SecNav, CNO: Women should serve on subs

[SOBERSUBMRNR]

Originally Posted by jeffersj

....there are some design issues to deal with, and those issues are basically no different from the ones the surface fleet dealt with about 30 years ago when sea duty billets were being opened up to females.

Incorrect.

There are issues that are far beyond anything the surface fleet has to deal with. For one, the amount of space available is far, far less. The smallest surface ship has much more space than the largest submarine. There are medical issues that don't exist on surface ships or there are medical issues that are magnified due to the nature of submarine operations. These issues have already been discussed in this forum by me and by others. Go back and read what we wrote.

I'll post this again: http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/SAPA%20020195.pdf

That is an independent study done not by the Navy, but by an independent contractor. Read what it says. Read the footnotes. Examine the sources.

More for you:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/HPScott%20061200.pdf

Written by a Rear Admiral, Undersea Medical Officer. An authoritative source.

Still more:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/NAVY-DACOWITS_0295.pdf

That dates back to just two years ago. Now we have a new administration and lo and behold, everything has changed. I smell politics.

The fact of the matter is that no matter what the facts say, there are those that will push this issue and not pay the least bit of attention to what the experts have to say. This issue is a matter of gender politics and nothing more. It's about appeasing feminists. It is not about the good of the service or the nation. The motives are wrong, the research and expert opinions are ignored and the facts are irrelevant. All that matters is that this opportunity to rack up political brownie points must not be wasted.

When the fraternization, discipline and manpower issues in the surface fleet are resolved, then those of you who insist on mixed-gender submarines will have grounds to bring up the subject. Until then, forget it. And the surface Navy has a lot of problems relating to sexual issues, no matter how much the brass may claim that everything is fine. It's not.

[jeffersj]

Originally Posted by SOBERSUBMRNR

Incorrect.

There are issues that are far beyond anything the surface fleet has to deal with. For one, the amount of space available is far, far less. The smallest surface ship has much more space than the largest submarine. There are medical issues that don't exist on surface ships or there are medical issues that are magnified due to the nature of submarine operations. These issues have already been discussed in this forum by me and by others. Go back and read what we wrote.

I'll post this again: http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/SAPA%20020195.pdf

That is an independent study done not by the Navy, but by an independent contractor. Read what it says. Read the footnotes. Examine the sources.

More for you:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/HPScott%20061200.pdf

Written by a Rear Admiral, Undersea Medical Officer. An authoritative source.

Still more:

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/NAVY-DACOWITS_0295.pdf

That dates back to just two years ago. Now we have a new administration and lo and behold, everything has changed. I smell politics.

The fact of the matter is that no matter what the facts say, there are those that will push this issue and not pay the least bit of attention to what the experts have to say. This issue is a matter of gender politics and nothing more. It's about appeasing feminists. It is not about the good of the service or the nation. The motives are wrong, the research and expert opinions are ignored and the facts are irrelevant. All that matters is that this opportunity to rack up political brownie points must not be wasted.

When the fraternization, discipline and manpower issues in the surface fleet are resolved, then those of you who insist on mixed-gender submarines will have grounds to bring up the subject. Until then, forget it. And the surface Navy has a lot of problems relating to sexual issues, no matter how much the brass may claim that everything is fine. It's not.

I never said there would not be obstacles.

I also never said that I adovacted one way or another. I do accept the fact that one day, like it or not, the change will come. How it comes about will be decided by people well above me in the power structure.

Yes, I am well aware of the space limitations both on fast attack boats and ones designed to carry baby killers with regards to both the physical plant as well as messing and berthing.

Yes, I am well aware of the fraternization issues in the surface fleet. Some would advocate that is a reason to return to single gender ships, which I frankly don't see happening.

No, everything is not fine, and there will be issues no matter what.

[rmmpe]

SOBERSUBMRNR,

I, for one, thank you for the articles and studies you linked to. They provide indisputable support to my thoughts and expressed views.

Frankly, I was getting somewhat tired of feeling compelled to explain our reasoning to some of the "no-nothings" whose main goal is unfounded argument. Your inclusion of these documents provides me some relief.

Simply put, there are those that would argue a Proctologist could perform Neurosurgery, which may be true for those suffering from Rectal-Cranial inversion.

Bob Mahon (SS)

[forcedj]

Originally Posted by SOBERSUBMRNR

There are issues that are far beyond anything the surface fleet has to deal with...

... That dates back to just two years ago. Now we have a new administration and lo and behold, everything has changed. I smell politics.

I came across the below NY Times article from April 1st, 2008 which states the that the "putting women on submarines" issue was promoted by former president George W. Bush just before he left office. So it’s not something Barak Obama started.

Everyone knows the submarine service is different. We get that there are “issues that are far beyond anything the surface fleet has to deal with.” But those issues are the same issues that so many people said couldn’t be overcome when putting women on surface ships was being considered. Close quarters, romantic involvement, outrage by Navy servicemen’s wives, etc. etc.

Other countries including Australia, Canada, Norway, and Spain already have women serving on subs. So, it can be done.

Dan
---------------------------------------

US Navy Mans Two Nuclear Subs with Women
http://www.subsim.com/new_york_times_sub_article.htm

Seymor Conch and James Boswell
Published: April 1, 2008

The last bastion of male dominance in the US Navy is about to be swept into history. While the eyes of the nation are focused on the first woman to have a shot at winning her party's nomination for President, the Department of the Navy has unveiled a project underway since last summer that will put women in submarines.
"This is way overdue," insists Lt. Hanne Bright, an up and coming naval officer. She is among 340 female officers and chiefs who have been selected to initiate an abrupt change in Navy policy; the manning of submarines by women.
Women in the United States Navy command warships and pilot combat jets off aircraft carriers today, but until now there remained one part of the fleet where they could not serve: aboard the nation's nuclear-powered submarines.
Now, as the Navy has begun building a new class of submarines, an influential military advisory committee reignited the debate over the exclusion, recommending that the Navy plan to allow women to join one of the service's most storied and traditional fraternities.
''It's important we re-examine what is still closed to women,'' said Sue Winkle, the chairwoman of the group, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, the Pentagon's main body that recommends policies on the issues that face women in the armed forces.
Opposition to the time-honored all-male tradition has been strong. Submarines are extremely space limited and the Navy has always maintained that designing and maintaining co-ed subs would make them too expensive. Now, however, with the backing of outgoing President George Bush, the Navy plans to get women into submarines and avoid mixing with seamen by making two US Virginia class subs consist of all-female crew and officers.
One of the first female Prospective Commanding Officers for submarines, Commander Sarah Bentworth, is eager to get started. She spent two tours aboard the USS Virginia in order to prepare for her first sub command. The Navy spokesman says the plan should be implemented by Dec 2009.
In a speech to the Naval Submarine League last summer, Donald C. Winter, the secretary of the Navy, signaled support for integrating the submarine fleet, but the controversy over his remarks ignited a flurry of protest. He warned in the speech that the ''submarine community'' -- a tightly knit cadre of crew members and officers -- risked becoming dangerously out of touch with society if it did not adapt to include women, as well as more minority submariners.
''The most Narcissus-like thing about creating something in your own image, about being in love with your own image,'' he said, ''is the continued and continuous existence of this segment of the Navy as a male preserve.''
What few mention is the likelihood that the Navy is pushing ahead with the female submariner program to avoid involvement of the US Supreme Court, scheduled to hear a case this May, Bishop vs. the State of Connecticut. Captain Bridget Bishop, an accomplished career naval officer argues that prohibiting women from serving aboard submarines limits their career potential. "If history and social progress are any measure, this rule keeping women serving their country in submarines, one of the last forms of discrimination, is not tenable," says Rachael Perperam.
"In the past, all right, there were solid reasons to keep the submarine force all male," said Lt. Commander Katrina Van Tassel, sitting in the officers' ward room, which serves as dining hall, conference room, chapel and, in case of medical emergencies, operating room. "But this is the 21-st century, women can vote, drive cars, wear pants--why can't they be in charge of a nuclear attack sub?"
Chief Petty Officer Doug Wilson disagrees. "Close quarters with mixed crews produce romantic relationships. Our culture has given up on sexual purity, so why do we expect people will magically become `professional' and abstinent once they are crammed together inside a 350 tube?" He shakes his head. "I went to submarines to get a breather from my wife and her mother. Especially her mother. Now I have to spend 60 days underwater with women? You know how long they take in the bathroom."
"I can tell you one thing," Lt. Bright says, "we may or may not have a woman president this time next year, but we will have women submarines at sea. Move over, sailor."
Reporting was contributed by Scope Handley, Tip Biggelow, and other employees of The New York Times.

[rmmpe]

As much as I liked Bush in some areas, I never disillusioned myself with the thought he was a sage of the arcane or right in all things. In fact, there were a few points I vehemently disagreed with him on, which is why I withdrew my support of the RNC. This merely adds another.

But I have not considered switching beliefs or joining the PC camp.

[forcedj]

Here’s another thing…
Aren’t sailors tired of being treated like a child? At a time in the Navy when sailors of all paygrades are complaining that they’re being treated like children because of liberties being taken away and lost responsibility…are you saying that it is not possible for you to be stationed on a submarine with a female and be adult and professional?

I can’t believe some of this backlash. Wow, it’s a good thing they don’t allow gay men on submarines. (snicker snicker)

Dan

[SOBERSUBMRNR]

Originally Posted by forcedj

I came across the below NY Times article from April 1st, 2008 which states the that the "putting women on submarines" issue was promoted by former president George W. Bush just before he left office. So it’s not something Barak Obama started.

Everyone knows the submarine service is different. We get that there are “issues that are far beyond anything the surface fleet has to deal with.” But those issues are the same issues that so many people said couldn’t be overcome when putting women on surface ships was being considered. Close quarters, romantic involvement, outrage by Navy servicemen’s wives, etc. etc.

Other countries including Australia, Canada, Norway, and Spain already have women serving on subs. So, it can be done.

Dan
---------------------------------------

US Navy Mans Two Nuclear Subs with Women
http://www.subsim.com/new_york_times_sub_article.htm

Seymor Conch and James Boswell
Published: April 1, 2008

The last bastion of male dominance in the US Navy is about to be swept into history. While the eyes of the nation are focused on the first woman to have a shot at winning her party's nomination for President, the Department of the Navy has unveiled a project underway since last summer that will put women in submarines.
"This is way overdue," insists Lt. Hanne Bright, an up and coming naval officer. She is among 340 female officers and chiefs who have been selected to initiate an abrupt change in Navy policy; the manning of submarines by women.
Women in the United States Navy command warships and pilot combat jets off aircraft carriers today, but until now there remained one part of the fleet where they could not serve: aboard the nation's nuclear-powered submarines.
Now, as the Navy has begun building a new class of submarines, an influential military advisory committee reignited the debate over the exclusion, recommending that the Navy plan to allow women to join one of the service's most storied and traditional fraternities.
''It's important we re-examine what is still closed to women,'' said Sue Winkle, the chairwoman of the group, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, the Pentagon's main body that recommends policies on the issues that face women in the armed forces.
Opposition to the time-honored all-male tradition has been strong. Submarines are extremely space limited and the Navy has always maintained that designing and maintaining co-ed subs would make them too expensive. Now, however, with the backing of outgoing President George Bush, the Navy plans to get women into submarines and avoid mixing with seamen by making two US Virginia class subs consist of all-female crew and officers.
One of the first female Prospective Commanding Officers for submarines, Commander Sarah Bentworth, is eager to get started. She spent two tours aboard the USS Virginia in order to prepare for her first sub command. The Navy spokesman says the plan should be implemented by Dec 2009.
In a speech to the Naval Submarine League last summer, Donald C. Winter, the secretary of the Navy, signaled support for integrating the submarine fleet, but the controversy over his remarks ignited a flurry of protest. He warned in the speech that the ''submarine community'' -- a tightly knit cadre of crew members and officers -- risked becoming dangerously out of touch with society if it did not adapt to include women, as well as more minority submariners.
''The most Narcissus-like thing about creating something in your own image, about being in love with your own image,'' he said, ''is the continued and continuous existence of this segment of the Navy as a male preserve.''
What few mention is the likelihood that the Navy is pushing ahead with the female submariner program to avoid involvement of the US Supreme Court, scheduled to hear a case this May, Bishop vs. the State of Connecticut. Captain Bridget Bishop, an accomplished career naval officer argues that prohibiting women from serving aboard submarines limits their career potential. "If history and social progress are any measure, this rule keeping women serving their country in submarines, one of the last forms of discrimination, is not tenable," says Rachael Perperam.
"In the past, all right, there were solid reasons to keep the submarine force all male," said Lt. Commander Katrina Van Tassel, sitting in the officers' ward room, which serves as dining hall, conference room, chapel and, in case of medical emergencies, operating room. "But this is the 21-st century, women can vote, drive cars, wear pants--why can't they be in charge of a nuclear attack sub?"
Chief Petty Officer Doug Wilson disagrees. "Close quarters with mixed crews produce romantic relationships. Our culture has given up on sexual purity, so why do we expect people will magically become `professional' and abstinent once they are crammed together inside a 350 tube?" He shakes his head. "I went to submarines to get a breather from my wife and her mother. Especially her mother. Now I have to spend 60 days underwater with women? You know how long they take in the bathroom."
"I can tell you one thing," Lt. Bright says, "we may or may not have a woman president this time next year, but we will have women submarines at sea. Move over, sailor."
Reporting was contributed by Scope Handley, Tip Biggelow, and other employees of The New York Times.

"I went to submarines to get a breather from my wife and her mother. Especially her mother. Now I have to spend 60 days underwater with women? You know how long they take in the bathroom."

Look at the date of the article and take note of some of the names and quotes. This is an April Fools joke. They got ya....hook, line and sinker.

"But those issues are the same issues that so many people said couldn’t be overcome when putting women on surface ships was being considered. Close quarters, romantic involvement, outrage by Navy servicemen’s wives, etc. etc."

No, they are not the same. They are magnified many times over and the surface fleet has not dealt successfully with the the problems at their level.

"Other countries including Australia, Canada, Norway, and Spain already have women serving on subs. So, it can be done."

Irrelevant. Most of the countries you listed have men and women living in the same berthing areas and using the same sanitary facilities. That's definitely the case for Canada, Norway and Sweden. They also get underway for a matter of days at the most, not months at a time like US boats. You are also equating Americans with people in other countries. We are not the same. We are different. Our social mores and attitudes are different from most of the western world. Apples and oranges.

[forcedj]

Originally Posted by SOBERSUBMRNR

"I went to submarines to get a breather from my wife and her mother. Especially her mother. Now I have to spend 60 days underwater with women? You know how long they take in the bathroom."

Look at the date of the article and take note of some of the names and quotes. This is an April Fools joke. They got ya....hook, line and sinker.

"But those issues are the same issues that so many people said couldn’t be overcome when putting women on surface ships was being considered. Close quarters, romantic involvement, outrage by Navy servicemen’s wives, etc. etc."

No, they are not the same. They are magnified many times over and the surface fleet has not dealt successfully with the the problems at their level.

"Other countries including Australia, Canada, Norway, and Spain already have women serving on subs. So, it can be done."

Irrelevant. Most of the countries you listed have men and women living in the same berthing areas and using the same sanitary facilities. That's definitely the case for Canada, Norway and Sweden. They also get underway for a matter of days at the most, not months at a time like US boats. You are also equating Americans with people in other countries. We are not the same. We are different. Our social mores and attitudes are different from most of the western world. Apples and oranges.

Yeah, they got me alright. But I halfway thought it was bogus since it was posted on that gaming site and couldn't be found on the NYT site.

Maybe you weren't around for the integration of women to the surface but all the reason the subsurface community are saying it can’t be done are exactly the reason the surface community said it couldn’t be done back in the early 90s. I agree that they are amplified. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be overcome. How do you mean the surface community hasn’t dealt with those issues?

And suggesting that those other countries having women on subs is irrelevant because we’re so much different is bogus. I didn’t suggest that it’s exactly the same. It’s just a comparison. Exactly whose mores in this country are so different that it prevents women from going on subs and how so? On one hand submariners are saying that the community’s mores are too different from the rest of society. But what I hear you saying is that American mores are too different from the rest of the westernized world.

Dan

[rmmpe]

How is it that people never having made an extended cruise on a Sub can be experts about them?

[forcedj]

Originally Posted by rmmpe

How is it that people never having made an extended cruise on a Sub can be experts about them?

I know...or if you've only made cruises on a sub that you can be an expert on crew integration?