Mixed Feelings – Bubblehead Women
On one hand I suppose it is a good thing the the sub-jockeys finally get to serve with women, on the other hand I’m not sure this is a good thing for the The Navy or our national defense?
First Women to Report to Subs Graduate
Groton– The women who will be the first to report to their submarines graduated Friday from the Naval Submarine School.
Nineteen women completed the 10-week officer basic course, along with 73 men. Eight women graduated from the course in July but went on to further training.
Friday’s graduates have finished the six months of Nuclear Power School, six months of Naval Nuclear Prototype Training and the officer course. Some report to their submarines as early as next week.
I’m emphatically NOT a misogynist! Might just be my age or experience, but I do think the jury is still out concerning women on combat ships of all kinds. I’m not saying they can’t do the job in many cases, only that I’m unsure they SHOULD be doing it on combat ships.
Category: Geezer Alert!, Navy, Pointless blather, Politics
Worked with a young lady contractor in Norfolk a few of years ago. She was a nuke officer on carriers. She made it to Lt. Commander, and face-planted on the glass ceiling. Had she been able to go on subs, she’d still be in, and getting promoted.
The Navy’s loss was Booz Allen Hamilton’s gain.
I’m mixed. During my career in the Navy (Aviation side) I’ve worked with women that were hard workers and could do their job and quite well. On the other hand, I’ve had some bad experiences with women Sailors. However, in their stead, I would say that I’ve had just as many bad experiences with male Sailors. Dirtbags & slackers come in both sexes, I suppose. As far as I’m concerned, the jury is still out.
Gives new meaning to Hot Cotting. Ya’ know it had to be said.
Can these girls lift hatches on their own, or are they going to literally die in a fire to appease some fucking equality commission?
so if all Hell breaks loose will it be “women and girl friends first”?
tough call this – and an offhand remark could end a career.
I was in the Strategic Air Command for 6 years. General Lemay said;” No women on my bases”. Period. I made the statement on another website that I thought it was a good thing. Of course some young female E3 took me to task by informing me that not all women joined the military looking for a husband. She sort of forgot all those horney hairy legs and a whole bunch of hiding places on bombers and heavies. Then I got to thinking, not one air command (4) I was in allowed mixing. Then I saw her picture in her profile and figured she didn’t have to worry too much about men. Women…maybe.
>so if all Hell breaks loose will it be “women and girl friends first”?
EXACTLY! Relationships are a weakness in any unit that may experience combat, and you can’t tell me something as close as a sub won’t experience relationships. I know if I served with my husband in a unit; I would be his weakness. I can guarantee despite caring about the men serving with him; his first priority would be to get me out alive. It isn’t a great reality-it just is what it is. He instinctively would protect me.
As a submariner, I have no problem with women on boats. I do have a problem with two tiers of standards. Those required of men and a different set for women. Get rid of separate PT standards, get rid of any advancement preference, get rid of separate berthing,etc. Make everyone the same and it will be OK.
Being a realist, that shit will never happen. Rough seas ahead.
2549 #8: There it is!
BTW, what do you folks know about rough seas? Ever seen a carrier take water over the flight deck? Oh wait… Not through a periscope? [grin]
The only thing on a carriers flight deck worth looking at through the periscope is the flare put there by the boat you surface couldn’t find. 😉
Most of the serious problems that occur in any mixed group of personnel seem to be when different standards are applied. Whatever group is singled out for the “special” treatment suffers, the unit suffers, and the service suffers.
All that said, in the interest of full disclosure, my military and civilian assignments were always in previously all-male careers. I did just fine, got earned promotions, and I was an asset to my units. Because I met ALL the requirements to do the job and expected and accepted no special treatment. (I retired when I felt that I could no longer pull my weight. As did most of my male counterparts.)
So, yes, it CAN work, but probably won’t. When standards of performance for a job are changed, failure is guaranteed.
@#8: Exactly! The old double-standards. I saw that first hand when the Navy started to send women to aviation squadrons. Different PT quals, etc.
The even bigger problem on a sub, to my mind is the issue of pregnancy, because it WILL happen, and sooner, rather than later. Then it will be a big decision. First off, whomever is the father is done being a sailor., His career is toast, and he’ll be facing mast at a minimum.
Second, the skipper will have to decide whether or not to abort his mission to set the female ashore. If he waits to long, or she tries to hide her condition, she very well might not be able to get OFF the boat, due to the small hatches and her embiggening condition. If THAT happens, then there will be hell to apy, because she will be forced to remain aboard until the baby is delivered, and that kid will be born aboard ship. No telling whether the Corpsman have any obstetrics training, let alone pre-natal.
Some things are best left alone. Even though nothing was broken, the rat-bastard diversity zampolits have forced this issue upon a good Navy. They decided to “fix” something that was working just fine.
Somehow I don’t think any of the new graduates will look like Lauren Holly did in uniform in Down Periscope.
>because she will be forced to remain aboard until the baby is delivered, and that kid will be born aboard ship
I am not a doctor, but isn’t the pressure bad on a pregnancy? I know I couldn’t scuba while I was pregnant and the pressure was one of the reason..
2549–okay, another submariner perspective coming here. 1–I’ve no doubt women can “do the job”, as they’ve been on carriers for almost two decades now. But the bigger issue is can they do the job IN THAT ENVIRONMENT? 2–This is a very limited group so far–three women assigned to each of four SSBN crews (and these women are all officers). What happens if the powers that be declare this to be a success and open it to enlisted? Sorry, you can’t tell me that success in a wardroom will translate to the blueshirt level, IF you have success at the first level. 3–Career advancement–In the submarine community, at least in the officer side, advancement and eventual screening for Department Head/XO/CO is dependent upon “balanced” tours with SSN and SSBN experience. It’s not a career killer, but certainly doesn’t help if you spend your entire career on one or the other. So now we have females who are taking all the SSBN billets but can’t (yet) serve on SSN’s. We also have to deal with the fact that currently, female nuke SWO retention is, to put it nicely, in the shitter (less than half of male retention.) 4–Medical–Females and pregnancy/unplanned losses will become an issue at this point, more so if female enlisted are allowed on the boats. Look, I know MOST women aren’t going to get pregnant to avoid deployment or any other reason. But even if one gets pregnant, regardless of reason, it’s a HUGE impact on the readiness, especially in the wardroom. Now you’ve got one JO short that another JO is going to have to cover DCA, RCA, E-Div, whatever. The biggest medical concern is twofold: exposure to the fetus (frankly minimal, but don’t think NAVSEA isn’t going to pull her off the boat as soon as they find out) and atmospheric contaminants and their effect on the fetus. The latter is the bigger question. My biggest problem with putting women on boats comes down to wanting to spend money on possibly having to deal with habitability issues in a time where the current administration is looking to… Read more »
I think that putting women in combat as a whole is a bad idea. Maybe I AM a misogynist. I DON’T CARE! I don’t like the idea of women in combat situations. As far as subs go, most men are able to absorb a few stray rads here and there. Females are too. But just you wait till the first female shacks up next to the reactor, or gets anywhere near the damn thing in the first three months of pregnancy. Guess what. That thing is going to come out all sorts of fucked up, because while its safe for adults, its NOT safe for developing fetuses. that’s why the Tiger Cruises don’t let them anywhere NEAR the reactor compartment.
Lets ask another serious question. What do you think will happen 10-20 years down the road when females have pervaded the command structure, and we have to accommodate them at every turn. Its a headache that will cost time, money and possibly lives. For what purpose? To say that we’re not sexist? Unless its a survival situation FEMALES SHOULD NOT GO TO WAR! Period Fucking DOT!
There are no medical reasons why a woman can’t serve on subs. If a girl comes forward about being knocked up, if a nuke, she’ll crank for the remainder of the patrol. If she’s a cone, there will be no changes. She won’t go aft, that’s it. Guys do stupid shit underway, too. Two separate patrols, we had to medivac someone off the boat following halfway night. Split tails won’t be any different. We had women on board for extended times often. Some were contractor, some were middies. Their vaginas didn’t fall out after a week of inhaling amine and atomized 2190.
I’ll repeat what I said earlier, the only downside is the inevitable double standard. If a girl gets knocked up, send the baby to Grandma and Grandpa, momma’s due for a sea tour. No more hand holding, coddling and easy breaks. No changes to berthing. She can get the bottom bunk in her divisions bunkroom just like every the other nub. Women are perfectly capable of doing the job. It’s about time we started expecting them to.
Hey Zero, the Navy is generally not my most knowledgable topic of conversation, but I distinctly remember some convoluted rational on why women were suddently allowed on subs. The underlining reasons why they weren’t allowed before were never resolved, I think Gates pushed it or accepted it. One of those “Its time” moments. Hint DOD its not.
We see this same nonlogic being pushed with the combat arms in the Army/Marines. If we had an honest discussion about women and their aptitudes, many of the current MOSs would be closed.
@17 Actually there has been very good studies that state the low level neutron radiation in the reactor spaces would be enough to horribly deform a fetus in the first three weeks. (they tested it on monkeys)
I believe that in Subs there is a good rationale for an all female crew, or an all male crew, but the cramped quarters and high pressure can cause serious problems between the sexes.
What society, in their right mind, send women into harms way, when there are able bodied men sitting at home?
“I’m emphatically NOT a misogynist!”
Dude, you are.
But that’s ok, you’re not in the decision loop on these matters. Some of the men, and women, will be stupid, and the rest will act professionally.
As with any change, get on board, or get out of the way.
Y’all are missing a vital problem. By its very nature, Submarine duty is an emotionally high pressure environment. The divorce rates for Submariners is the highest in the Navy, and has been for years. Now let’s add women to the crew. Yeah… That’ll help.
Is it going to happen? It’s happening. Is it a good idea? Not in my opinion. YMMV
We all know you are not a misogynist Zero. If you were, you would have M.D. after after your name.
LL #21: I disagree across the board, I’m afraid.
There a thousands of careers where women should, and must, be considered equal to men. And I love women – 18 to 80, blind, crippled, or crazy!
It’s hardly sexist to acknowledge that there ARE jobs,and job locations, where one gender is better equipped to deal with than another. Further, it is NOT misogynistic to acknowledge that ‘coed’ crews on combat ships may not be a good idea even IF both genders can perform most jobs equally.
But yeah, I am certainly out of the direct decision making loop, I’ll give you that one.
@#21: I’m with Pons on this one. He and I have both been in the fleet, as have others in this thread. We all have seen what happens when the Navy, or any other branch, is used by the PC/Diversity zampolits as a petri dish for their social engineering experiments. It isn’t pretty.
Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean that you SHOULD.
I am much too old-fashioned to even get into this argument. Back when I was in the military, (think M-1 Garand, .30LMG, etc.), there were women wearing the uniform of all branches. They got promoted, they had their own PT standards, they were not working in fear of losing the promotion to a man. They were fulfilling a very needed position. They were WAC’s, WAVE’s, WAF’s, and BAM’s. Whoever deprived them of their own duty and operation has this all on his shoulders. Some of today’s youth, (military types), are still possessed with a chivilrous vein, and as Melle pointed out in #7, this would be very distractive to the effort.
If it is allowed to go forward, will we make it truly equal, with communal stools in the head, group showers, and berthing? That is the equality sought is it not?
Regarding the Navy’s exquisite Political Correctness (thank you, ADM Roughead!), folks may wish to investigate the curious case of Captain Holly Graf. Like dozens of skippers, she was fired for cause. But, she remains in service, at the rank of Captain, and may make RADM, lower half – or whatever they call it these days.
2 standards undermine good order and discipline.
The Navy may wish to consider forbidding marriage among junior rates until they hit Senior Chief/Commander.
I know I’m more or less inviting a dogpile, but I definitely have a different opinion. I think the worst outcome of this is just going to be people’s perception of change. All I can speak for is my own experience as a surface sailor that worked in reactor spaces, as well as being the first enlisted female in a department that had been previously male only. 1. In 4 years since integration the ratio of male/female in my dep’t was apx 350:40. During those years I recall only 3 females getting pregnant. 2 were married and both opted to give up their careers to keep their children. The other miscarried and returned to duty in her division. In my dep’t no one got pregnant on purpose to avoid deployment, mostly I think because the alternate duty for pregnant female nukes was pretty shitty and because its humiliating to have the stigma of being a shitbag slacker. In contrast, during 4 years we lost 6 males to drug use, 2 to injury, 1 to awol, 1 to death on leave, and probably 3 more to disciplinary action. The loss of talent to circumstance happens all the time for all kinds of reasons. As far as limited officer billets go, that’s nothing new either. What difference would it make if the billet was filled by a male or female? It’s still filled the same. 2. Why should a woman’s life be of more value than a man’s? Sending a female into harm’s way isn’t any different than sending a male. I’m only speaking of naval service because that’s all I know, I can guess that circumstances might be different in infantry positions. 3. There should be one set of standards. I met male pt standards without too much difficulty. If there was a single standard you’d weed out the weak, male and female. I’m thinking of those who were on fat boy remedial pt. There were too many chubby people, male and female. 4. This is just a personal comment, but it really sucks to be thought of as unworthy, unwanted,… Read more »
Ugh sorry you guys! Typing on a phone sucks sometimes, didn’t mean to spam you out.
Squidthoughts. Actually, I do not believe anyone here thinks you or those of your gender to be unworthy, unwanted, or inferior. It’s more of a hunter-gatherer view with males as fighters and protectors and women as mothers and caretakers. For many American males, women are on a pedestal and the dirty, stinking work is part of the male domain from which women are to be protected. Another aspect of this is the distraction factor. Men–especially young men–are usually thinking all sorts of X-rated things when they are in proximity to a female. I’m not the spokesperson for the males of our species but that’s my take.
ST, I hear you and respect your opinion. I’m an RN now, so I’m not unused to working with or for women and have no problems with it that way. The problem in the Submarine Service is the isolation of the crew from all contact with home. I have no doubt a female can operate any of the systems on the Boat, nor do I think there would be insurmountable physical health concerns. The real problem is enforced, constant, never ending proximity between these men and women on patrol. Unlike a surface craft, you can’t find a space on a Submarine where you can be truly alone except your bunk. The constant exposure to each other is difficult enough with an all male crew. Throw in some women and your throwing sand in the gears. When (not if) a male and a female Sub sailor first become a couple, there will be no place for either of them to escape if the relationship goes south. NO WHERE. And if it doesn’t go bad… If they become freaking “Romeo and Juliet” there is also no where for them to get any “alone” time and any attempt of them to do so will engender unrest amongst the rest of the crew. Meanwhile, don’t think that the spouses onshore aren’t going to be freaked by this. Most Bubblehead wives know exactly how cramped and intensely integrated a Submarine crew is. They are going to look at these female sailors as real threats, increasing the pressure on the families as well. I predict an increase in all sorts of unnecessary drama including an increase in expressed suicidal ideation/attempts, divorce amongst the married sailors (male AND female), fistfights and worse amongst crews that used to be the tightest in the Navy.
>Squidthoughts. Actually, I do not believe anyone here thinks you or those of your gender to be unworthy, unwanted, or inferior.
I don’t get that from you guys either.. We are different, and you like a lot of females also acknowledge this.
>It’s more of a hunter-gatherer view with males as fighters and protectors and women as mothers and caretakers.
Again, I am no shrinking violet as y’all know, but I am happy there are still men with this ideal. My husband is such a man. I have never lacked for respect. He thinks I am the most capable person in the world, and encourages whatever I want to do in life.
ST #28: 4. This is just a personal comment, but it really sucks to be thought of as unworthy, unwanted, and inferior just because of something you have no control of…your gender.
That does suck, and I can empathize a bit. In my case it sucks to be old and infirm. Practically speaking, I have about as much control over that as you do your gender.
Your item 3 intrigues me though. I’m NOT talking solely about common physical and/or mental standards either.
It has been 40 plus years since I set foot on a ship while in uniform so keep that in mind, if you will.
I was on four different ships (by choice and timing)and they each had Officer Country, The Goat Locker and crew quarters divided up by MOS/job description, etc. What the Navy called divisions.
As a division we worked together, went to GQ together, shit, showered, shaved, and slept, together. Likely as not we went on liberty together and the like. Notice, please, I pointedly did not say we were all friends.
That is what I would call a single set of standards.
I think this horse has been beaten so badly Nietzsche is slobbering from insanity. There will be troubles and growing pains. Who knows what is going to happen untill it happens we can second guess this until we are blue in the face, but honestly we don’t know for sure. Some sailors will have a problem with it and others won’t let’s just hope that they remember that they are sailors first and not let the fact that a woman (or man) is close by throw them off their game.
I’d like to say thanks for respecting my opinion, and I respect all of yours as well. It’s kinda moot since most of us are done and out, but the important point is probably we’ve served and therefore earned the right to speak our mind, whatever that may be. In the end it’s the current servicemembets that have to deal with it, not us la-z -boy pontificants. 🙂 Melle, bubblehead, and aircav I think you all made good points. Zero, #33 what you said makes a lot of sense and resonated with me. It is much the same as when I was in, divisions were together in almost every situation. And you’re right: it didn’t mean we had to like each other. Because tete were so few nuke females, they just berthed us all randomly together. Which was mostly fine except when most of the people had nice normal day schedules like personnel and supply. It was hell being on five and dimes trying to sleep when they were hanging out in berthing. But I digress. We lost a lot of camaraderie not being in divisional berthing. I guess what I was really trying to say was, if I could have I would have volunteered for subs. But I wasn’t allowed to, because I accidentally ended up female. I was good at my job and am proud to be the 1%: those who give the blank check payable for up to and including their life. I just don’t like knowing there’s opportunities I missed because and only because of my gender. I know you all here aren’t saying I’m inferior but that’s what male-only sea billets made me feel. However we argue it, it’s exclusion. If I wasn’t qualified or didn’t meet standards (and I am emphatically for one standard), I get it. But to say no females on subs because they distract the men….well let me on right now, i’ll fix that most Ricky-tick. 🙂 I can only imagine how much more difficult a deployment is on a sub vs. surface ship. I don’t know what the answer is.… Read more »
I’ll say this squidthoughts. First, you’re okay in my book. Second, I would not get on a sub if it was in drydock–or wherever they put submarines for their oil changes and lubes. I would rather hang from a skid by one arm at 5,000 feet than be in one of those things! And I kid you not.
>However we argue it, it’s exclusion. If I wasn’t qualified or didn’t meet standards (and I am emphatically for one standard), I get it. But to say no females on subs because they distract the men….well let me on right now, i’ll fix that most Ricky-tick
Squid, you have my utmost respect for doing what you do 🙂
By the way for those of us who never had the opportunity (me a shovel grunt) to ride on a sub. The closest I have ever come is the USS Drum in Mobile.
Is there a way to ride in one? Post service like civilian tour company? …damn I am scatterbrained today.
@39/40 Your idea of a good time is being packed into a nuclear-powered missile that you can’t see out of as it travels submerged in very deep water? Jeez. You can have my seat, Jason.
>@39/40 Your idea of a good time is being packed into a nuclear-powered missile that you can’t see out of as it travels submerged in very deep water? Jeez. You can have my seat, Jason.
LMAO– I know Hawaii had little yellow subs(nothing like the navy) where you submerged to see fish. I think in the military “the other stuff” people do is ALWAYS cooler than what you are doing. I know with my kids they are soooo bored with Army helicopters. They get excited when the humvees and tanks are out. 🙂
Squid said: “Why should a woman’s life be more valuable than a man’s”
Well at one point the entire human race was down to 40 breeding females. How many males were there? doesn’t matter. Say we got into one of those truly horrific wars that always seem to be just over the horizon, and in the nightmares of Generals. Say we had a slaughter of Civil War proportions. Fully 10% of the male population died. The US was actually quick to recover, and thrived after the south was reconstructed. Why? Because the casualties were all MALE.
we have Famines (which are pretty indiscriminate but usually strike children and elderly first) where comperable numbers of both sexes died. They took decades and in some cases centuries to recover from. Why? cuz females died too. It may be cold, it may be sexist, but males as a group are far more expendable than females.
Lastly, not picking on you Navy types, but really when is the last time a USN ship came under direct attack? USS Cole? that was in 2000, and that was a one off event. Even the two Perry class that were hit by Exocents in the 80’s were one off deals. There hasn’t been a BATTLE on the high seas since well really the Battle of Okinawa. We haven’t had destroyers acting as sacrificial lambs, and carriers nearly sunk with over a third of their crew killed or missing. Granted, the Army has not had some of the desperate no holds barred battles that they make movies about, like Tet, but my point is, we are NOT thinking about combat. We are thinking status quo. PC or not, Sensitive or not, these “equality” policies will get people killed.
as the saying goes “war does not determine who is right or wrong, only who is left” I’d make damn sure that we were the only ones standing at the end of the day, not worry about the self actualization of my subordinates.
Two names for ya Doc. Thresher and Scorpion. Submarines are designed to sink, but it can be a bitch to get them to resurface.
As the Russians found out a while back.
The Russians were good at making subs that dove really well… The resurfacing part was what they weren’t so good at. They were also good at sending cosmonauts up…getting them back…poor lakita.
#28 Some thoughts… “1. In 4 years since integration the ratio of male/female in my dep’t was apx 350:40. During those years I recall only 3 females getting pregnant.” As a side note, I think the nuke department(is that what the Navy calls it?) has/had traditionally a tougher time filling billets. That could mean the few women in said, are more motivated or selected. That could be good or bad, hopefully I’ll expand a bit below. “2 were married and both opted to give up their careers to keep their children. The other miscarried and returned to duty in her division. In my dep’t no one got pregnant on purpose to avoid deployment, mostly I think because the alternate duty for pregnant female nukes was pretty shitty and because its humiliating to have the stigma of being a shitbag slacker. In contrast, during 4 years we lost 6 males to drug use, 2 to injury, 1 to awol, 1 to death on leave, and probably 3 more to disciplinary action. The loss of talent to circumstance happens all the time for all kinds of reasons.” Separation(or assignment to other tasks) for pregnancy is a little different then for disciplinary. This factors into replacements for crews, since the pregnant are still on the rolls. The slots held by disciplinaries are cleansed or opened, and then can be filled again. Not exactly an expert on the USN personel system, going by what I can remember from what I’ve read. Admittingly much of that came form the 90s and may be outdated. “…be As far as limited officer billets go, that’s nothing new either. What difference would it make if the billet was filled by a male or female? It’s still filled the same.” Again see above about the pregnancy issue. Two, there might be the strength issue(again unsure of this one) for said MOS Three, there is the moral issue. Four, mentioned above is the whole disruption of the social dynamic among men. Even police officers are generally not in close quarters for anywhere near such an extended amount of time. There… Read more »
I seem to remember reading the November class was perfectly designed. To kill its crew(really brilliant Idea throwing CO2 into the fire suppression system. You didn’t think you might want to tell the crew about that first?). I’m sure the K-19(Reactor accident. . .several), K-129 (sunk while trying to launch a missile *reportedly*), K-219(missile fuel mixing with sea water, caused fire and big boom) and Kursk are still fresh in their memories.
Supposedly Scorpion was sunk as revenge for K-129, but that’s all speculation. I do know that Thresher sunk because some idiot decided to do a depth charge test right before a test dive (in waters that they could not possibly have recovered the boat) Also as a handy feature to prevent foreign objects from getting into the ballast tanks, a wire mesh was put right over the valve. Anyone remember from science class what happens when High pressure is released quickly into low pressure? Yup The mesh froze over, preventing any air from getting to the ballast tanks.
It is a brave man that wants to jump in a steel can with a bunch of seamen and intentionally sink, still marginally more intelligent than getting in an aircraft where the wings move faster than the aircraft itself.
Squid, I want to make it clear I’m not looking down on you for your service. Hell you should be proud. But there are issues we’ve never dealt with as a society. If this were s SCI-Fi novel and we were all given suits of armor where physical endurance wasn’t as much an issue (a la Starship Troopers) I could see integrating combat arms. But if you ever read that, there were armed guards at the female’s berthing. I think it would take that much to stop fraternization, and even then it would be hard to stop.
We want to play these equality games because we want to somehow move beyond our monkeyish ancestery. But it doesn’t work that way. Believe it or not the structure, and even the chemistry of male and female brains are different. HOW information is processed and relayed are completely different. As has been stated men are very action oriented. The simple question a person might ask themselves “what do I do to get the desired result” will produce wildly different answers between the sexes. We’ve never stopped to ask where Women SHOULD be and where men should be. what places should they be together, what places shouldn’t they be?
We just keep merrily “breaking down barriers” without any thought to the consequences of our actions. One great example, it is easy for a man to have a family and a military career. For a woman. . . unless she uses a surrogate or adopts. . .not so much. Time and again we fail to ask these questions. Honestly I think Submarines is one step too far, but hold on to your hats folks cuz it’s Ranger School and BUDs next!
As stated previously, I’ve no doubt women are capable of running a power plant or virtually any other job on a submarine–witness Squid as a female nuke. Lugging on shore power cables or rigging a motor might be a bit more of a challenge, but nothing a little extra teamwork might overcome. It’s the ENVIRONMENT. I’ve served on boats (2 SSN’s) and surface–briefly on the Proteus which was (virtually) all-male and the Holland which was mixed crew. There were sex issues, but dealt with swiftly and harshly (including one frocked chief getting busted back to E-5 before he got shitcanned.) But at the end of the day, the ISOLATION is going to be the big issue. Yeah, I dated a girl when I was on the tender. No, I didn’t marry her, we just kind of went our separate ways. But as Ray has stated, unlike a tender, a submarine is a COMBATANT vessel designed to be at sea for long periods of time. There is no place to go to get away, and I would even venture to say the bunk isn’t all that private. About the best you’re going to get is the BEQ when you’re in port and off duty, which frankly ain’t that often. Sorry, squid, but I just don’t see the girls hanging out with the boys and killing a shitload of booze up on the hill barracks (Animal House) at Pearl after a 75 day point-to-point underway. And what happens the first time a female goes for a checkout and gets thrown out because she doesn’t have the requisite LOK? I will say this–outside the plant, the ease of checkouts for ESWS compared to ship’s quals on a boat was the difference between Dick and Jane versus post-graduate. No comparison. Anyone who says ESWS is as hard as getting your fish is full of shit and has no clue of what they’re talking about. Personal prediction? Maybe 2-3 of these women screen for department head after their JO tours, and big Navy declares success, spending more money we don’t have to reconfigure 688’s and… Read more »
@28- ST: RE div had a conveniently timed pregnancy, with a female electrician missing both the last workup cruise and the ’99 deployment. Adding a bit of resentment to that atmosphere was that a guy in RE’s wife had their child while we were underway, and the RO refused to fly him off to be there for it. Not the same by any means, but other departments were known to make such exceptions (two out of the eight people who flew off when I left the ‘Dub during the ’02 deployment were going home for their childs’ birth). Ours could not, he was told, because Rx was understaffed. The request chit, approved by the RE chain but denied by the RO and XO, was a bit of a bloody shirt. @17- There’s a problem with your solution- that woman nuke is still sucking up a billet, still attached to the boat, and not supporting her division. Someone else has to suck up her maintenance assignments, her watches, and her field day duties. That may make the difference between a 4×8 or a 6×6 watch rotation or the difference between port and starboard or three section duty. @49- Some women are shitbags, the same as men. Some trade on their sexuality to earn an easier go at it. Those women quickly lose respect. I can tell you for a fact what happens when a woman is thrown out of a check, because I have done it. She comes back when her knowledge is SAT, and tries again. That was for watchstation quals though. ESWS is a joke to everyone involved. Rx department makes people learn that a rock burns to heat water, and that’s it. There was an HM3 in my board who didn’t know how many aircraft elevators the ship had, and he passed. Dolphins could mean life and death if there’s a fire on a sub. ESWS means nothing on a carier, because there will never be a time when there are airdales going into the pit to put out a fire, or Crawling under deckplates to patch a… Read more »