Article

2010-05-07 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

Women on Subs - Ecstatic, Thankful, Blessed

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2010-05-07 06:27|| || Front Page|| [11132 views ] Top

#1 "Mostly, I think we're excited about just serving in whatever role the Navy needs....

Navy needs? Yea right. Enjoy your semi-private head and shower oh privileged ones.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-05-07 06:42|| 2010-05-07 06:42|| Front Page Top

#2 I wouldn't be so quick to ridicule them, Besoeker.

Not because they're female. But because the time is rapidly coming when we will be grateful if anyone chooses to serve - at least, to really serve rather than hold a job with a funny uniform. I'm seeing good people plan their retirements, or get out early, all around me - people whose dedication has kept us safe. We will be very sorry when our military resembles that of Germany.

Posted by lotp 2010-05-07 07:05|| 2010-05-07 07:05|| Front Page Top

#3 Anyone who wants to live for extended periods of time several hundred feet under the water, male or female, has my respect.

Posted by Steve White 2010-05-07 08:00|| 2010-05-07 08:00|| Front Page Top

#4 Remember that DARPA is developing a satellite capability to look through the oceans, to spot submarines. Once this is proven possible, every country that can buy a high altitude aircraft to do the same, will, to watch "its" ocean.

Then every submarine in "their" turf gets its own surface ship escort.

Posted by Anonymoose 2010-05-07 08:08|| 2010-05-07 08:08|| Front Page Top

#5 The first female U.S. Naval Academy graduates who will be able to serve as officers aboard submarines said Thursday they feel ecstatic, thankful and blessed by the chance to break one of the military's last gender barriers</em>

No ridicule lotp, only disgust. How about being "blessed" to serve a grateful nation?

Posted by Besoeker 2010-05-07 08:22|| 2010-05-07 08:22|| Front Page Top

#6 What's long and hard and full of Sea Men?

Posted by DepotGuy 2010-05-07 10:44|| 2010-05-07 10:44|| Front Page Top

#7 My nephew served on the USS Augusta (SSN-710) until last year. I'm curious what his take on this is.

Posted by xbalanke 2010-05-07 11:23|| 2010-05-07 11:23|| Front Page Top

#8 Of course, the women will be only serving in the deoartments in the front end. They'll never serve in the engineering department because of all the zoomies (radiation). it has always been the hardest to man (no pun) fully because of the tighter restrictions.

RKC ET1SS

Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839 2010-05-07 12:13|| 2010-05-07 12:13|| Front Page Top

#9 We'll see. Ecstatic, thankful and blessed sometimes turns to complaining and lawsuits in a short time.

I'm not sayin, I'm just...well...sayin.

Posted by bigjim-CA 2010-05-07 12:15|| 2010-05-07 12:15|| Front Page Top

#10

Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2010-05-07 12:22|| 2010-05-07 12:22|| Front Page Top

#11 Long ago and far away [1967 - 1969] I did several 90 day "rides" on the USS Blueback [SS-581]followed by a couple aboard the USS Shark [SS-591] ; from those experiences, I can only wonder how this is going to work out. Granted newer boats offer a bit more room and "privacy" in Officers Quarters however, an officer won't be spending all of her time in her "room."

Posted by ~dnt 2010-05-07 12:44|| 2010-05-07 12:44|| Front Page Top

#12 RE: menstrual cycles. Yes, a group of women will cycle together after a few months. The answer to that is to put them on birth control pills without a break for the duration of the cruise. No cycles, no PMS, no problem. I believe there are injections now, which means there's no worries about individuals forgetting to take their meds.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-05-07 12:54|| 2010-05-07 12:54|| Front Page Top

#13

Posted by gorb 2010-05-07 13:23|| 2010-05-07 13:23|| Front Page Top

#14 The answer to that is to put them on birth control pills without a break for the duration of the cruise.

So devout Roman Catholics need not apply?

Posted by No I am the other Beldar 2010-05-07 13:29|| 2010-05-07 13:29|| Front Page Top

#15 So devout Roman Catholics need not apply?

Serving in the military is a privilege not a right. get over it.

Posted by abu do you love 2010-05-07 13:42|| 2010-05-07 13:42|| Front Page Top

#16 Bravo Abu! Bravo!

Posted by Besoeker 2010-05-07 13:45|| 2010-05-07 13:45|| Front Page Top

#17 Well, gorb, it's enlightening to see that you consider female officers to be whores.

It says a great deal more about you than about them. But I'll pass along the sentiment next time I see some of my female friends and colleagues who've come home wounded.

Posted by lotp 2010-05-07 13:55|| 2010-05-07 13:55|| Front Page Top

#18 So abu, you are saying it is OK to force women to take birth control over religious objections when it has NO BEARING on their technical ability? Or are you saying that women during menses are irrational and incapable of serving?

Which is is you bigoted POS?

Posted by No I am the other Beldar 2010-05-07 14:04|| 2010-05-07 14:04|| Front Page Top

#19 Same goes for you, Besoeker, you Afrikaner wannabe. Which kind of bigot are you?

Als, explain this, If Afrikaners were so superior warriors, why is "your" country is no more?

I have no patience when it comes to neanderthals.

Posted by No I am the other Beldar 2010-05-07 14:15|| 2010-05-07 14:15|| Front Page Top

#20 And in case either of you knuckledraggers forget, these are USNA graduates we are talking about here, cream oif the crop, as well them passing a rigourous tech school. Additionally, they passed the same psych and other stress profiling the men passed to qualify for submarine duty, something I doubt either of you could do.

Posted by No I am the other Beldar 2010-05-07 14:19|| 2010-05-07 14:19|| Front Page Top

#21 just sick of the nearly pansy-assed whining 'what about my groups special needs'

if a group of people are crammed in a can for 6 months and there is an issue with personnel dynamics that birth control pill remedy, then that is the end. your personal preferences are not nearly as important as the functioning of the crew. too many dip-$hits have an entitlement mentality. bottom line: serving is a privilege. you don't like the terms/conditions, hit the next queue.

plenty of places where a Roman Catholic can make a positive contribution. find another or not

Posted by abu do you love 2010-05-07 14:27|| 2010-05-07 14:27|| Front Page Top

#22 Intentional use of the "pill" or all women that will serve on subs may be necessary. A fetus (or as a liberal would say 'biological mass') is very susceptible to damage from ionizing radiation and all our boats are nuclear, so, the requirements may be for the "ladies" be on the pill while underway. May even require administration by ship's corpsman. Because, you can still get a "little bit" pregnant by accident.

Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839 2010-05-07 15:10|| 2010-05-07 15:10|| Front Page Top

#23 "pill" for all women

Fixed it myself. Proofreading is my friend!

Posted by AlmostAnonymous5839 2010-05-07 15:11|| 2010-05-07 15:11|| Front Page Top

#24 The USN has over 5500 reactor years of experience with between 80 and 100 (depending on when you count) active nuclear powered ships. I am not aware of ionizing radiation issues for the crews under normal operations, apart from those working directly with the reactors, although I'll ask a friend of mine who's a sub officer to confirm that. If such a hazard existed it would have shown up as damaged sperm among male crewmen.

Posted by lotp 2010-05-07 15:19|| 2010-05-07 15:19|| Front Page Top

#25 I work with several gents that have the dolphin fish and several annapolis grads, all of them think this is stupid.

Personally I think it's a horrible idea but at least we will see the results of reproduction under compression...

Posted by Broadhead6 2010-05-07 15:19|| 2010-05-07 15:19|| Front Page Top

#26 Everybody seems a bit tense and confrontational today. Maybe it would be better to focus ire on the enemy than toward compatriots who don't share identical predilections. That said, some of the more seamy comments and snarks today are going beyond the bounds and resemble the rantings of spoiled brats. It seems to be a trend, and it's unfortunate.

As to the use of the pill by women serving in the Navy -- I'm not Catholic, but I doubt there would be any problem for a Catholic to use the pill (as long as it wasn't used as a contraception device). Since celibacy can be expected from these Navy women during deployment, I can't imagine the Church having any objection to the pill so long as it is discontinued sufficiently in advance of when sexual activity resumes.

Nonetheless, I doubt use of the pill would be necessary at all because I really doubt that menstrual cycling would adversely affect a ship -- unless all of the women had abnormal cycles with super heavy bleeding and massive pain. If the women had abnormal cycles, I would expect they would self-select out of submarine duty or, in any case, would not get medical clearance for that tour of duty.

Posted by cingold 2010-05-07 15:34|| 2010-05-07 15:34|| Front Page Top

#27 So devout Roman Catholics need not apply?

Devout Roman Catholics should not be having sex with men who are not their husbands, so the proscription on birth control does not apply.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-05-07 15:44|| 2010-05-07 15:44|| Front Page Top

#28 Well, gorb, it's enlightening to see that you consider female officers to be whores.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, lotp. You should know me better than that by now. If that's the way you want to read it go ahead. But maybe you want to take offense. It's going to be hard to argue with you if that's the way you are.

In the real world, the Navy is going to have to work hard to keep the men and the women celibate. Maybe if they made the whole submarine out of glass it might work. I know of a case at a place where I used to work where a couple crawled into the source cabinet of an ion implanter to have a little private time together. Not a lot of room there. They died because the source cabinet was nitrogen purged. Now if one of your friends has a private room, I guarantee it's going to be used by more than the intended occupant. And no, the intended occupant isn't going to be renting it out, it's just a joke.

Posted by gorb 2010-05-07 16:02|| 2010-05-07 16:02|| Front Page Top

#29 "Since celibacy can be expected from these Navy women during deployment"

-not to be snarky, but it's generally expected of both sexes during a war time float. I have a few sand-box tours w/co-ed units under my belt - to be frank, what you expect and what you inspect are generally two different things. We sent home a lot of females for pregnancy occuring in-country - obviously it takes two to tango so we also NJP'd the fathers. Also, my unit which was heavily female at the time was almost non-deployable due to the amount of preggos and post-partums. We had to send a few guys on back-to-back deployments. The system already has some issues that senior leadership is hesitant to address because many are pc scared - I see this as only adding to it. All the posts I've just read about menstrual cycles, sex in weird places, etc are the same shit some poor J.O. or Chief is going to deal with here shortly. Same shit we dealt with in iraq...my idiot jarheads fighting over females in the cans & vice-versa, desert love. The military is not a social experiment, women are more then capable of doing lots of different highly difficult jobs, I just tend to think that putting them on subs is further pc retardation.

Posted by Broadhead6 2010-05-07 16:43|| 2010-05-07 16:43|| Front Page Top

#30 . . . what you expect and what you inspect are generally two different things. . . . I just tend to think that putting them on subs is further pc retardation.

Given human nature, I'd expect that. It seems that what is needed in a fighting unit is a group of capable same-sex hetrosexuals, all sublimating their energies into their work and focused on just getting the job done. Not trying to be snarky, but really wondering . . .

What's the likelihood of all female subs, and all male subs?

And is a co-ed military a bell that could or should be unrung?

Posted by cingold 2010-05-07 17:11|| 2010-05-07 17:11|| Front Page Top

#31 Broadhead, what percent of your female subordinates who got pregnant were officers? And of those, what percent were academy grads?

Yeah, she'll be renting it out for $100/hour. And there is plenty of headroom in the newer subs. :-)

Close enough to calling them whores to be deeply offensive, gorb, your disingenuous protest notwithstanding.

Posted by lotp 2010-05-07 17:23|| 2010-05-07 17:23|| Front Page Top

#32 I think a same-sex unit that keeps their sexual pref's to themselves is the way to go. There's enough friction in an operational environment as it is even w/the most smooth functioning crew or company, you don't need to add any more variables to the mix or the sexual dynamic to 18-23 yr olds.

If you could plausibly resource a sub that's all female - fine by me. A co-ed mil is necessary today but IMHO it's more a matter of tactical environment then any job competency. I personally don't want them in the infantry, in tanks or even in some aircraft. Obviously they do lots of jobs very well and I've worked for some great female officers. The enlisted ones I observed also performed very well w/in cultural needs such as the Lioness program in Iraq and in MP situations along the same lines, but overall I'd rather they stay in CONUS billets where leaders are not playing the shell game of who to deploy because of family planning, etc, yes that makes me a neanderthal (of which I am according to the latest scientific reports :) I just don't see an added bennie by putting them on subs that are 99% men. This is not a slam on women as the men are 50% responsible for the situations that come down, I've just seen enough of the dry-land version of co-ed deployed units to want to keep it segregated.

Posted by Broadhead6 2010-05-07 17:31|| 2010-05-07 17:31|| Front Page Top

#33 LOTP, all my officer subordinates were male. My reporting senior the second time around was female (excellent person to work for) and not an academy grad - you should've heard her bitch about this particular issue and tertiary problems related to male/female crap that went on in-country. There were several female SNCOs I couldn't take over seas for the aforementioned reason. USMC is less than 11% USNA grads last I checked. Army/USAF are much grad heavier - btw - being a USNA grad in the USMC is not some sort of huge pat on the back (though I highly respect their academic pedigree) & actually most of us don't care nor really get on about where we did our college yrs. Sure, we b.s. abt what we did in college but no one gets giddy over academy grads or ivy leaguers. I personally know a lot of USNA grads, Citadel grads, Norwich, VMI, etc - my reviews are mixed at best, I've ran an ROTC unit for 3 yrs w/the same types being commissioned and I've trained military academy folks in the summers between academic yrs. At the end of the day their leadership ability is on par w/those that access through ROTC or the OCS/PLC programs. Actually, I'd say the avg college ROTC kid is maybe a little more realistic and less arrogant then the A&M, VMI & citadel guys I trained.

Will female officers on subs be less susceptible to what I've mentioned - probably and I hope so, they're obviously held to a higher standard & have some college yrs under their belt - now, what will happen eventually is that they will put enlisted females on the boats - that will be the rub I see in 5-10 yrs (no pun intended).

Posted by Broadhead6 2010-05-07 17:45|| 2010-05-07 17:45|| Front Page Top

#34 From another Neanderthal, thanks BH6. I avoid participation in these discussions because I can't express myself as well or authoritatively as you.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-05-07 17:46|| 2010-05-07 17:46|| Front Page Top

#35 To my understanding the Captain is the only person on a sub to have a room to himself and his own shower and head. If you put a woman on a sub would she need her own room and shower/head? I would think she would. Since there is almost no wasted space on a nuclear submarine, where would these facilities be located, and how will the rest of the crew feel about special privileges for these women demanding 'equal' treatment?

Posted by bigjim-CA 2010-05-07 17:50|| 2010-05-07 17:50|| Front Page Top

#36 Broadhead, I've heard the same issues WRT enlisted women from my Army colleagues. And agreed re: the fact that the commissioning source doesn't prove anything.

That said, the first female Annapolis grads in these positions will be under a lot of self- and other-imposed pressure to excel and walk a straight line. An acquaintance of mine was one of the earlier female Annapolis grads. A pilot, she's now a reserve O6 and has had flying wing command.

Come fitness tests, she always goes last in her unit. And *always* does 1 more rep than the highest score on each test and runs *just* a little faster than the fastest time among her subordinates.

These days in addition to her reserve flying she's also a pilot for a major airline.

Oh, yeah: she's also married, Roman Catholic and has 3 kids, the youngest of whom was born last month.

Posted by lotp 2010-05-07 17:52|| 2010-05-07 17:52|| Front Page Top

#37 There seems to be some confusion about the term celibate. It means not married. Chaste means not having sexual relations. I hope these women do their jobs without any problems. I do have reservations, though.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2010-05-07 18:02|| 2010-05-07 18:02|| Front Page Top

#38 Bigjim-CA, you time share, i.e. set aside time when the women use the showers. It's really not that difficult a solution - we used it in our dorms when I was an undergrad in the 70s.

Re: sexual tensions on the boats, especially the boomers with longer deployments -

what noone here has hinted at is a phenomenon my Navy boomer friend says is more common than you might think, namely opportunistic / temporary gay sex.

Posted by lotp 2010-05-07 18:03|| 2010-05-07 18:03|| Front Page Top

#39 "SINK THE TIRPITZ!" + "THE GORGE-BUSTERS"...

We'll see how this ends iff the USN, USDOD etc. has to decide iff to send ALL-FEMALE OR "MIXED" MIL UNITS-FORCES on MAHA-RUSHIAN "LEZ SERIEUZ-VOUZ" MAJOR = "AS ALWAYS, MR. PHELPS, SHOULD YOU OR ANY MEMBER OF YOUR TEAM BE CAPTURED OR KILLED, THE SECRETARY WILL DISAVOW/DENY ANY KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR ACTIONS" COVERT COMMANDO-SPECOPS MISSIONS, ALA SINO-US WAR INCLUD COLD WAR IN ASIA.

"YOU ARE THERE", AMERIKA, at PENN STATE when MADONNA-FAN ARMY COMMANDO meets the PRE-OWG BABE OF THE PRE-MMGW APOCALYPSE friend of a NAVY COMMANDO.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2010-05-07 18:40|| na 2010-05-07 18:40|| Front Page Top

#40 Close enough to calling them whores to be deeply offensive, gorb, your disingenuous protest notwithstanding.

Disingenuous as in at first it wasn't a joke and now I'm backing down? See the smiley after the statement? That means joke. It is I who should be offended by your statement Well, gorb, it's enlightening to see that you consider female officers to be whores. I never suggested it and never intended it. You are reading it wrong. My comment was on basic human nature, which is that there is going to be sex between male and female crewmembers despite the Navy's best efforts. If there is a place where crewmembers will have sex, such as a private quarters, then others are going to take advantage of it and that is where it will happen. The joke is that that space could be worth money. It is ridiculous to even entertain the thought that it would actually be sold. I had no idea that anyone would even go there when I threw that post together.

You seem to be very touchy on this thread. I'm sorry if I offended you. I certainly didn't mean to. I hope it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change what I was or am thinking because I was not thinking what you thought I was thinking when I first thought it.

Posted by gorb 2010-05-07 18:53|| 2010-05-07 18:53|| Front Page Top

#41 Problem: Exposure of reproductive cells to radiation.
Problem: Pregnancy while at under sea.
Issue: Homosexuals wanting to be in the service.
Alleged problem: Homosexuals might be more concerned with their partner than the unit in stress situations.
Solution: Homosexual submarine crews. No reproduction issues. And no partner distraction issue (if the sub fails they all die.)

Posted by Glenmore 2010-05-07 18:59|| 2010-05-07 18:59|| Front Page Top

#42 Touchy? Perhaps I am - and thanks for the apology gorb.

If I'm touchy on the subject, in part it's because when I was younger I was both hit on for sex by more than one superior AND had to deal with snide sexual comments from coworkers every time I was promoted. And no, I never slept with those execs who pressured me to. But the men around me were all too eager to assume I had, or would.

The innuendos, outright crudity and presumption were not fun to handle while also doing demanding jobs. I'm not whining - I succeeded despite them. But as an older woman now I do speak up when I see it done wrt others.

Peace?

Posted by lotp 2010-05-07 19:06|| 2010-05-07 19:06|| Front Page Top

#43 One last comment and then I'll put away my keyboard.

I've been graveside at the burials of female former students who were serving in uniform in combat theaters when they died. And I've said goodbye to others as they've deployed, wondering if they'd come back.

That they or other young women officers would be disrespected for their service just ... is not right IMO. None of them needed to serve, none of them needed to take on specialties that would put them in harms way. They did it out of a desire to serve. As did their male counterparts.

Posted by lotp 2010-05-07 19:31|| 2010-05-07 19:31|| Front Page Top

#44 I've been graveside at the burials of female former students who were serving in uniform in combat theaters when they died. lotp

A sad commentary on our society when we send our young ladies to die in battle while able bodied men squander thier youth on selfish pursuits. There is something dreadfully wrong in all of this. Dreadfully wrong. We must be nearing the end.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-05-07 19:40|| 2010-05-07 19:40|| Front Page Top

#45 what noone here has hinted at is a phenomenon my Navy boomer friend says is more common than you might think, namely opportunistic / temporary gay sex.

Now you're really going to open a can of worms.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-05-07 19:49|| 2010-05-07 19:49|| Front Page Top

#46 Peace?

Peace.

I can see what you're upset about, but please don't take these things out on me. I'd rather just see your comments about the situation directly instead of just getting blasted and nobody knowing what it was all about.

But so that you understand where I am coming from even better, let me say a couple more things, too.

That they or other young women officers would be disrespected for their service just ... is not right IMO.

My comments were not about women only. They were about both men and women. It takes two to tango. Maybe the women get the private quarters, but that is not related to my comments.

And I would hope that the guys would not be forcing themselves on the women in the sub. I had not thought of that and would be at the front of the line to stop it from happening. Hopefully the close quarters will prevent outright rapes. Sadly I believe there will be coercion. At the same time, these women want to serve in this environment, and they have weighed the risks and rewards. Some will be OK with it, and others will not. Some will have been realistic about it, and others not.

And coercion can be a two-way street that depends on attitude more than gender.

I think the Navy may have a problem here. Hopefully they will have the grace to back away from this decision if it goes poorly.

But I hope it goes well. For both goose and gander.

As for being hit on, I'm sorry you have to deal with that crap. But there is a silver lining. It means you're attractive! At least that's the way I think of it when it happens to me. Or, more accurately, I would think of it if it were to happen to me. ;-)

Posted by gorb 2010-05-07 20:45|| 2010-05-07 20:45|| Front Page Top

#47 ;-)

I'll do my best not to 'take it out on' you.

And - guys: Redneck Jim's crude language followed by comments about $100/hr and female officers? Well, I suspect I wouldn't be the only woman who would find those objectionable, especially the one after the other. Just sayin' ....

Anyway, a round of drinks on me in the Club for you all. Fred might have one of his pinups posted ....

Posted by lotp 2010-05-07 20:51|| 2010-05-07 20:51|| Front Page Top

#48 Thing From Snowy Mountain: Now you're really going to open a can of worms.

They sell cans of worms? I doubt that. How about a can of wieners? ;-)

Posted by twobyfour 2010-05-07 21:07|| 2010-05-07 21:07|| Front Page Top

#49 Just don't mention cocktail wieners, ok?

Posted by ed 2010-05-07 21:49|| 2010-05-07 21:49|| Front Page Top

#50 A sad commentary on our society when we send our young ladies to die in battle while able bodied men squander thier youth on selfish pursuits.

Bingo. To destroy a civilization forever, destroy the females half. The muslims understand and practice this to an art form.

Posted by ed 2010-05-07 21:55|| 2010-05-07 21:55|| Front Page Top

#51 "Just don't mention cocktail wieners, ok?"

I'm with the guy that got arrested, ed - and I'm a girl.

The "supervisor" should have been fired. (In addition to having the crap beaten out of him for ~~being a d*ck~~ acting like a 6-year-old.)

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-05-07 21:56|| 2010-05-07 21:56|| Front Page Top

#52 I'm thinking we need a bunch of septuagenarian to ~~man~~ people these subs. There might be a few eyesight and hearing problems--maybe a little constipation but not too many sexual problems. There are quite a few willing to go back to work at this time. Most also have the attitude that if they don't like most of the $hit that going on they won't have to put up with it for too long.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-05-07 23:22|| 2010-05-07 23:22|| Front Page Top

#53 And if you die at sea burial is not much of a problem.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-05-07 23:25|| 2010-05-07 23:25|| Front Page Top

23:56 Thrurt Barnsmell7160
23:52 Thrurt Barnsmell7160
23:51 Beldar Hupurong7350
23:48 Alaska Paul
23:47 Zhang Fei
23:31 JohnQC
23:26 Zhang Fei
23:25 JohnQC
23:22 JohnQC
23:16 JosephMendiola
23:16 trailing wife
23:15 Secret Master
23:15 tipper
23:08 trailing wife
23:00 trailing wife
22:52 anonymous_2u2
22:51 JosephMendiola
22:40 JosephMendiola
22:37 Frank G
22:16 Thrurt Barnsmell7160
22:08 JosephMendiola
22:04 twobyfour
21:56 Barbara Skolaut
21:55 ed