# Women to be allowed to serve on USN submarines. Good idea? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2010, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193 "2010-02-23T23:46:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/41 "2010-02-24T17:38:04Z")
There is no privacy on a submarine. People are working everywhere, there’s no free space in dark corners, there’s no private rooms where one could spirit off a helpless woman. So then we’re talking about rape in the context of a hoard of men victimizing a woman in a public situation… but in reality, I think sexual assault on a submarine is about as feasible as it is on a C-17 cargo plane flight. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/42 "2010-02-24T17:46:45Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Well, how has the “women on ships” thing worked out? I was under the impression that several years ago it was not unusual for a number of the female crew to come back into port pregnant or be released from duty while underway because they became pregnant. Is this no longer an issue for the surface navy? > > Here’s an interesting study. > > [http://www.nmcphc.med.navy.mil/downloads/sexual\_health/choices\_milmed\_168\_1\_11.pdf](http://www.nmcphc.med.navy.mil/downloads/sexual_health/choices_milmed_168_1_11.pdf) > > The fecundity of active duty military females is astounding. It wouldn’t be surprising to see female military personnel take pregnant at a large rate per sexual encounter - they’re young and healthy. It’s the rate of sexual encounters that should concern. (Particularly, as we’ve learned in the current war, the rate of nonconsensual ones.) ---
**Author:** ![vandal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/858c86/32.png) [@vandal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vandal)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/43 "2010-02-24T18:06:45Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Unless it is a really long mission, why not let the preggers serve? What if the pregnant woman gives birth while at sea? Submarine quarters are cramped as it is, and now it has to accommodate a baby. Granted, physically speaking, a baby doesn’t take up much room, but it’s all the ancillary materials and overhead involved. (The diapers, bottles, clothes, crib, etc.) Even if you calculate the day of delivery to be after the final day of deployment, labor may need to be induced early due to some unforeseen medical condition. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/44 "2010-02-24T18:12:05Z")
Women have given birth under much more unusual circumstances (incl. IIRC in an open lifeboat off the Outer Banks during WW2, after the ship the woman was sailing in was sunk by a German U-boat). But I assume no subs will be underwater for a whole nine months, and pregnant sailors can be given shore assignments if they _might_ give birth during a planned sub deployment. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/45 "2010-02-24T18:27:43Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > If the people in charge were really smart, female personnel would dominate submarines, fighter planes, and space missions. Why not work to physical strengths? > [@ChrisBooth12](#): > > Cite? Is this based on better vision or hearing or something? I have read that women make better snipers. Something having to do with them being more paitent and their breasts absorb their heartbeat better then a mans for more accurate long range shooting. Although thats only part of being a sniper I suppose. I don’t think women should be in that position especially in the part of the world we are fighting in. Women tolerate g-forces better than men, at least on average (there are always people exceptional for their gender). For airplanes, women not only perform maneuvers equally well as men, they also have a lower accident rate at all levels of aviation. For cramped quarters like subs and space, women are, on average, physically smaller and consume fewer resources such as food, water, and oxygen. Women are on average less aggressive which is probably a good thing in tight quarters. > [@code\_grey](#): > > will they evacuate the preggers ladies out of submarines in wartime by helicopter, like they do from ships now? Or will they have an onboard abortion clinic? > > If some of them suddenly get pregnant just before deployment, will they be replaced with extra men who will be trained and kept in reserve just for this purpose? Pregnancy is not an emergency. Seems to me a requirement to be on reliable birth control is not unreasonable. How about an implant? If a woman can’t tolerate that sort of birth control too bad, then she doesn’t get to serve on a sub just like a woman (or man) with poor vision doesn’t get to fly fighter jets. All sub crew women have to get it two months in advance and pee on stick before deployment. Abortion _clinic?_ How about a small stock of “morning after” pills? A first trimester abortion isn’t that big a deal anyhow from a procedural standpoint. Yes, even implanted BC can fail - if a woman “suddenly gets pregnant” while on patrol I don’t see where this is a medical _emergency_. She can probably continue in her assigned duties for a couple _months_ until the next _convenient_ time to off-load her. Now, if some bizarre medical complication occurs that’s a different matter, proceed as if for any other severe injury or illness. > [@marshmallow](#): > > As far as tender sensibilities and all that, you guys kidding? Do you think the type of woman who wants to serve on a sub is a delicate flower? Like she’d get a case of the vapors at seeing a half naked dude or something. > > The possibility of rape is real. It’s happened before and will continue to happen as long as women serve. I would hope women who sign up would keep this as a possibility in the back of their minds, especially after so many well publicized cases. Yeah, 'cause civilian women never get raped… oh, wait… Seriously, this “women in the military might be raped!” thing is BS. Women might be raped _at any time in their life_. Yes, we would all like to see the rape rate hit “zero” but barring that happy day, I have to ask which world has the higher rate of rape, military or civilian? Because if a woman is _less_ likely to be raped while in the military then that entire argument goes down the drain, doesn’t it? I’m not convinced a woman in the military is at any _greater_ risk of rape than anywhere else. > [@](#): > > The only argument that makes sense to me for not allowing women to serve in combat positions is that if you ever get into an actual war (and not these dinky little border terror wars) that having tens to hundreds of thousands of young women die would be like eating your seed corn. I can see that being true for a small nation, but I think one the size of the U.S. would be able to absorb the demographic shock. Then again, a small country probably would need to muster all the forces it could anyway, so even that doesn’t really apply. I don’t accept the argument, mind, but it does make you wonder how long the U.S. would stomach thousands of women getting slaughtered along with the men. The US has had women coming home in body bags for decades now. Society has not collapsed on account of it. There have not been riots in the street. Within my own lifetime this has become more and more accepted as both a risk some women choose to take, and the decision to serve and thus take that risk something a woman has a right to do. We do not have a shortage of women of reproductive age in the US, so that’s not going to jeopardize the ability to produce the next generation. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Well, you guys don’t have nuclear subs do you? Women’s eggs being subjected to radiation for months at a time increases the likelyhood of infertility or birth defects while sperm on the other hand is continually sloughed off and replenished. As already noted, people in subs are actually subjected to _less_ radiation than surface dwellers. The reactors on subs are heavily shielded because, lets face it, radiation is bad for men, too. Women _pilots_, on the other hand, get _more_ radiation than surface dwellers yet women serve on flight crews both military and civilian, and some even do so while pregnant. We allow women to serve in space, and that has greater radiation exposure yet (though to my knowledge we haven’t had a pregnant woman in space yet). This is not a significant risk. > [@astro](#): > > Well, how has the “women on ships” thing worked out? I was under the impression that several years ago it was not unusual for a number of the female crew to come back into port pregnant or be released from duty while underway because they became pregnant. Is this no longer an issue for the surface navy? > > _…[snip]…_ > > The fecundity of active duty military females is astounding. Not really - the military only accepts healthy people, the vast majority of which are young and in their prime reproductive years. Healthy young people have sex. When healthy young people have sex, even with birth control, a certain percentage will get pregnant. The “fecundity of active duty military females” is nothing astounding, it’s the normal fecundity of healthy human women. Now, I do believe that there are some women who deliberately seek pregnancy in order to escape duty they don’t like. There are men who literally shoot themselves in the foot to do the same. That’s a different problem than fertility, and shirking of duty through various means is a problem all militaries deal with. The difficulty is separating out the shirkers from the genuine “oops” in a military woman who does _not_ want to get out of her duty or end her military career. I don’t have a ready answer for how to do that, and I’m not sure that anyone else does, either. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/46 "2010-02-24T18:36:56Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Seriously, this “women in the military might be raped!” thing is BS. Women might be raped _at any time in their life_. Yes, we would all like to see the rape rate hit “zero” but barring that happy day, I have to ask which world has the higher rate of rape, military or civilian? Because if a woman is _less_ likely to be raped while in the military then that entire argument goes down the drain, doesn’t it? I’m not convinced a woman in the military is at any _greater_ risk of rape than anywhere else. I think it’s come up several times just because it’s a shock that in a highly disciplined authoritarian group it’s allowed to happen at ALL. And frankly I think it’s obvious that if stopping rape in the military were a priority than it would be as rare as murder or similar crimes, but in recent years it certainly doesn’t seem to be. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/47 "2010-02-24T18:42:49Z")
> [@vandal](#): > > What if the pregnant woman gives birth while at sea? Submarine quarters are cramped as it is, and now it has to accommodate a baby. > > Granted, physically speaking, a baby doesn’t take up much room, but it’s all the ancillary materials and overhead involved. (The diapers, bottles, clothes, crib, etc.) As a woman submariner is presumably a healthy woman (not only did she pass standard navy requirements, I assume sub crews are also checked prior to deployment) most likely she’d have a normal labor and delivery. It wouldn’t be a lot of fun, but as noted above, woman have given birth in much worse places than a climate-controlled sub with at least a basic infirmary available. Wouldn’t be _fun_, but most likely it wouldn’t be a problem, either. As for the “ancillary materials” - well, don’t worry about bottles, have her breastfeed. Diapers might be an issue, but I presume there are some sort of laundry facilities on board anyway and something could be jury-rigged out of cloth items like towels and undershirts, of which I presume there are spares aboard. A baby doesn’t really _need_ clothes or a crib - just some blankets/towels to be wrapped up in and a safe place to tuck the kid for sleeping. My parents were delayed in getting a crib for me so I spent a couple of my first weeks sleeping a dresser drawer. Is childcare going to interfere with her working on board? Yes, probably - what, people don’t get sick or injured on sub crews? She’ll have to be on reduced duty until the kid is sent ashore. _Of course_ you wouldn’t have the baby on board long term (barring some extremely bizarre circumstances) but seriously, I like to think Navy personnel are clever and resourceful enough to cope with the problems involved for a few days or even a few weeks until the baby can be transported ashore (whether or not mom goes with the kid is a matter for the military to work out). > [@](#): > > Even if you calculate the day of delivery to be after the final day of deployment, labor may need to be induced early due to some unforeseen medical condition. Oh, please - and a woman’s uterus might fall out of her body without warning! Oh my God! Don’t let a woman set foot outside her house! (Yes, that actually _can_ happen, see [uterine prolapse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_prolapse)) It seems obvious to me that if you find a woman is pregnant _before_ deployment she doesn’t deploy. If she turns up pregnant after deployment… well, let the captain, on board medical people, and the Navy work that out. If a woman has to stay until near her due date, well, that’s just a risk she has to take. C’mon - all sorts of sudden medical crap can arise in men as well as women. We let women serve other places where dealing with a complicated pregnancy would be a problem, like overwintering at the South Pole, how can it be argued that a sub patrol is that fundamentally different? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/48 "2010-02-24T18:44:38Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > I think it’s come up several times just because it’s a shock that in a highly disciplined authoritarian group it’s allowed to happen at ALL. And frankly I think it’s obvious that if stopping rape in the military were a priority than it would be as rare as murder or similar crimes, but in recent years it certainly doesn’t seem to be. Is the military rape rate rising… or do we have better and more publicized information? There have been some high-profile cases in recent years but I’m not convinced they represent an uptick in occurrences. I think in the past a lot of rapes were swept under the rug or kept much more quiet than they are today. ---
**Author:** ![Perciful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Perciful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Perciful)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/49 "2010-02-24T19:02:31Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > I think it’s come up several times just because it’s a shock that in a highly disciplined authoritarian group it’s allowed to happen at ALL. And frankly I think it’s obvious that if stopping rape in the military were a priority than it would be as rare as murder or similar crimes, but in recent years it certainly doesn’t seem to be. I was reading about a woman that was raped in Iraq and she didn’t get a fair trial. She was working for a government contactor. Of course this isn’t exactly the same as being in the military. I was the first/ only woman in an all male department and three of my co workers and one boss were ex Navy, squids. These guys must have forgotten the disapline they learned in the Navy. The only reason I lasted there 13 years was because I learned to keep my mouth shut, look the other way and always carry a weapon. I would not wish it on any woman. Hey, If women want to go down for 3 months in a sub with a bunch of men, Good Luck. I wouldn’t. I also don’t think it is good for morale and it could get very ugly. Human nature being “what it is”, not what we want it to be. If anything does happen it will be squashed. This is just about as ridiculous as 'Don’t Ask Don’t Tell". ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/50 "2010-02-24T19:05:39Z")
Women on submarines is a terrible idea. What if they menstruate all over the Trident missiles? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/51 "2010-02-24T19:07:49Z")
Wouldn’t be any less terrifying than the “F\*\*\* the enemy” messages the air force writes on bombs. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/52 "2010-02-24T19:08:38Z")
> [@vandal](#): > > What if the pregnant woman gives birth while at sea? Submarine quarters are cramped as it is, and now it has to accommodate a baby. Not an issue. Women can only serve on surface ships if they are less than 20 weeks pregnant. According to [sites like these,](http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/380190923/m/2460091922001) the actual time underwater for submarines seems to be about 2-4 months at a time. For fast attack submarines, a few of these patrols equal a deployment. ETA: the 20 week policy can of course be modified as necessary. And also, I find the comments raising the issues of radiation and fertility to be patronizing. Why is it okay for men and women to serve in dangerous positions – including fighter pilots – risking life and limb, but OMG there’s no way to trust a woman with the decision of whether she wants to risk her OVARIES!?! Losing a hand, eye, or life is one thing, but losing an ovary – well, we just can’t let that happen!!! ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/53 "2010-02-24T19:32:13Z")
Former submariner here… Most everything has been addressed. Personally, I think that this policy change is a long time coming. It is foolish to exclude half of the qualified people who could capably serve on a submarine. When I was serving on a submarine 15+ years ago, there was no real objection from most submariners even then. The biggest objection allegedly came from submariner’s wives. My executive officer (XO) often remarked that he didn’t see what the big deal was with berthing areas. He proposed the “$2.99 Wal-Mart solution” for partitioning off berthing areas–i.e. a shower curtain. As for heads (restrooms), either make one of the two enlisted heads female only, if enough women are assigned, or make the heads coed. All you have to do is prohibit people from walking around exposed. The heads all have stalls for the toilets and the showers, after all. There’s only one officer head, but it’s only got one toilet and one shower, so having female officers on board is no big deal. You take turns just like the officers do now. > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Unless it is a really long mission, why not let the preggers serve? Exposure to hazardous chemicals is one reason. The atmosphere control equipment is only so good, and unless you ventilate the sub, you can get a buildup of fumes that are not harmful to healthy adults, but may be harmful to a developing fetus. I think that mandatory birth control is a good idea. > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Well, you guys don’t have nuclear subs do you? Women’s eggs being subjected to radiation for months at a time increases the likelyhood of infertility or birth defects while sperm on the other hand is continually sloughed off and replenished. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Actually, I’ve seen studies that those who serve aboard submarines get less radiation than folks who work on the surface of the earth (I call them “above-grounders”). [Link.](http://www.mayporthomeportingeis.com/Documents/Final/30_Appendix_G_Information_on_Radiation.pdf)In contrast, I understand that airline pilots on long-haul flights get about two or three times the radiation of “above-grounders.” That doesn’t seem to stop women from being airline pilots. Exactly. I wore a [TLD](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoluminescent_Dosimeter) dosimeter for the whole time I was assigned to a submarine, and I got the highest exposures off the submarine than onboard. > [@Ravenman](#): > > There is no privacy on a submarine. People are working everywhere, there’s no free space in dark corners, there’s no private rooms where one could spirit off a helpless woman. So then we’re talking about rape in the context of a hoard of men victimizing a woman in a public situation… but in reality, I think sexual assault on a submarine is about as feasible as it is on a C-17 cargo plane flight. Exactly. On average, you can stick your arm out on a submarine, and you will hit somebody. Unlike large surface ships, there are absolutely no private places on a submarine. Even on the toilet, there’s someone outside telling you to hurry up. A submarine is not quite as crowded as a commercial airliner, but it’s close. You are never out of earshot of others, and you are rarely out of sight. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/54 "2010-02-24T19:33:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > And also, I find the comments raising the issues of radiation and fertility to be patronizing. Why is it okay for men and women to serve in dangerous positions – including fighter pilots – risking life and limb, but OMG there’s no way to trust a woman with the decision of whether she wants to risk her OVARIES!?! Losing a hand, eye, or life is one thing, but losing an ovary – well, we just can’t let that happen!!! Well, we _are_ at a serious and impending risk of the entire species dying off of underpopulation. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/55 "2010-02-24T19:35:14Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Not really - the military only accepts healthy people, the vast majority of which are young and in their prime reproductive years. Healthy young people have sex. When healthy young people have sex, even with birth control, a certain percentage will get pregnant. The “fecundity of active duty military females” is nothing astounding, it’s the normal fecundity of healthy human women. > > Now, I do believe that there are some women who deliberately seek pregnancy in order to escape duty they don’t like. There are men who literally shoot themselves in the foot to do the same. That’s a different problem than fertility, and shirking of duty through various means is a problem all militaries deal with. The difficulty is separating out the shirkers from the genuine “oops” in a military woman who does _not_ want to get out of her duty or end her military career. I don’t have a ready answer for how to do that, and I’m not sure that anyone else does, either. My main point here was that 27% of all active duty women in the measured population became pregnant. This is not a “normal” population in that pregnancy is discouraged and has harsh negative consequences from every angle for active duty women. You would expect that this population would be way, way below civilian rates, and in the end 27% of all active duty female soliders still became pregnant which is only moderately less than average civilian rates. I think that in the face of overwhelmingly negative consequences for pregnancy that it’s “impressive fecundity” that that over one quarter of all active duty women in the test cohort became pregnant. It’s astounding. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/56 "2010-02-24T19:46:34Z")
Fine. Then take up the cause to say that women’s reproductive systems make them too unreliable to serve in the armed forces. But nothing you have said so far specifically pertains to the unsuitability of women to serve in submarines. And again, you are relying on data that does not describe pregnancy rates for women serving on ships. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/57 "2010-02-24T19:47:53Z")
Just as point of info is it true that women in close quarters tend to synchronize their menstrual cycle? ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/58 "2010-02-24T19:50:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Fine. Then take up the cause to say that women’s reproductive systems make them too unreliable to serve in the armed forces. But nothing you have said so far specifically pertains to the unsuitability of women to serve in submarines. > > And again, you are relying on data that does not describe pregnancy rates for women serving on ships. I think women should serve on subs, I’m just pointing out that expectations that sperm will not meet egg because of the availability of birth control and peer to peer professionalism may be somewhat optimistic. I think that science should also take this opportunity to study the effects of male and female pheromones on the opposite sex in close quarters. There are lots of fascinating studies that could be done. ---
**Author:** ![kevlaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kevlaw/32/2281_2.png) [@kevlaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kevlaw)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/59 "2010-02-24T19:55:41Z")
> [@robby](#): > > Exactly. On average, you can stick your arm out on a submarine, and you will hit somebody. Unlike large surface ships, there are absolutely no private places on a submarine. Even on the toilet, there’s someone outside telling you to hurry up. A submarine is not quite as crowded as a commercial airliner, but it’s close. You are never out of earshot of others, and you are rarely out of sight. Then your submarine was different from mine. My time was divided approximately 3 ways: [ul] [li]1/3 of the time I was on watch in the control room surrounded by people.[/li][li]1/3 of the time I was sleeping or socializing in the mess. Plenty of people around.[/li][li]1/3 of the time I was working alone or with 1 other person in the sonar instrument space. Plenty private. No one else around or within earshot.[/li][/ul] There are lots of private spaces on a submarine and lots of opportunities for shenanighans or abuse. But this doesn’t change my overall opinion which is that I agree with you. One thing that no one has mentioned yet - sailors have very different social conventions than the rest of the world. Things that would be acceptable or laughed off on a ship would land you in prison in a normal environment. Abuse (ranging from teasing to quite nasty pranks) is constant. I can think of 10 despicable things right off the top of my head. Add in the potential for sexual abuse and I don’t envy the first group of women to enter that environment at all. I think the navy would be better off if it toned some of that crap down. We didn’t have women on ships in my time (during the 80s) and I have often wondered whether the women that serve on ships these days have adapted to those ways or whether the men are better behaved than the ones that I knew. It’s probably no different in the army or marines in that regard and they have been able to make it work. And, once again, if they can make it work on ships, they can make it work on submarines. No difference. ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193/60 "2010-02-24T20:01:48Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Well, you guys don’t have nuclear subs do you? Women’s eggs being subjected to radiation for months at a time increases the likelyhood of infertility or birth defects while sperm on the other hand is continually sloughed off and replenished. I’m not a reproductive biologist - perhaps one will show up here. However, the last time I checked, eggs were ‘continually sloughed off and replenished’. My radiation biology classes are in the distant past, but radiation effects on gametogenesis are probably not all that different between the sexes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/women-to-be-allowed-to-serve-on-usn-submarines-good-idea/530193.md?page=4)