowing that anyone on the other side would die? Would it make a difference if it was a man or a woman? In our culture it is common to desire to defend the women and children. Most of the present commanders have had that drilled into them, and it will take some time to overcome that conditioning.

To make the armed services fully integrated would require a whole new level of personal discipline.