Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Women On Submarines -- It's Pretty Much Official

Based on this CNN report, it looks like women on submarines in the U.S. Navy is a done deal. Excerpt:
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has notified Congress of plans to allow women to serve aboard submarines, a Defense Department official said Tuesday.
Letters of intent were sent Monday to Congress, which has requested briefings on the matter, said the official, who asked not to be identified. There will be no vote on the matter in Congress...
...A phased approach is being considered under which officers -- who already have separate living quarters -- would be the first to go co-ed, followed by crews, with the women bunking together, the official said. Crew space would have to be modified prior to that happening, the official added.
The submarines expected to carry women initially would be the larger ones -- nuclear-power, missile-carrying submarines known as SSBN and SSGN, the official said.
Had to happen someday. My major concern is not how it will work on the boat, but how the media attention will cause more work for already overtasked Submariners. There will probably be the same proportion of whiny female Submariners as there are male; the big difference will be that the whiny females will get a lot of press, resulting in more and more useless training and potentially causing a mission-degrading CYA mentality among the leadership. I would hope the Submarine Force bigwigs will be able to keep it in perspective when the first inevitable problems happen, but I doubt they will.

Update 1712 23 Feb: Here's the official DoD announcement.

Update 1017 26 Feb: Here's a paper from a retired ETCS(SS/SW) opposing the lifting of the ban. And here's a report from Newsy.com on the issue.

Update 1542 01 Mar: Closing comments. It looks like we've found the limit of the Blogger comment function; the stated number of comments keeps going up, but none are showing up since the 26th. For those concerned that I've been deleting your comments, I haven't been; it just looks like we've exceeded the allowable content.

251 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, how many facilities will T-hull O-gangers have to give up? How much will it cost to reconfigure Virginia class boats to accommodate the ladies? Can they file harassment charges if they are referred to as Sonar Bitches? Will this change the direction of discussions on midwatch BS sessions?

Me thinks the ladies may have bitten off more than they can chew (no pun intended). If these gals want to be one of the guys, treat 'em that way - NO SLACK.

2/23/2010 3:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lt. Cmdr Dodge: Men, at ease. I'd like to introduce you to the newest member of our crew, Lt. Emily Lake. Emily is part of a pilot program to test the feasibility of women serving on submarines. She's going to be our diving officer.

Stepanek: Can she do a one-and-a-half inward back in the layout position?

[laughter]

Lt. Cmdr Dodge: All right, look, gentlemen! I know this is an unusual situation. Cant be easy for Lt. Lake here to be thrown into a jungle such as this, and I know it will make things hard on all of us...

[laughter]

Lt. Cmdr Dodge: Let me re-phrase that. Its going to make things *difficult* on all of us as well. But if we just work together as a team, I'm sure we can handle ourselves...

[laughter]

Lt. Cmdr Dodge: *Comport* ourselves as professionals. That is all.

2/23/2010 4:07 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can a 56 year old ST who still has his ears rejoin? I'd be on that crew.
old two ears

2/23/2010 4:22 PM

 
Blogger Joel Croteau said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2/23/2010 4:28 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Much opportunity here for macho males to get their knickers in a knot. Suggestion: resist the urge. It's a done deal and the task now is to make it work, not make it more difficult.

Christ, we accommodated nukes! Girls should be easy.

2/23/2010 4:35 PM

 
Blogger Vigilis said...

"Had to happen someday."

So, Bubblehead, in your opinion female crew on U.S. nuclear subs (the first country to have them) must inevitably evolve to the workhorses of the sub fleet, the SSNs, someday?

Let's remember, the U.S.N. has the world's most awesome subs because it has also had excellent submarine crews. When that changes,
due to pregnancy interferences, how many will still wonder why?

Worth it anyhow, you say? Give me a break.

2/23/2010 4:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob Gates just leaped to moron status, UNLESS there's a caveat that directs that there will not be a dollar spent to accomodate the ladies.

2/23/2010 4:47 PM

 
Blogger Skippy-san said...

Wait till they (force) enable women surface LCDR's to change communities so that they can have a woman sub CO sooner. You can bet on it. They are not going to wait the 13-14 years to allow them to pay their dues like the men will have to........

2/23/2010 5:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The first ones will be nuclear trained JOs who presently serve topside as skimmers. That's perfectly fine, because we have to build up a mentor/leadership base first. These ladies will start out on BNs and possibly a GN as well.

Is life going to change as we know it?...yeah it will. It's true we'll have to curtail some of our habits and ways we present our opinions with females on board. But it's not the end of the world.

This whole transition will work, because we're starting off with JOs, then Chiefs who are already Nucs. We get that whole leadership base set up then, we'll be able to send 18yearold E3s to BESS and on from there.

A female MT3, that's gonna be a new one for me. I'll have to learn to watch my nasty mouth in her presence during classrooms and walk throughs. Yeah, life is about to get alot more interesting. I don't have a problem with that because we know it's been a long time coming.

My only question is how in the hell are you going to get a female on a fast attack? Is it even possible to reconfigure berthing in this case with FAs who are already in the fleet?

This new way of life is going to happen, but have we really thought the whole matter through?

MT1(SS) WidgetHead

2/23/2010 5:21 PM

 
Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

Looks like underway ELT is the best job now-- a locking shack, where the lock can be turned "halfway" to keep the key from working!

2/23/2010 5:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How many good skippers and COB's we going to lose because of the inevitable problems??? On a positive note, the A gang aboard the two SSN's I served on are licking their chops....Never met a A ganger that wasn't chasing a female shipyard worker,tender sailor, or ANY women while on W-Pac....

2/23/2010 5:28 PM

 
Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

Are they also going to bring back the Submarine Medical Officers back to deal with the "not so fresh feelings"?

2/23/2010 5:31 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's gonna be worse for fast attacks. There's no room for hot racking with 1 male and 1 or 2 females. How's that going to work logistically?

When a career submariner gets ready to make 04 and/or E7/E8...she'll need to make a transition from Boomers to FAs regarding sea tours. So again, how in the hell are we supposed to this?

MT1(SS)WidgetHead

2/23/2010 5:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is life going to change as we know it?...yeah it will. It's true we'll have to curtail some of our habits and ways we present our opinions with females on board. But it's not the end of the world.

Why should the force change to accommodate anyone? Those who wish to volunteer should do so without any expectation of different treatment. To use a phrase, if the women want to be one of the guys, then they should man up and not expect to be treated differently - but they will be treated differently.

This whole transition will work, because we're starting off with JOs, then Chiefs who are already Nucs.

Just what the sub-force needs - skimmer female chiefs with no boat experience to come aboard to mentor junior females. I reckon we'll need a female and a male Div O, LPO and chief so that everyone can have a "qualified" mentor of the appropriate sex. Actually, three will be needed, can't leave out the fags.

This new way of life is going to happen, but have we really thought the whole matter through?

Uh, no, but who cares, this is about giving feminists what they want, and the pussies in leadership positions (military and civilian) don't have the balls to say, "Not only no, but hell no!"

Glad I got my dolphins pinned on before the Navy became PC, fag friendly and reconfigured to accommodate everyone.

2/23/2010 5:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Three of our USSVI Cuttlefish Base WWII submarine vets are volunteers to serve with Navy women on submarines. Me thinks they've watched "Up Periscope" to many times...............

Keep a zero bubble...........

DBFTMC(SS)USNRET

2/23/2010 5:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure, JO's are a dime a dozen, but what's going to happen when the ENG gets pregnant?

2/23/2010 5:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You poor bastards who are still in. You will go from 18 hour days to 23 to cover for the girls on the PSW plans (pregnant, screwing the Chief, or whining their way out of work)

2/23/2010 5:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will they redesign the Sub Warfare pin to include a vagina on the nose of the boat? Need something to signify those who qualified pre and post vagina arriving.

2/23/2010 6:02 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

About time; now maybe there will be less homo activity.............................

2/23/2010 6:04 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hot racking ............ Nice. Lots of angles and dangles,, even while in port. Packing air will cover the noise of banging for a qual card sig.... Great time to be signing off and getting out.........

2/23/2010 6:07 PM

 
Blogger donttreadonme said...

The deckplate will do whatever it is ordered to do because unlike the government, most people are held accountable for their responsibilities. This is not the first social experiment that has been shoved down the throat (no pun intended) of the military. One has to wonder where the flag officers are who should be stopping this ignorant nonsense before it becomes a political sex toy. There are probably still some flag officers with character around but maybe too many have become pure self-serving political ass kissers and boot lickers to use their big-boy voices? The Big Al Konetzni’s are long gone, however he did retire with three stars if memory serves me. When you have a bunch of yes people who can not even recognize blatant ignorance when they see it, all that is left is weak objectivity and cowardly leadership. What will happen when both the CO, XO and the sonar shack are on the same cycle? Drilling, spilling, killing, field days and zone inspections until the crew screams!

2/23/2010 6:20 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I am familiar with the issues as well as the value of diverse crews,” Roughead said.

The integration of women into the submarine force increases the talent pool and therefore, overall submarine readiness, Cole said.


You've got to be kidding me. On what judgment and experience are these two idiots basing this on? When did they ever serve on a boat?

2/23/2010 6:32 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL, typical of clueless people. Code word for their adult supervision told them to shut up and take it like good lackies.

2/23/2010 6:39 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

The real issue: a talent pool twice as big means the case for the nuke bonus is only half as good as it was...

2/23/2010 6:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a little disheartening to see how little faith people have in the professionalism of submariners.

Maybe we will adapt to these changes, just as we have before.

2/23/2010 6:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've talked to a bunch of feminists who think that the idea of putting women on subs is ignorantly stupid. They then continue to point out many of the same reasons submariners point out as reasons that they shouldn't be allowed. (pregnancy, grudges, etc)

2/23/2010 6:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many seem to assume that, with women, the submariner talent pool will be twice as large. Has anyone confirmed that assumption? Of females qualified (academically and physically) to serve on submarines, do they want to do so in the same percentage as men? If they don't, will they be "volun-told" to choose submarines as has happened to USNA and NROTC grads recently? Will men continue to volunteer at the same rate knowing they will have to deal with women underway? Plenty of people in the Navy - both men and women - claim they're all for this change. It will be interesting to see if their expressed enthusiasm translates into more/better talent on the deck plates. Prediction: it won't, and at great cost.

2/23/2010 6:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure, JO's are a dime a dozen, but what's going to happen when the ENG gets pregnant?

Sucks for another ENG in the squadron (or the SQENG).

I would counter that with something that happened on my boat.

What happens when the Nav hurts himself lifting weights right before an under ice transit?

Answer - Sucks for another Nav in the squadron.

AKA - Shit happens - We will have to deal with it. I don't think a woman getting pregnant is any different than a man hurting himself while overexerting during a workout (he hurt himself so bad that he was permanently NPQ - a lot longer than 9 months). Both could have/should have taken responsible measures to prevent the incident but Shit Happens.

2/23/2010 7:37 PM

 
Anonymous Former Squadron Rider said...

My biggest worry is that there's going to be something that shouldn't goes on behind a closed door somewhere on the boat. The female sailor, not wanting to let down the team/prove she can hack it won't say anything to anybody until it's too late and we're all reading about it in the NY Times and watching on CNN.

2/23/2010 7:39 PM

 
Blogger Brett_McS said...

Is there a shortage of prospective submariners that prompted this? Or is this pure social engineering?

I suspect the latter.

2/23/2010 7:39 PM

 
Blogger mike said...

As a fast attack diver I can't wait for the first female diver to show her bubblegum to the COB as he comes up the hatch. I'm sure the female volunteers will be more than able to rise to the challenge of the submarine force.

FastAttackChief

2/23/2010 7:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will men continue to volunteer at the same rate knowing they will have to deal with women underway?

The answer is No. I know several JO's who took the bonus and are desperately unhappy after hearing this news. It may have more to do with their wive's reaction than their own opinion though.

2/23/2010 7:40 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.military.com/news/article/destroyer-commander-canned.html?col=1186032325324&ESRC=navy.nl

2/23/2010 7:43 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I am familiar with the issues as well as the value of diverse crews,” Roughead said.

The leadership reminds me of this show:

HULU Archer - Diversity Hire - Episode 3

2/23/2010 7:48 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One has to wonder where the flag officers are who should be stopping this ignorant nonsense before it becomes a political sex toy

So busy trying to make the Sub Force politically appealing that they have forgotten to keep it ready for war.

Too much time in DC Gents...I think the ADMs might need some more time on the pond.

2/23/2010 7:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or is this pure social engineering?

Not pure social engineering. "Engineering" would imply this decision was educated or well designed.

2/23/2010 7:57 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glad I got my dolphins pinned on before the Navy became PC, fag friendly and reconfigured to accommodate everyone

But they did pay for your "special" helmet. And you didn't have to pay to ride the short bus to work. So, I'd say the Navy was probably accommodating back then too.

2/23/2010 7:59 PM

 
Blogger Oz said...

"How many good skippers and COB's we going to lose because of the inevitable problems??"

This is rather like asking how many good COs get fired because of collisions or groundings. Answer: None. Good leaders by definition establish a climate that prevents systemic abuse.

2/23/2010 8:02 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

By law and regulation, women have equal opportunity to serve in warships and combat aviation in the Navy. Argument against that ended in 1994 with passage of that year's Defense Authorization Bill, which repealed the entirety of 10 USC 6015, the combat exclusion clause. Subsequently the Secretary of Defense, as enjoined by the new law and on advice of the Navy Secretary, set the current policy putting women into combat crews of ships and Navy aircraft.

The many opinions about the suitability of women for duty in submarines were made inoperative and irrelevant inside those 1994 changes in law and regulation. The only factor that has kept women from submarine duty is the policy exception provided for ship types in which the cost to accommodate women is prohibitive. This proviso had precluded women from serving in four classes of ships: submarines, mine countermeasure ships, mine hunters, and patrol craft. Even so, at the time the law was passed ComSubLant, VADM Roger Bacon, correctly pointed out that accommodations could be made for women in TRIDENT hulls with little effort, and that future SSN designs could easily be modified for similar accommodations.

That's where we are now, with decision made to do the minor alterations required in the big hulls and start thinking about how to modify the SSNs.

So just to keep the record straight: 'women in submarines' is not a new idea - it's 16 years old and time we brought the Force in line with the law. Unknot your knickers, fellows, it's a done deal. Cheese with your whine?

2/23/2010 8:08 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This whole transition will work, because we're starting off with JOs, then Chiefs who are already Nucs.

Sure it will "work." Somehow the guys on the boats will always make it "work." The question is, what does it mean to "work?" Staying off the front page over some heinous sexual harassment issue? Will women on submarines produce higher operational availability, better mission performance, lower personnel costs, lower maintenance costs, fewer Class A mishaps, and/or fewer issues of NR interest? And if performance in these areas declines, whose fault is it? (This is a rhetorical question because we all know the answer: it's the CO's fault.)

Who, by name, is the senior submariner to have signed off on this policy? Like Rickover said, "if you can't point your finger at the person who is responsible, then nobody is." If the submarine force improves as a result, he deserves all the praise in the world. If not, he should be held accountable.

2/23/2010 8:09 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unknot your knickers, fellows, it's a done deal.

Not to the guys on the waterfront who have to implement it.

Cheese with your whine?

Pretty cavalier. Not going back to sea, huh?

2/23/2010 8:17 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Submariners should be allowed to un-volunteer due to this extreme change in policy. The same should go for the rest of the armed services if the DADT policy is repealed.

2/23/2010 8:22 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right, you should only have to serve if you agree with all the policies.

My god, there's some whining going on around here.

2/23/2010 8:32 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know why people are so worried. This policy won't make us more or less ready for war.

Face it...we are just maintaining the fleet for WWIII. Until then it doesn't really matter how effective we are as long as we pass ORSE and TRE (with the exception of a couple of boats). As long as we continue to do our busy work and convince everyone we are worth the dough - then everything will be ok. That's probably what this policy is about...make congress get a warm fuzzy for the sub force...so we keep getting those sweet tax dollars.

Really, this doesn't matter because right now the force doesn't really matter. That's why the leadership doesn't care to argue the point...it doesn't matter. We are really just a giant stimulus bill that helps districts with sub bases and EB stay financially solvent.

When the war really breaks out we'll lose a huge chunk of the fleet. Then we will hopefully have time to pull our heads out of our ass and focus on what's important. We probably have enough boats to lose a few anyway. Hopefully the union bubbas at EB will be able to build some replacements with a quickness (if they can do anything with a quickness).

Face it - It doesn't really matter. None of it does.

2/23/2010 8:34 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait till they (force) enable women surface LCDR's to change communities so that they can have a woman sub CO sooner. You can bet on it. They are not going to wait the 13-14 years to allow them to pay their dues like the men will have to........

The most senior female nuke is a LCDR. They are failing to get them to stay in long enough to make command (let alone CDR). Forcing them to go subs will probably make that so much harder.

I wouldn't worry about a female sub CO any time soon. The outside is on as much of a diversity kick as we are right now. Female nukes can make a ton on the outside while still having a life - If they stay in at the same rate as their male counterparts (they don't - it's worse) they will still only be a fractional percentage at best once you get to the O-5 level. So, don't worry.

2/23/2010 8:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Upon arriving on a boat, the typical USNA grad (NROTC not so much) requires several bitch-slap sessions as an Engineering Div O and EOOW/EDO to straighten out his holier than thou attitude. How will the boat-babes handle the bitch-slap sessions - or will the sessions be eliminated for PC purposes and their attitudes allowed to carry forward?

2/23/2010 8:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right, you should only have to serve if you agree with all the policies

If that were the case the policies wouldn't be so stupid.

2/23/2010 8:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The outside is on as much of a diversity kick as we are right now"

So True.

So much for being judged on the content of your character...and those pesky core values.

When things other than performance at sea get pulled into the equation - I have to question the motives of our superiors.

Maybe this is why a full length photo is required in an officer's record. So that the right diversity can get promoted - not just the right performance record.

2/23/2010 8:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, with if both this and DADT are changed, are they going to redesign all the ships to have four heads, berthing and shower facilities?

1 - Straight men
2 - Straight females
3 - Homosexual males
4 - Homosexual females

OR just throw it all out and have one set of facilities that anyone uses, at any time.

If not, then it seems there would be certainly grounds for some types of class action suits. Imagine the uproar if the Navy (or any other service) FORCED women to be naked in front of men, or vice versa.

How would this be any different if there were not four facilities?

We are moving more and more in the direction of "everyone is the same" - if that's the case, let's stop pretending.

Back in the mid-90s, at Nuclear Power School in Orlando, FL, the outer doors to the female barracks were locked, but the doors on the male barracks were not. The CO's explanation was that we had to "protect the women from predators" - is that not treating them differently? Why not protect everyone the same? or not protect any of them the same?

*shrugs* One of the measures of a submarine qualification board was what kind of snacks the sailor brought to the board. Now I guess it will be what does she wear...

2/23/2010 9:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want to know who's gonna be making sure that they take a "submarine shower" just like the rest of us have to, and abuse the fact that there's really nobody there to enforce it. Nothing like isolating the hot water during a northern run to get the sonar techs to quit taking hollywoods.

2/23/2010 9:46 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agree with the anon stating Jo's need a bitch slap session when they get to a boat. A cuurent two star was my XO on the usta fish and witnessed him tee off on JO's, Chief's, and even jr enlisted... Hell of a guy, but I know he wouldn't dare do this to the young ladies if he were the XO tomorrow..

2/23/2010 9:53 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe this is why a full length photo is required in an officer's record. So that the right diversity can get promoted - not just the right performance record.

It's probably 3 reasons:

1. Check military appearance.
2. For the reason you alluded to since you can change the race in your personnel record to "non of the above" (Since "Non of the above" is not one of the CNO's priorities)
3. Keep the eye candy upwardly mobile.

Even if it isn't true, the perception is there. And perception is all you need in the Navy for something to be fucked up.

2/23/2010 10:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will the Bitch Book be renamed? How will women handle it when they find the, oh so kind, caricatures and ruminations contained therein?

2/23/2010 11:08 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's the Bitch Book? Does it involve Sonar, Fire Control and Missile Techs?

2/24/2010 12:53 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) The full length photo is to see if you're a fat fuck

2) A) Doing Nupoc recruiting 10 years ago, bout half the female applicants would say they would go subs if they cool
B) The pool of applicants by both preference and qualification (i.e. engineering/science degrees) for Nupoc skews 2:1 male : female. A ROTC/Academy ratio of 3:1 will cause a similar applicant pool skew.

3) I had always thought the first female permanent crew member would have been a doc chief or the chop.

4) The first females being JO's seems OK, the first females being chiefs of a rate other than HMC won't work (is there ever a chief or 1st class besides the doc who's on their first sub tour? A YN or SK maybe? - it hasn't in my experience)

5) The first female enlisted skimmer nucs got to fleet before any skimmer nuc officers (AFAIK), and until 97 or so you could count the number of female nukes with water wings on one hand.

6) The officer career path thing going from ssn to ssbn will half to be addressed. It is plausible but not perfect for females to be restricted to SSBNS/GN's in the enlisted career path - after all MT's are already (Not calling MT's girls!)

7) The pregancy bit is a red hering - there's plenty of dudes that wind up missing U/w or getting off the boat altogether due to medical or other personal issues.

8) Similarly there's plenty of dudes who are work-shirking dirtbags that will use any excuse to get out of doing shit.

9) There's a lot of internet tuff gai on this thread; it's unbecomming to the normal level of discourse.

2/24/2010 3:41 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some have right, but don't include everything. The perfect storm is brewing. The repeal of DADT, women on submarines, and (finally thank goodness) smoking being banned.

They should all be approached with a very positive attitude and good leadership, but all will required even more good leadership. If one of the three (CO, XO, COB) is a weak sister (maybe I can't say that anymore), the command team will be doomed.

There are some real deck plate issues there that sometimes we officers aren't keyed into. e.g. why am I hot racking as an E-5 with 1.8 years on board when that E-5 with 1.2 years on board has his (her?) own rack. These are real sources of discontent. Now add in a segragrated berthing. Let's say you may a 9 person bunk room (or two) into female berthing and you have 9 (18) females enlisted on board E-nothing non-qual gets her own rack and E-6 male is hot bunking. Stand-by. For those anti-female types, the scenario could easily go the other way (E-6 female hot bunking, E-3 make not). With a set number of racks this will always be an issue. What about a female chief? Will she never get a chance to rack in the goat locker? (I haven't seen any plans, so I don't know if this is addressed). Being in the goat locker has bene an important part of CPO quarter cohesion, again can be overcome but not without a lot of work.

I point this out as one of a group of these deckplate issues that we need to ensure we address.

DADT, which proabably needs to go away, has it's own. If a gay/lesbian (equal play here) couple are assigned to a state that allows gay marriage, and they get married, can they then get married housing in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. What about health care? If they can't get married but are in a civilian union, are they then entitled to health care. If so the rules will have to change for heterosexual couples in civil unions (although this may prevent alot of the bad sham marriages to get medical or BAH, interesting). Lots to work through...

Good Luck.

2/24/2010 5:17 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

To be serious for a moment...

Women are coming to submarines. Done deal. Gonna happen. It would harm the submarine force a great deal were we to botch this policy implementation and the transformation that follows - this is not something we want to screw up.

That said, the key to a smooth and successful transition to the new reality will lie with the chiefs. The CO and the wardroom will follow the motions of higher authority. The troops will do what they're told. It's the Goat Locker that really needs to have its mind right on this. Reluctance there would not only put the Force in a bad, bad light, it would diminish the role of submarine CPOs and really hurt the standing of submarines with the American public. Again: we do not want to screw this up.

I know this seems a relatively new topic for submarines, but it was discussed a great depth 16 years ago, as I noted above. And in the civilian world, the American public sorted all this out almost 50 years ago with the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the latter prohibiting sex discrimination in employment.

Submariners are arriving time-late to this issue. It is not up for debate and the society that we are sworn to defend has made it abundantly clear that this progress is irreversible. Get it out of your system, boys. Then get with the program.

As Faulkner's main character said in his novel 'The Bear,' "Them that's going get in the goddam wagon. Them's that ain't get out of the goddam way." Well said, Bill.

2/24/2010 5:38 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a lot of banter on here about the technical issues of females serving onboard submarines. This is akin to figuring out how to shove a square object into a round hole. The technical crap is like any technical fiasco, adapt and overcome. But the real crux of this issue is beyond the technical superficial stuff.

A submarine is a very challenging environment. Operating a complex machine built by the cheapest bidder in an ocean that is truly equal opportunity for capitalizing on failure.

Lay aside the business end of submarines and consider crew morale and team dynamics. I realize that some people do not give a rat’s ass about morale but those blokes are missing the big picture. If you have ever been on a truly hot running boat then the crew was tight and highly motivated. The command was solid up and down and it was a good environment. That command climate is not easy to create and sustain. The political jackasses who impose the social engineering junk on the military do not care about the impact on the mission or the people. To them, the little people are highly expendable and simply programmable.

Let us ponder some of the brainy ideas in recent times. The retread program, some slug is allowed to be lazy so he gets xfered to another UIC to see if he fits in better over there. Basically, flush and pass your crap on down the pier. That program was not a success. Cross-rating, yep, I want any old rate playing QM and Contact Coordinator. You can even train anyone to handle radar and ESM. Cross-training probably looked really cool and savvy when the bean counters presented it and the medals, BZs and kudos were handed out to the “brainy” assholes that sold and bought this bill of goods. What has cross training done to the technical depth on the crews? In some ratings it has gutted the technical expertise. Many Navy schools have streamlined their “A” and “C” schools into nothing more than operator courses. The word technician used to mean just that.

Yes, the crews and boats will adapt and overcome but this will create a bowl of crap that will be pretty tough to swallow in the long run, even with an extra helping of sugar.

2/24/2010 6:01 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Integrating women into submarine crews will pose problems, but it will be done. The topic came up on the morning radio station I listen to. The discussion was full of erroneous information goofy speculation. Our job should be to fact check the media, correct them where wrong and support the crews that will have to accomplish this task.

OldCOB

2/24/2010 6:18 AM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

Damn I'm glad I got out. I can't wait for the first time that:

--Some A-ganger comes after Suzy Non-Qual for putting a "hygeine product" into San 3.

--Chief tells Non-Qual to "get hot, nub!"

--COB on the Dive tells messenger to fetch him a "blonde and sweet"

--Some smartass non-qual gets posted in her rack (and don't tell me it won't happen)

--Half the boat goes to port and starboard because of pregnancy issues.

--PO1's get out because non-qual E-3 females aren't hot-racking, but they are.

Bottom line, you couldn't pay me enough to be the COB or XO on a boat with female sailors.

2/24/2010 6:59 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The full length photo is to see if you're a fat fuck"

Well, that's the party line. And it will only be used in that capacity until it isn't. I agree with Anon 2058, it gives the perception of impropriety.

Besides, I thought that "Fat Fuck" thing was covered if you have a P/WS on your eval/fitrep. So, if that's already covered on the fitrep then what else can be gained with the photo?

I'm not sure what all of this has to do with Women on subs but from what I've seen (during tours at recruiting and PERS years back) that ANON 2058's concerns are valid. It's not perceptible in the fleet but it's obvious if you work in Millington and DC. We have added gender/race to the mix (and make them a priority in some cases). I think it's pretty benign right now but it is headed in the wrong direction. Recruiting, Detailing, and promotion boards should only be based on performance. Once you try to shape the demographics then you poison the well and we will fall well short of living up to the Honor, Courage, and Commitment that we say are so important to the force.

Many will dismiss this as genderist, racist, or paranoid. It isn't. It's happening. It has been for awhile. You don't see it in the fleet because we don't care about race (or soon to be gender) we just care about job performance and competency. That is not the case in many Navy desk jobs that are charged with shaping the force.

2/24/2010 7:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Point 1. Most everyone posting here has worn those tiny little dildos (TLDs). Have you REALLY given any deep thought about why? The underlying joke was that we all knew the radiation levels are much lower onboard than off so WHY did we monitor? Hmmm Why did those records get close scrutiny (ie. ORSE/Rad Health Audits)… Surprise! It is to ensure that there is a legal record to oppose the lawsuits that are brought against the Navy for the medical issues some think are caused by their exposure to nuclear power.

Point 2. Re. Post 2/23/10 7:37pm. You’re absolutely correct about the pregnant Eng and injured Nav. During my squadron tour we always joked that UPLs for deployers always came in 3’s. We seemed to always loose at least 3 guys per boat within 3 wks of deploying. And yes, it sucked to be the standby in the squadron.

Point 3. Kinda related to point 1. You can get anyone to sign anything but it doesn’t avert the truth. When checking onboard, all visitors and especially women, sign a statement of understanding to the radiation effects to the unborn child. Ok, a joke you say? Will it be a joke to that pregnant Eng when her child is born following a Med Run and that child has defects? Talk about UPL, talk about lawsuits and much worse, talk about the innocent victim of this PC experiment.

RP, HMCM(SS) Retired

2/24/2010 7:00 AM

 
Blogger ret.cob said...

Rubber Ducky 5:38 is spot on, as usual. The key is the chiefs. The key to the chiefs is the COB. It is the relatively mundane stuff that will drive a crew crazy. What you might think is a minor obstacle can actually be a major hurdle, and those are usually related to the perception of fairness. Anon 5:17 had that point just right. Who hot racks? Who is in port and starboard? Who is mess cooking and for how long? Who is standing watch in the blowing snow topside and who is below decks? Who sleeps where is huge. Qualification standards (She didn't have to do that! Why do I?) Field day assignments. Favoritism. Fraternization. Harassment. Rumor control. Language. Heads. Laundry. Watchbill issues out the ass. All that is Goat Locker stuff, and the COB's world. It's a lot of spinning plates, and I'm sure I've only scratched the surface. Starting with JO's is fine, but it won't stop there. Then we'll have junior enlisted females taking their issues, whatever they are to their female JO "mentor"? What about the young lady's chief? Where does the JO take it? The XO/CO. Who is next to know? The COB. Who does he go to? The Chief. Who knows nothing about it. Fiasco. It's the chain-of-command that will face the test.

2/24/2010 7:21 AM

 
Blogger ret.cob said...

Sorry,, need my dime back... My recommendation re: the COB. 1) You need a second-tour COB for the first couple of boats with female enlisteds. There is no substitute for experience. 2)The only time I saw a skimmer chief come to a boat, he failed almost immediately. Female chiefs making the conversion to SS would need to be highly screened. 3) You're going to need at least two fairly senior HM's. Female crewmembers are going to need a female corpsman. Just cuz.

2/24/2010 7:34 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You're going to need at least two fairly senior HM's. Female crewmembers are going to need a female corpsman. Just cuz."

RetCob, Not so true.. IDCs get OB/GYN training and that's always been the case. All you need is a standby to "witness". Any takers?

RP, HMCM(SS) Retired

2/24/2010 7:45 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the first things that has to happen is that every mixed gender crew member needs to sign a disclaimer to any expectation of privacy.

2/24/2010 7:46 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of you are missing the point. This will succeed. Period. It has been ordained by the political class. Standards will be adjusted and modified until the "correct" outcomes are achieved. If you want a carreer playing "navy" on the taxpayer's dime, then you will play be the rules and give the directed results. Nothing else matters.

2/24/2010 8:00 AM

 
Anonymous Ranba Ral said...

As has already been stated, this will be implemented because it's been ordained. The technical and logistics issues can be worked out...the personnel issues will be another matter.

My major concern is for the initial safety for the crews. If this is anything like the other "integrate women now" programs, a lot of unqualified women will be not only put in, but aggressively promoted. My dad's got horror stories of women who couldn't even use the rudder pedals on the Starlifter when they did female crew integration being on aircraft commander fast-tracks. Given historical patterns, this WILL happen here (despite inevitable assurances to the contrary). And subs have a much smaller margin for error compared to the old C-141's. The issues will eventually be ironed out as competent female crewmembers start to earn their way through the ranks, but it will take getting through years of admin weasels worrying about hitting a quota to do so.

2/24/2010 8:21 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not sure if the word succeed is correct except based on the end goals of the clueless social design PC jackasses in DC.

This will happen as alluded to by the previous insightful comment about playing Navy notes. Vote with your feet or suck it up and take it like good lackies.

Of course the next PC bag of crap coming down the tube will be to cut off your left nut and the buttsharks will comply without any big-boy voices.

Going down on the boats will never be the same again. Send in the clowns!

2/24/2010 8:27 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When I wrote Eng watchbills, I made sure to give the slackers (not the bitchers, but the true no loads) the absolute worst deal possible every single duty day. I was a first class bitcher, but I did my job well and helped guys who did the same. Can't wait to begin hearing the stories of how this won't be allowed to happen out of fear of appearing to be sexual harassment.

2/24/2010 8:41 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trying to imagine a female messenger/lee helm making wakeups. Reports to the sleeping CO. Routing the Green Book. Rigging the bridge. Ugh.

2/24/2010 8:44 AM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

Anon @ 0800 sez: "Standards will be adjusted and modified until the "correct" outcomes are achieved."

If by which you mean destruction of readiness and morale, then yes, you would be spot-on.

Look, NOBODY says that women are not capable of doing the jobs that the various ratings on submarines require--it's the ENVIRONMENT that is at issue here. The people pushing this issue have never served on submarines, have no understanding of the unique living or working conditions, and will likely be scratching their heads when boats with females on them seem to have so much difficulty passing ORSE, TRE, or even keeping sufficient people on the watchbill.

2/24/2010 8:51 AM

 
Blogger ret.cob said...

anon 0800. I'm afraid it's you you are missing the point. We are contributing to a conversation that may ultimately help someone deal with a major issue in reality. You never know. There is only about a few thousand years of accumulated experience assembled here. Saying "Nothing else matters" is not in the least bit helpful.

2/24/2010 9:13 AM

 
Anonymous bullnav said...

What's next, men in the Air Force?

2/24/2010 9:31 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Men in the Air Force, that is too funny indeed.

Well, the Sub IC manual is pretty safe as it is fairly gender neutral.

However, many other terms and words will have to be changed to protect the innocent in lieu of the PC transition to female and full homo submarine integration:

Bitch session, Ass chewing (the homos might feel like they are missing out on something), Ass kicking (same as above), Tube loading, Pilot and Co-Pilot for the whiz kids in the VA Class Cockpit, Joysticks, Ass munch, Mouthful, Get head out of ass, Ass clown, Ass wipe, Hot runner, Golden Child, Bottom blow downs, Rapid Blow downs,
Coffee bitch, Numbnuts, screwing the pooch, Make tube ready in all respect, Tube loading, Water slug, Lubrication, Up Scope, Hose teams, Raise and rotate, Scope is black, Shafting in all its variants, Screw, Pump, Blow, Suck, Flush, Ingest, Piss cutters, (garrison cap for those who are too young to know the slang), queen, and this is by no means a complete list.

Next up urinalysis observers, will need 5 at minimum, male, female, pole smoker, lesbian and a token hermaphrodite to ensure full strength in diversity.

A new Fitrep/Eval block to rate how well one plays with all others.

A new ribbon to reflect a successful tour of singing “We are the world….”

New old sexual harassment system drafted, no more red, yellow and green light. New system might have red, green, yellow, brown and pink lights.

The patients from the insane asylum have escaped and taken over the institution aided by the clowns.

2/24/2010 9:54 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@bullnav

+1

2/24/2010 9:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will this mean that we can no longer send nubs aft to "Emergency Blow the EOOW"?

2/24/2010 9:58 AM

 
Anonymous submarines once.... said...

Thank God I am too old to play the game anymore and retired many years ago. This could go right to the top of the "another unplanned, unfunded mandate from above" list. And yes the waterfront will have to do all the day-to-day heavy lifting for this to work right. If the timing is good then you can roll the repeal of DADT right behind (no pun intended) this one to keep the boats thoroughly tied in a politically correct knot!

2/24/2010 10:09 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will this mean that we can no longer send nubs aft to "Emergency Blow the EOOW"?

Umm...you're not supposed to now.

2/24/2010 10:09 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No more blowing and no hot bearings, it will be like pulling into Yoko and using code words like "the chair is against the door" when conducting routine plant maintenenance.

no more load outs....

How about when the XO is reviewing the Pre-underways and realizes that the tampon 90 day loadout is missing. The Chop will be issuing an emergent open purchase for the Exchange.

This will be a SNAFU situation that will create a BOHICA evolution and will make the chain of command's heads spin. Oh yeah, the word heads will need to be changed to a PC nomenclature.

Underway socks will also be a bad connotation.

2/24/2010 10:14 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

two things that come to mind with ducky's comments re: "this has been in the works for 16 years"

1) When I was a JO in the late 90's, they (PEO types I think) were doing a traveling road show on the Virginia Class. It was specifically asked (and I think base on the manner of response this was a frequent question) - 'Will the Virginia be built so as to accomodate women?'

The answer was a decisive 'no'

2) In at least one fleet, all female embarks have to be approved by the Tycom (I think it the N3 that bottom lines it). And various senior people were all very wary of any embark and nealry always declined to waive any requirements because they didn't want to set any precedents for women being on submarines. I had heard that the UMO of either an NSSC or the Tycom itself had a few obstacles to riding regularly because she was female, and the O-6's and greybeards put up some resistance.

Sir, what I'm saying is, while the may have been in the works for 16 years in big navy, the sub force has been quietly resisting any changes as an institutional matter, and in my estimation, has had no plan for going forward with this until formally directed by the CNO. And this 'no plan' was deliberate choice.

(Re: NR's take. My personal opinion is that NR is neutral or quietly for this, as female nukes have been in the surface fleet for those 16 yrs.)

2/24/2010 10:17 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What would Rickover do?

Hymie was a tough SOB but he knew how to get the job done, even if it broke his staff's back in the process.

2/24/2010 10:22 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe I hang with the wrong sort of woman, but I haven't met one yet who hasn't dropped the f-bomb into casual conversation. That includes my mother.

Worked with women who don't call themselves ladies.

2/24/2010 10:32 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Anon at 1017:

"'Will the Virginia be built so as to accomodate women?' The answer was a decisive 'no'"

I've always thought Skip Bowman went into the tank on this one. Roger Bacon CSL was for it (or at least said it was doable and voiced no objections). But Hank Chiles was adamantly opposed, with really out-of-touch comments ('my goodness wives might not like it'), and his views carried the day. This was a top-level topic in the submarine force.

For the record, the first female overnight in a submerged submarine was in a SSBN in DASO in the early -70s. A female APL data analyst was aboard for a training day at sea and the boat got fogged out of Port Canaveral so stayed in the oparea submerged.

2/24/2010 10:40 AM

 
Blogger Ret ANAV said...

@Ret.COB "Sorry,, need my dime back... My recommendation re: the COB. 1) You need a second-tour COB for the first couple of boats with female enlisteds. There is no substitute for experience. "

Good start, and, from my nice cushy desk job, I'll take it a step further. Get one of these CMDCM-types who have done a boat COB tour and then gone on to a skimmer-tour or have been CMC at a shore command with experience in integrated crews. Gives an added sense of security that his head is wired right, and gives him focus and direction for getting the rest of the Mess wired up right.

2/24/2010 10:44 AM

 
Anonymous Another Crazy Sub Wife said...

Of the few female sailors I have spoken to, all seem to think it's a bad idea, and that women have no place on a submarine. I do think they should at least have the opportunity made available to them.

Besides, do you honestly think there are going to be hordes of women volunteering for Submarine Service anyways?

2/24/2010 10:46 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, based on the PC overtone and presence with much of this subject's dialogue, there are already a lot of women serving on submarines. Maybe when the other women get there then there will be actual men carried on the EDVR.

2/24/2010 10:55 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This will be a boon to the JAG corpse. (pronunced: "core")

2/24/2010 10:59 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Underway socks will also be a bad connotation."

How long before tools that have gone missing from the M and A div tool boxes start surfacing in berthing?

2/24/2010 11:06 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, between the JAG corpse and the Corpsemen, it will be a sticky situation. LOL. What a great CIC, cant even pronounce a simple word. Quality for sure.

2/24/2010 11:07 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, between the JAG corpse and the Corpsemen, it will be a sticky situation. LOL. What a great CIC, cant even pronounce a simple word. Quality for sure.

2/24/2010 11:08 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Overall this is a good thing as long as everyone is treated the same.

But we have too many diversity gurus who think everyone is a snowflake and should be treated differently based on some bullshit random genetic difference.

The diversity (treat everyone differently - not the same) crowd will cause more problems than women ever could.

2/24/2010 12:29 PM

 
Anonymous Tom Poole said...

Sorry, the first female overnight(s) was some DTMB techs in Albacore circa 1964, but who cares. What concerns me is everyone here thinks these ladies will be 'shotgunned' throughout the Force. It would seem to me the best approach would to take one or two 'school boats', make them all female and run them ragged just to see if they can hack it. I would not be at all surprised if the powers that be 'volunteered' a couple of senior females (CO,XO,ENG) as a start. In my PCO Class (1971) we had a couple of nuc-trained but surface qualified PCO's who after completion of our course went to new construction and got training rides on active boats while theirs was being built. I would expect that to happen in this case too.

2/24/2010 1:13 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

tompoole: 'Sorry, the first female overnight(s) was some DTMB techs in Albacore circa 1964.'

I stand corrected and thanks. Bum dope all these years (I was on the boomer). Who'd a thunk it.

2/24/2010 1:23 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To my knowledge there are no restrictions on intra-enlisted fraternization. How will the inevitable cases of real or perceived favoritism between boyfriend and boyfriend (repeal of DADT), boyfriend and girlfriend (or husband/wife/fiancée), and girlfriend and girlfriend be handled, keeping in mind the close quarters living conditions creating a completely different arrangement than on a CVN? This will happen, so I'm sure Roughead has already drafted his solution. However, given Roughead's proven ability to be a 'Yes Man,' I'm guessing he doesn't have a plan. Perfumed Prince at his finest.

2/24/2010 1:36 PM

 
Blogger ret.cob said...

ret anav:

Point taken. It was the tour after the COB tour when a pretty little thing who upon learning she had a positive urinalysis looks at me with her teary eyes and says, "Gosh, Master Chief, I'd do anything to get out of trouble."

Anon 1:36

"To my knowledge there are no restrictions on intra-enlisted fraternization."

The list of busted chiefs who would disagree with your statement is long and distinguished.

2/24/2010 2:05 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The list of busted chiefs who would disagree with your statement is long and distinguished.

Was referring to blue shirts . . .

2/24/2010 2:35 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apparently all of the issues have been addressed - NOT!

This is simply political correctness run amok by a POTUS who, despite proclamations that he's a genius, isn't even educated enough to know the word Corpsman.

2/24/2010 2:47 PM

 
Anonymous BobC said...

I find it bizarre that people are lumping this in with repealing DADT. When I was a nuke on a fast attack we were all extremely gay. That is the problem with letting women aboard. My first day I got a tour of engineering penis piercings. If you were hanging out at the M-div bedplate, you would do some cuddling. All that may disappear.

2/24/2010 3:08 PM

 
Blogger Oz said...

"Trying to imagine a female messenger/lee helm making wakeups. Reports to the sleeping CO. Routing the Green Book. Rigging the bridge. Ugh."

Maybe our skimmer readers can confirm this, but I'm pretty sure there are female sailors already doing these things in the surface navy. It would probably go something like this on a submarine:

FTSA: "Sir, the OOD sends his respects and reports entering patrol area TRIANGLE."

CO: (rolls over) "Very well."

Yeah, real hard.

I also keep seeing physical-strength based arguments against women. I weigh 130 pounds soaking wet (I once hung on an LET lower hatch and it didn't shut), and I saw plenty of D&D/WoW-playing, pasty, skinny nerds in my tour. Funny how all the naysayers overlook all that because we're men. Well, as far as I was able to tell there wasn't anything on my qual cards that I needed my penis for. 'Nuff said.

2/24/2010 3:13 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on you guys. The first female overnights were on the USS Tigerfin, the pink submarine in the Cary Grant movie Operation Pettycoat.

2/24/2010 3:51 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Operation Petticoat's submarine was the USS Sea Tiger.

2/24/2010 4:16 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I weigh 130 pounds soaking wet (I once hung on an LET lower hatch and it didn't shut) . . .as far as I was able to tell there wasn't anything on my qual cards that I needed my penis for.

You are exactly the type of pussy I would expect not to be concerned about the feminization and fagination of the military.

Considering these changes along with op tempos thru the roof, and boat numbers are half of what they were in the late 80's, manning will be an issue - as already indicated by USNA grads being voluntold. How will that work in the enlisted ranks? I'm guessing not so well.

2/24/2010 4:30 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Operation Petticoat's submarine was the USS BALAO (SS-285). And Tony Curtis served in USS PROTEUS during WW-II and was in Submarine Crew to spell the boats coming off patrol during refit.

2/24/2010 4:32 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Curtis: Submarine Relief Crew...

2/24/2010 4:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If they can pull wisdom teeth because I might've voluntered for subs, they can implant Paragards for women.
Including my 18 y/o who wants to be a Corps(wo)man.
-3383

2/24/2010 5:07 PM

 
Blogger Oz said...

Anon @ 4:30:

You don't know me, and I don't know you, but you sound like a real douche. I may have a small frame, but at least I have enough balls to sign my posts.

Once again, show me the checkout that you needed your penis for. Until you can, your only argument is that you'll be uncomfortable around the gender that accounts for half the population. Come to think of it, I guess that makes you the pussy, doesn't it?

2/24/2010 5:25 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

USS Sea Tiger was a fictional submarine presumably named for the barracuda. No vessel of the United States Navy has been given that name, but the 1959 movie Operation Petticoat, starring Cary Grant and Tony Curtis, and the short-lived 1977-1978 television series of the same name, were set aboard a fictional Sea Tiger. According to the movie's dialogue, Sea Tiger was commissioned in 1940.

The name may come from the actual WWII-era submarine USS Sealion (SS-195), which like its film counterpart, was sunk at the pier at Cavite Navy Yard, the Philippines, on 10 December 1941 with the loss of 5 crewmembers.

The Sea Tiger in the movie was portrayed by three different American WWII era submarines:

* Queenfish (SS-393), in the opening and closing scenes (circa 1959), in which the "393" on the conning tower is visible,
* Archerfish (SS-311), for all the WWII scenes where the boat was painted the standard gray and black,
* Balao (SS-285), for all the scenes in which Sea Tiger was painted pink.

2/24/2010 5:27 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blueshirt fraternization: I don't think any sexing is allowed on board. There are supposed to be rules for supv/ direct reports, but a small, lateral spread is fine ashore.

2/24/2010 5:29 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Makes sense to start with wardroom being that not all Officers stand while urinating. This has been well documented in the subforce for decades. These men are true hunters on the junior enlisted male with no father figure back in his life of squalor. SO MAKE ROOM FO MOMMY!!!!!!

2/24/2010 5:42 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, the emotions with some of the posts are pretty lively. This whole discussion has NOTHING to do with a female’s ability to do the job. What it deals with is the pussification and fagnation of the boats and the freakshow dynamics that this can invoke in a submarine crew. With this current rocket scientist CIC, nothing surprises me. I know, lets empty Gitmo and let them man a submarine, that would be real diversity in action. Some so called social engineer would come up with 20 reasons to justify that brainy move also. What did old Forest Gump say, “stupid is as stupid does.”

2/24/2010 6:10 PM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

Goddamit, sometimes the right thing to say when given an order is aye aye sir.

Women will be assigned to submarines.

Get over it. Make it work. Don't like it? - go sell shoes.

2/24/2010 6:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right, suck it up, bend over and take it all. The pussified neutered so called leaders of today would not be qualified to run coffee for the old salty dogs of yesteryear. To quote an old old salt, "I flushed more seawater down the WC than you have sailed over." Aye Aye, duly noted, will line up to have lobotomy and nuts removed.

2/24/2010 6:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oz:
If the messeger is female, she can't do wakeups in male berthing. That means the two other guys in her section will always have to do them. That will cause friction. It will be seen as "unfair." It will be just one of those little things that makes this harder to do. Maybe not insurmountable but a pain in the ass nonetheless. Add a bunch of that stuff up over time and a little friction turns into a bonfire. The Chiefs will handle it, and then go down to the goat locker and do like they always do...

2/24/2010 7:22 PM

 
Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

Maybe time to close the thread Joel. There's too many "you pussy", and "you ass-pirate" going on here. And they're not even talking about RL div!

2/24/2010 7:23 PM

 
Blogger Oz said...

7:22:

That's a fair point, but I think there are ways around it. I bet crews can figure them out. Even if not, I would think the break from sitting sticks would be welcome. Besides, odds are there won't be enough females to put a female messenger in each section, so if anything it will be unfair for the off-section women who have to do wakeups for their berthing.

2/24/2010 7:41 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oz:
Sure there are ways around it. And it's talking about these options in places like this that will help guys figure those ways out. All problems are soluble at "The Stupid Shall Be Punished." Every answer can be found here!

2/24/2010 7:59 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This can work but it's going to require a certain level of maturity and professionalism from the crew. Women will do alright, if they are judge on how well they do their job and don't have to put up with a bunch of bullshit hazing. Some are gonna washout, most will will do fine, same as it is now. Relax, don't make a bigger deal than it is. I spent 9 years in the Sonar gangs of 3 different Pac SSNs in the 70s and early 80s. Saw it all. When I got out and joined the workforce I found I had female colleagues that worked just as hard and took just as much pride in what they did. Women serve in Police and Fire departments, are Soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan, and everywhere else in the Military except Submarines. All I can say to some of the comments "is grow the fuck up". Most of us could stand to be a little more civilized. I hope the Submarine Force will take pride in making the addition of women a bigger success than anyone expected. Most of the women that volunteer for are going to prove themselves worthy. After a few years we're going to wonder what the big deal was.

2/24/2010 8:10 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a done deal. The subforce will make it work, eh wot?

2/24/2010 8:36 PM

 
Blogger SJV said...

Maybe we should take some measures to include the under represented claustrophobic citizens in our submarine manning plans. They've been left out of submarine crews for all these years. Think of all the value added by having their diverse viewpoint on a crew.

2/24/2010 8:42 PM

 
Anonymous Squints said...

so I am thinking that my favorite open-mic comment heard wont ever happen again...xo saying during swim call "Is the P.O. XXX's ass hanging out the back of his poppie suit?"
What will swim calls be like now? I went thru a midshipment run on a boomer where we had 12 females for 3 days. It wasn't really all that bad, they put up some plywood walls blocking off the fwd two berthing rooms, and they had a scheduled time to use the office head for showers.

I forsee some midnight panty raids going on!!!

2/24/2010 9:38 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get over it. Make it work. Don't like it? - go sell shoes.

Naw, I'm already out operating a real nuke plant. I'll leave the feminifagination to those currently serving. However, as the sub force will now be just another co-ed dinner cruise, I will no longer, under any circumstances, recommend subs to anyone.

2/24/2010 9:47 PM

 
Blogger Erica said...

Wow, I don't know why I took the time to read every comment. Maybe it was boredom or maybe it was because I was actually interested in what you all had to say...

Anyway, facsinating as this banter is, you aren't really formulating a great arguement. Good, but not great. I understand that logistics are going to be hard to work out, I spoke with my husband briefly about this issue, he is a sub guy as well, but he mentioned that there would be a lot of porn that would have to go away. I thought this was amusing but in the grand scheme of things I do not really care whether women are allowed on submarines. Fraternization happens on surface ships everyday, just be prepared that these things could, can, will happen.
What I care about is the fact that you are not giving us enough credit. I was called a nub, I was "taped up" and hung upside down in switchgear, I stood my fair share of watches, stood five and dimes, worked my ass off, and gasp, I did not get pregnant until after I got out of the Navy. Granted, I was not on a submarine working 18 hour days, but I was on an aircraft carrier and no matter where you go, there will always be that one slacker who decides to get pregnant, but there was also that one male counterpart who played the gay card just as quickly. Don't let the small few who do, ruin it for the rest of us who did our jobs.

Sure there are some women out there where you will have to watch your words, but there are those who will not give a shit, just like there are men who get offended. My husbands first XO was extremely religious and got offended if anyone played an R rated movie in the wardroom.

Who cares? Just adapt and overcome. I know it sucks hard that the only place where men can truly be men without a care in the world, is about to go away, but how do you think male nukes felt when females were integrated into the program, or when women were placed onto surface ships? It is the same concept here, the only difference is closer quarters. You can still make a woman be just as accountable as a man. Oh, and if I were going to be a mentor for young E-3 coming to her first submarine, you bet your ass I would be hard on her. Just because she is a woman does not mean that she gets special treatment. I did not want specialt treatment when I was qualifying because I did not want to be "that person." Period.

2/24/2010 9:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most of us could stand to be a little more civilized.

It is exactly that type thinking that got us to this point. The whole purpose of the military, even the cushy life aboard a boat is to be prepared to kill people and break things. Men and women are wired differently, think differently, and react differently. Like it or not, most women make decisions based upon their emotions rather than on logic. As a husband and father of a young daughter, I KNOW this to be true. I love them to death, but under no circumstances do I want women serving in any potential combat unit.

First and foremost, I know that women are the weaker sex and believe they should be protected.

Secondly, women in combat and combat support units have and will continue to reduce the readiness of each and every unit to which they are assigned. That is not the PC answer many of you want to hear and believe, but it is the truth - and you know it, whether or not you will admit it.

Lastly, the sub force has been different because of the nature of the job. 120+ men living together inside a machine capable of changing life as we know it. The hours sucked, the job - many times - sucked, the surroundings sucked, etc. Because of the conditions, physical and psychological, submariners have always been treated as elite and allowed to be different. The dividing line between O-gang and enlisted is pretty blurred, uniform regs out the window, military bearing and appearance out the window, etc. All of this will be tossed aside - and for what? To make a few limp wrists and dykes in the Obama administration happy? This will destroy the elite status of submariners and eliminate no small reason that guys become submariners. Why, you ask? Because pretty soon, ever man, woman and NAMBLA member will be welcomed aboard - there won't be a damn thing elite about it.

2/24/2010 10:09 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark Steyn said it best:

"'Diversity' is not a virtue; it's morally neutral: A group of five white upper-middle-class liberal NPR-listening women is non-diverse; a group of four white upper-middle-class liberal NPR-listening women plus Sudan's leading clitorectomy practitioner is more diverse but not necessarily the better for it."

Some other posters have already asked the question-will putting women on submarines improve combat readiness?

2/24/2010 11:24 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I'm glad I'm way too old for sub duty, but not because of women.

My guess is the actual practice of assigning women to subs will be years in the development. I am unfamiliar with berthing on post 688 class, but for 688's you will have to have at least 9 enlisteds and at least 3 officers.

The real losers here are the women CPOs, who will probably never see the inside of the goat locker on a sub.

Joe Alferio

2/25/2010 5:58 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a very important issue but no one on this thread seems to understand why.

Essentially, this is really about the survival of the human species.

Who will be left if there is a nuclear war, super flu, or zombie attack...submariners.

It only makes sense that we should put some women on subs to help continue the species after a super disaster takes place.

Good Luck Female Submariners...I salute you!

2/25/2010 7:20 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who will be left if there is a nuclear war, super flu, or zombie attack...submariners.

It only makes sense that we should put some women on subs to help continue the species after a super disaster takes place.


*Finally*, someone posts something on this thread that makes a little sense. Especially the zombie attack thing.

2/25/2010 7:26 AM

 
Anonymous NHSparky said...

erica--you forget one very small issue vis-a-vis women on submarines versus carriers. Lose one female off a carrier=no great loss. Lose one off a boat=potentially HUGE loss. The pregnancy rate when I did my radcon tour was enough to make one's jaw drop. I can't imagine how bad it could get if you've got a few who want to get off a boat badly enough. And FWIW, I never saw ONE male just "quit" or play the ghey card on either of my boats.

2/25/2010 7:30 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We had an RO on my boat who had met a young lady in Norfolk and consequently was no longer interested in sea duty, especially the going to sea part. He missed movement, was taken to mast, and restricted to the boat. As soon as he was off restriction he missed movement again.

At the second captain's mast, the skipper remarked that this man had not "suffered" enough.

Finally, he survived his second restriction and, before our next underway, he slammed his own hand in the hood of his car. The skipper sent him to the hospital and gave him his general discharge.

The guy was pretty useless. Everyone who's ever been on a boat remembers someone who was useless. It would be easy to get rid of the useless ones, but, I'm convinced, to just let people walk away from their obligations dishonors those who live up to their committments.

Good Luck, Ladies, and GodSpeed.

Joe Alferio

2/25/2010 7:57 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just don't want women on the boat, that's all. They've infiltrated most every other employment segment of society. Swell. All the more power to 'em. But the boat is the last male bastion, and we're doing fine without your help, lady. Go away.

2/25/2010 8:03 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

OK, let's try this one last time...

Blogs are fun and opinions are like assholes, but the Navy is not a debating society.

All in it have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.

That document gives Congress the right to enact laws and specifically "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces."

They did so, passing in 1950 the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which requires that lawful orders be carried out.

They acted again in 1994, passing a law placing women in Navy warships and tasking the Secretary of Defense with administering this law. Submarines were not exempted from this law, but implementation was placed on hold because of the cost to modify existing hulls. (A note: although both houses of Congress were in control of the Democrats in 1994, in 10 of the 16 years since control of Congress has rested with the Republicans and they have not chosen to reverse the 1994 decision on women aboard ships. Though some may see all this as a PC issue, it's tough to accuse both political parties of it, especially these days.)

The Constitution tasks the President to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

The current Secretary of Defense (a Republican placed in the job by George W. Bush), acting on the constitutional authority of the Chief Executive and enforcing the law passed by Congress, has determined that the time is right to complete the 1994 removal of the Combat Exclusion of Women in submarines and to start integrating women into crews.

No one part of this is optional. It is precisely what every person on active duty signed up for and swore an oath to do. And so we get to my primary recommendation for those currently serving: obey orders.

For the rest .... got it, you're all misogynists and lusty bastards, you have no current responsibility to see the submarine force do its job as given, and you'd rather throw shit in the game than do anything positive. Feel proud of yourselves?

2/25/2010 8:28 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If they let them vol-in, they better let them non-vol-out too. They'll be leaving in droves. And they're going to ruin their careers if they have to resort to Personality Disorder - Failure to adjust to submarine life, just to get off the boat. All it takes is a talk with the chaplain: "I've been feeling real low, Chaps, I can't focus on my job. Those guys are picking on me pretty hard. Like I'm not sure if I want to live through this anymore." Boom! Off to NSSC X-Div she goes. Party every night.

2/25/2010 8:39 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Women on boats. Ok, lets do something that the ignorant politicians have a tough time with, theory to practice before spending millions of dollars reconfiguring submarine classes to support this unproven progressive pipe dream.

Take the next hull to be razor blades and is getting low on the hours left. Assemble a crew of experienced bubbleheads. Identify and train female sailors slated for the submarine force. Assign the females to the training hull and fast cruise or really cruise for extended periods of time. Do a 6 month Westpac fastcruising or for real. Simulate or stay submerged for 6-8 weeks with no sunshine. Place everyone under the stress, fatigue and lack of sleep that is normal. Train, drill, qualify, go port and starboard, hotrack, FSAs, maintenance, occasional movie, survive mid-rats (mid-scraps or mid-crap) and all the boring and mundane things that comprise submarine operations. Bring a post-tour CO for adult supervision, bring a post tour COB for another set of eyes. Make the female test group large, 2 or more CDRs, 2 or more LCDRS, 6 LTs, 10 ensigns, 5 CPOS, 25 additional enlisted females of varying ratings. Decrease the male complement with the exception of the senior positions and force the qualified watch sections into high stress low sleep conditions for extended periods of time. Make the submarine crowded, uncomfortable and as much a stress producer as possible. Do this for at least a year. After a year, assemble all crewmembers, male and female and debrief and reconstruct everything. Let the crewmembers, both genders, speak honestly and document what they found out and what there perceptions are. Make this a real test and see what comes of this.

This is certainly not a perfect plan but there are smart folks who could make this into something useful. Conduct a REAL evaluation and feasibility study as opposed to some clueless rider with a notebook shoved in his belt to look cool who is a typical rider, movies, meals, laptop and rack.

2/25/2010 9:12 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rubber Ducky is exactly right regarding our duty to execute orders, as the the spouse above who points out that few here have developed a great argument.

Bottom line: our uniformed leaders have their best military advice to our civilian leadership. The civilian leadership has made a decision and is following the legal process to change to women in combat policy.

If and when the policy changes, then we in uniform have the duty and obligation to execute the policy to the best of our ability, keeping in mind that we must execute our missions or report back why, via the chain-of-command, why we cannot execute our missions.

2/25/2010 9:13 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too many statements like the aforementioned one that indicate mindless drones blindly following asinine orders are exactly the reason that the purple kool-aid drinking progressives (socialists) put the current POS POTUS in office.

2/25/2010 9:27 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If and when the policy changes, then we in uniform have the duty and obligation to execute the policy to the best of our ability, keeping in mind that we must execute our missions or report back why, via the chain-of-command, why we cannot execute our missions.

That's right, you Yes Men and lackeys still in have a responsibility. And I, as a former submariner, have a responsibility - that will be to tell everyone and anyone who will listen that being on sub will no longer be elite. Instead, it's a come one, come all, free for all play date. Knowing what goes on on sub tenders regarding male/female activities, favoritism, crying, etc., it will also be the norm for boats. I will highly recommend (especially to my three kids) and any others who listen NOT to do military service. Sorry, but asinine decisions by PC leaders has a price. I intend to help ensure that price is extracted.

2/25/2010 9:32 AM

 
Blogger Erica said...

All right, I see the pregnancy thing was brought up yet again, so I will just say that in my time in RE Division, there were two women who had to be removed because of pregnancy. That sucked, because we had to suck up the extra watches. Sure aircraft carriers have more people in Reactor Deartment but there is a reason for that. Two reactors, duh! I think that little fact just means that we have to stand more watches which means we needed more people. That only makes sense, and just because I was stationed on aircraft carrier does not mean that I do not understand the meaning of being undermanned. We were undermanned for a great majority of the time weere there. Our duty sections were stretched as thin as they could be so we would not stand duty as often.

Scenerio: Standing port and starboard duty because we were getting ready to pull out to sea, one of my best friends gets disqualified from SG watch which was also my ORSE watchstation and what I stood the majority of the time at that point in time. I had been standing 6 and 6 SGs for my entire duty day, had back half as a matter of fact. We could not find anyone else to relieve me that day, so I go to suck up an extra 6 hours of watch for a grand total of 12 which is technically not allowed right? She was not pregnant, but disqualified. and we were short for that reason.

Please, move on from that excuse. Oh, and I am not being emotional, I am being logical, I do have common sense and I am a woman. Wow. How does that work?

2/25/2010 9:41 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our duty sections were stretched as thin as they could be so we would not stand duty as often.

I highly doubt you are referring to being three section port and starboard for four years - like many of us were. Poor baby stood watch for an entire 12 hours. Ever sucked rubber (no pun intended) for that long? Done battlestations or maneuvering watches that long? When I was in, the TYPICAL nuke duty day on a boat was port and starboard with maintenance in between with no sleep. STFU! That is all.

2/25/2010 10:00 AM

 
Blogger Erica said...

I highly doubt you are referring to being three section port and starboard for four years - like many of us were. Poor baby stood watch for an entire 12 hours. Ever sucked rubber (no pun intended) for that long? Done battlestations or maneuvering watches that long? When I was in, the TYPICAL nuke duty day on a boat was port and starboard with maintenance in between with no sleep. STFU! That is all.


Oh wow. Poor wittle submariner wants to get into a pissing contest over who had it worse. You volunteered so get over it. I was merely providing a counter argument and that was an example. Ever been out to sea for 159 days straight without a port call? You may have but I have been there done that too. So fucking sorry I cannot live up to your sad expectations. Oh, and I did not think that subs really had a need to stand "battle stations" like surface ships do. Yup it sucks trying to talk on a sound powered phone wearing a gas mask, and it sucks to be in battle stations after staying up all night to fix something that was broke or standing a mid watch, when the only thing you want to do is get some sleep.
That is all.

2/25/2010 10:17 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stood watch for 12 hours, wow, that is impressive. Try that same feat port and starboard or in shift work. This is an inport scenario for you. Pull a full shift 7 days a week and then stick around for the training, tests and drills afterwards. Surface ships are not a mirror of submarines and they never have been. I have an old MC friend off a carrier and he said that they had designated watchsections to stand ORSE and other sections dedicated to training and maintenance. Are you kidding? Enough bodies to divide up the crap, lol. One boat, one crew, one screw.

2/25/2010 10:20 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surface ship whining from any genitelia is neither desired or required. Please keep the surface ship whining where it belongs, in the san tank.

2/25/2010 10:23 AM

 
Blogger Erica said...

Whatever dudes. I was really just trying to relate, but I can see that most of you are too hard headed to actually comprehend that there are similarities.

Go on believing that the life of a submariner is a thousand times more diffucult. I got news for you. It really is not, being on a ship or a boat sucks no matter how you look at it, but I am not foolish enough to volunteer for sub duty. The only reason why it is harder is because of the nature of the job that you do under the water, and the cramped living quarters that you have.

The beauty of my life is that I am married to a submariner, and I do have a general understanding of what life is like under the sea. I am not an idiot, please do not treat me as such.

Oh, and being in the ship yard sucked, especially when we had to come in before our shift, yes shift as in shiftwork, and have that extra training, with no days off. Been there done that too, and it sucked for me as bad as sucks for you. Oh wait, but that is apples and oranges right? I guess being in the same branch of the military doesn't count? If sub life sucks that bad, then why do it?

2/25/2010 10:49 AM

 
Anonymous Another Sailors Opinion said...

Do any of you REALLY think that the senior Navy leadership and Submarine Force have NOT been involved in this decision?

I hate to break it to all of you, but this is not a suprise to the average Submariner, either senior enlisted or officer. There has been discussion about implementing a change in policy for the past 20 years, but due to the limitations on career progression for female officers due to the options of sea tours on SSNs and SSBNs. Now that the SSGNs are up and running, it gives an additional platform for career progression.

Rather than jumping to irrational conclusions, seek valid information.

2/25/2010 10:50 AM

 
Anonymous What I said...

"Rather than jumping to irrational conclusions, seek valid information."

Well, what about this? Since early seafaring times it has been considered BAD LUCK to have women on board! Unless they were naked women, hence the bare-chested nymph on the bow of sailing ships. This is solid information I got from Al Gore's Internet. It alone should sway the agument. No women in submarines because they're bad luck unless they choose to come along bare-chested.

2/25/2010 11:16 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that is was that impeached POTUS who wanted more women integrated so he had something to play with when he made VIP trips. Oh yeah, Gore was his VP, what a coincidence, two losers so close together.

2/25/2010 11:36 AM

 
Anonymous Squidward said...

{The most senior female nuke is a LCDR. They are failing to get them to stay in long enough to make command (let alone CDR). Forcing them to go subs will probably make that so much harder.}

Well, it hasn't been that long since women started going through the pipeline again - it was 97, yes? So the supply isn't huge on the source end.

I'm going to say something politically incorrect and hurt some feelings. Have you complainers ever met any female surface nukes? They are not exactly the lipstick and nailpolish set. About half seem to be lesbians and the other half are geek chicks. They seem to really like being in a guy's profession and can handle the crap.

The masculinity level of ROs and ELTs, at the least, went up when females became surface nucs.

The bigger question is one of culture and level of responsibility. The surface nuc world is different and I don't think you want female surface nuc chiefs on boats. The problem is not the female part, to be honest. I'd rather train them from nubs. The goat locker will have a big job of getting them into a different mindset. Is your COB up to it?

2/25/2010 11:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hate to break it to all of you, but this is not a suprise to the average Submariner, either senior enlisted or officer. There has been discussion about implementing a change in policy for the past 20 years, but due to the limitations on career progression for female officers due to the options of sea tours on SSNs and SSBNs. Now that the SSGNs are up and running, it gives an additional platform for career progression.

Rather than jumping to irrational conclusions, seek valid information.


Actually, I did seek valid info, but those making the decisions did not. How could they have reviewed the info when nothing in the report has changed - other than the PC climate of the Obozo administration.

2/25/2010 11:50 AM

 
Blogger Erica said...

squidward- thanks for that...

No hurt feelings here, so I guess I fall into the geek chick category, but I like my lipstick just as much as the next girl when I want to wear it. That technical stuff was pretty interesting to me and I always seem to get along with guys better. Somehow, I don't recall really working with any lebians, well, maybe one...

I don't get how the mentality must be that much different so can someone please explain that to me? After talking to the hubs about his experiences, and then talking to some of the other guys about their experiences, I have found that they were not that much different than mine.

I do like the submarine community much better because it is a closer knit group, but why is there always this need, to feel like being a part of such an elite group, when in the grand scheme of things it is about operating a piece of very expensive machinery that does some really cool stuff.

I know, you kind of get bragging rights and being a part of such a small group of people is a big deal, and there are people who are proud of that. I am very proud of my husband and what he has done, it is not an easy job, and I think that JOs get crapped on ALOT. Why not extend out to a group of people who have just as much talent and can deal just as well, so your lives could have that potential to get easier?

This will not be an easy adjustment for all parties involved, and I do not think women will have an upper hand in this. I am not talking about officer's but enlisted. I worked with someone on my ship who went into the program when the first started letting women back in. She was a SPU, and felt the need to cut hair so short that she could not put it up because she did not want to attract any more attention to herself.

As I said before, don't let the one person who leaves a bad taste in your mouth, ruin it for the rest of us that are willing and did work our butts off.

2/25/2010 12:24 PM

 
Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

Erica:

As a former ELT(ss) who spent some time working on the Ike & Reagan, undermanned on a CVN is vastly different than on a SSN/SSBN. Turns out, it takes the system about 3 years to catch up with an early attrition from the ENG dept on a submarine. There's just not enough manning to suck up slack.

Let's look at this scenario, which plays out in most SSN enginerooms. There's really two waves of junior enlisted folks. One comes every 20 months or so, and occasionally, due to a previous early attrite, the junior sailors aren't arriving exactly equal. Let's look at M-Div. Full JE manning could be 12 non-ELTs. So about 6 should turn over every 20 months, but in reality, it's about 4 this time, and 8 next time.

If PO Andrea J. Squaredaway shows up but needs to leave because of a childcare plan ( ARTICLE HERE ON CHILD CARE PLAN DISCHARGE), then the division suffers. Not for a few weeks or months, but years.

Erika, my biggest problem with submarining was that when I went to work, I had no idea, (and I mean absolutely no idea) when I'd come home. I wanted to coach little league, well, the ENG wouldn't support having me off by 6 pm on non-duty days. Sometimes, my standby M-div roommate would be me home day after duty by 6 or 7 hours. Does it seem fair-- no.

I can't imagine the horror that the already taxed force will go through. Do more with less. Relieve the CO of the Buffalo, Hampton, Greeneville, etc. because of problems that happen when people took shortcuts to do more with less.

Erika, please read the following post about the USS Hampton: http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-uss-hampton-someone-talked.html. Let us know why you think that women on board, with all the associated problems mentioned previously and under this article, won't happen. I'd be curious to hear your comments.

2/25/2010 12:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Erica,

As has been pointed out above, other than extremely long duty days and occasional long underway awake periods (and the remote possibility of being a diver), there isn't too much physically demanding about submarine life. The taxing part is more in the psychological - think 75 day spec ops without even a whiff of fresh air, sunlight or contact from outside while living (literally) on two levels of #10 cans. Could women cope? Sure , if they are properly screened.

However, call me old-fashioned or a product of my southern upbringing, but regardless of whether women CAN do the job, I think there are certain jobs they should not be doing. Those jobs include flying combat aircraft, service aboard any combatant naval vessels, service in any military unit with any possibility of involvement in direct combat, and firefighting. Regardless of what evidence is presented to promote the service of women (keeping in mind that there is plenty to back preventing said service), I will never support it. It is nothing personal and not misogynistic, just my opinion. And as a 43 year old husband and father of two young daughters, I want my girls to have the opportunity to do whatever they want, while they understand there are just certain things that they should not be doing. You (and many posting here) may not like it, but that's the way it is, and it's how my daughters are being raised.

BTW, I guess it's a good thing I'm no longer in, because unlike many posting here, I wouldn't just say, "Yes sir, how high should I jump." It would be my goal to make life for any women aboard a boat as miserable as possible. Understand, that can be done without hazing or harassing.

2/25/2010 1:02 PM

 
Blogger Erica said...

thanks for the refresher on that, I remember reading that a while back...

I said earlier that comparing surface to subs was like comparing apples and oranges. I get that. I really do, but I really believe that the incident with USS Hampton was one of two things: The crew was overworked, or they were completely lazy. Laziness does seem to run rampant everywhere, and gundecking happens, no matter what kind of ship you are on.

I am going to go with the benefit of the doubt here and hope that the crew was just overworked, but IME and again, I am just a lowly surface person here, ELT's really don't have a whole lot to do until things go wrong. Do they have any responsibilities other than reading TLDs once a month, taking daily samples, maintaining watchstanding proficiency and maybe standing CPAW on occasion? That crap happened on an aircraft carrier too.

I guess my line of thought was if submarines are so undermanned, then why not add to the community and see if allowing extra watchstanders on board will ease the burden. When my husband goes out to sea I worry about him getting enough sleep. I know that you don't dare complain about being tired because everyone is tired, and I know that people make a lot of mistakes when there is little to no sleep involved. That scares me more than anything.

With that said, you must have been on a great ship where you got to go home at a set time everyday. Over there on the TR, it was a completely different story. Very rarely was there day after duty, and we sat around waiting for something to go wrong which would prove the need for all of us to be there. I wasted so many hours of my Navy life doing absolutely nothing and I think that life on subs pretty much goes the same way, even moreso while underway.

2/25/2010 1:17 PM

 
Anonymous Sub Iconoclast said...

Lotta hate and discontent on this thread (not that I'm surprised, given the potential change that this new policy represents). I'd love to examine the implications of this change in depth WITHOUT dismissing concerns from different points of view as irrelevant.

As someone preparing to execute this full rudder order, the point of view I most want to hear is from those who think it is a terrible idea. Frankly, telling folks to shut up and get on board doesn't help me much in preparing for the inevitable minefield of any major change in the way we do business. The same philosophy goes for those who insist that various supporters of this policy change have irrelevant backgrounds to contribute: why silence those who might just help you understand why you'll be operating differently in the future? If change is coming, better to become more ready for it than simply to shut your eyes and hope it misses your boat.

Please, carry on the discussion - but with a bit more respect for those who may see things differently than you. Few, if any, people posting here are so stupid that their ideas have zero validity. Even if they're misguided, each contribution is rooted in SOME fact that may have room to be addressed - and, in so doing, improve the Force's ability to perform. Because at the end of the day, that's what we must always do.

2/25/2010 1:18 PM

 
Blogger Erica said...

"Yes sir, how high should I jump." It would be my goal to make life for any women aboard a boat as miserable as possible. Understand, that can be done without hazing or harassing.

I never said any such thing about hazing or harrassing, and I don't agree with you in the least. I did my job better than half of the men that I worked with so we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

I am not saying that agree with all of this. I am just playing devil's advocate here, but I do think that women should be screened, I think men should be too. I really think that it is really messed up that you would go out of your way to make someone else miserable. What is the point in that? to make yourself feel better, and make the other person feel like crap. It is going to be hard enough to adjust, why make it worse?

I forgot to address the childcare issue... I think it is messed up that anyone would use that as an excuse, but I don't have an answer for that. I don't believe that Navy is family friendly, but that is not really easy when ships are always deploying. The mission of the Navy comes first.

I enjoyed it, but I got out because we wanted to have a family and an enlisted surface geek and a submarine officer can't really have a quality life together and it was not worth it for me to stay in.

I have a duaghter, and I will teach her that she can do and be whatever she wants to be, and I will also teach her to be strong and the face of a challenge, oh and not to go out of her way to make other people miserable just because they can. I understand the psychological games, I know my limitations, and I understand that you have to find out who the weak ones are and get rid of them, but I am still shaking my head over this one.

2/25/2010 1:29 PM

 
Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

I am going to go with the benefit of the doubt here and hope that the crew was just overworked, but IME and again, I am just a lowly surface person here, ELT's really don't have a whole lot to do until things go wrong. Do they have any responsibilities other than reading TLDs once a month, taking daily samples, maintaining watchstanding proficiency and maybe standing CPAW on occasion? That crap happened on an aircraft carrier too.

Erica:

Turns out, ELT's on submarines do all that, plus stand ERF, perform small valve maintenance, and rig out pumps on the 10K when it breaks. The difference between the CVN and SSN eng (or RE) dept's is that submarine folks don't specialize as much. I could be asked to clean out a LOP as easily as I could be tasked with Geoplotting. There is too much to do to just be analyzing S/G or reading TLDs all day.

Women on submarines is the epitome of doing more with less. There's not any additional racks on board, so it's not the 12 M-div men plus an extra 2 or 3 women. It's 9 m-div men and 3 women. The increase in the "community size" arguement doesn't work because the folks in the ER aren't bodies. There's a special mix that makes everything work, and screwing with it too much could upset the mix.

2/25/2010 1:30 PM

 
Blogger Oz said...

"BTW, I guess it's a good thing I'm no longer in, because unlike many posting here, I wouldn't just say, "Yes sir, how high should I jump." It would be my goal to make life for any women aboard a boat as miserable as possible. Understand, that can be done without hazing or harassing."

I agree with you. Going out of your way to make life miserable for a shipmate (yeah, yeah) for no particular reason is the mark of not only a bad team member but a pretty lousy human being. You can use whatever means you want, but what you described is pretty much harassment by definition. The females aren't the potential problem with, people like you are.

Like it or not this is a team sport and barring severe underperfomance or misconduct the teams are pretty well set. The consequences for team dysfunction can be lethal, so I hope you'll understand the rather dim view I have of people like you who foment it.

2/25/2010 1:36 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rubber = your a too serious bag of wind... its a blog, let people blog and quit trying to run the world! That shit might have worked when you were a 5ft 4in Senior whatever... take the collar devices off. Everyone "will" make it work - they always do! Bacon was a great guy, loved working for him, and they day he meet with Admiral Hogg, was a yuck fest at HQ!

Erica... I heard you had a great band on The Big Stick (talk about gender talk!!!) during that 159 days cruise... what was the name again??? Those guys rocked! (Im biased of course).

SCPO, USN

2/25/2010 1:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As an Ensign in Power School, I remember some really smart, dedicated, and hard working female SWO's in my class that I am sure would make great submariners. However, there were also some rocks and "women with low moral standards" that probably wouldn't hack it or cause a superior to be fired for fraternization.

That isn't the main issue though. There are women that have the ability to do the job. The problem is that the culture we live in believes that mixed gendered sleeping and bathing arrangements are extremely taboo. Until it becomes socially acceptable to shower together (ala Starship Troopers) men and women are going to act differently in that close environment. Mutual, as well as unwarranted, sexual advances will occur. There will be favoritism. LTjg Female won't like the way MM2 Shmuckatelly brushed up against her in the P-way. She just might get impregnated by the CO (check out the last two CO's in the Navy to get fired).

There are plenty more situations that could arise as a result of this decision. So how is this going to help the boat's readiness for the next ORSE or TRE? Submarining is a tough job. Sorry Erica, but your husband should let you know that it is tougher than any other job in the Navy. Why are we going to add more stress to and already stressful job?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But, we will make it work. Because that’s what we do.

I can't wait to see one of the new females eat the cherry out of Baby Huey's belly button during Blue Nose. Or is that gonna go away now?

2/25/2010 1:41 PM

 
Anonymous toe-toed pete said...

Rubber Ducky-

Roger on the civics lesson regarding our responsibility to uphold the Constitution. Rest assured that submariners in uniform will carry out the lawful orders of the President and the chain of command when a decision is made. One could argue that this decision is still in debate, albeit unlikely to be overturned. What makes our country great is that political debate is healthy and generally makes for better policy.

The question, at least in my mind, is not whether or not woman can do submarine jobs--they can. The question is whether or not they can increase (or at least not decrease) military efficiency. I argue that physiological differences between men and woman in the close confines of a submarine are not conducive to improving military efficiency. As many blogs have stated, great leadership and energy is required for this to be successful--energy that will not be spent on something else required to effectively fight a ship. When we start basing military decisions on issues not related to military effectiveness, we have lost the bubble.

You may recall that at about the same time the UCMJ was passed, we also saw a revolt of the admirals. In that historical case, several senior leaders stood up for what they believed in based on military effectiveness--specifically the role of Naval aviation versus strategic bombing in future campaigns. Standing up to civilian leadership and the JCS for what they believed was right militarily cost them their jobs, but their position was proved correct by subsequent history.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." The tyranny of political correctness grows, arguably at the expense of military efficiency.

Let the debate continue for now and see who stands up for what they believe is right. When the dust settles, we'll stay and make it work or go home and still be able to look ourselves in the mirror.

2/25/2010 1:43 PM

 
Anonymous Squidward said...

{It would be my goal to make life for any women aboard a boat as miserable as possible. Understand, that can be done without hazing or harassing.}

I think there's a name for that...oh, right, its dereliction of duty. I don't think a deep fried southern upbringing is going to be a good affirmative defense - lucky it won't be an issue.

Erica - the primary differences are going to be manning (staffing?) level and military mickey-mouse. My impression of the surface navy had always been a greater number of less competent people engaged in way too many silly non-mission related tasks. There just aren't enough bodies to throw at the dumb stuff on a boat. If a surface chief thinks they can walk around chewing people out about not shaving after some kid has been awake 36 hours doing something mission critical/dangerous/exhausting then they will have another thing coming.

2/25/2010 1:44 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Like it or not this is a team sport and barring severe underperfomance or misconduct the teams are pretty well set. The consequences for team dysfunction can be lethal, so I hope you'll understand the rather dim view I have of people like you who foment it.

As I said before, without hazing or harassing, one's existence on a boat can be made unbearable. Been there, done that. BTW, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what view of me you have. Now run along and see if you can muscle those hatches closed.

2/25/2010 1:50 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Until everyone does the same PRT dont talk to me about women can do the same thing as men. everyone should be doing the same PRT period. if that means lowering male standards oh well. that way the fitrep/eval area is somewhat closer of a level field
713/725/713/725

2/25/2010 1:50 PM

 
Blogger Erica said...

Erica... I heard you had a great band on The Big Stick (talk about gender talk!!!) during that 159 days cruise... what was the name again??? Those guys rocked! (Im biased of course).

Go on a be biased, but if you call the Miami Dolphin cheerleaders and Jessica Simpson in a santa hat a great time, then by all means carry on! I for one, was too busy trying to make up for lost sleep. At least you guys can be a little more lenient with porn.

"Now run along and see if you can muscle those hatches closed."

My, you are a sarcastic one aren't you? I think if I can handle opening up MS1 and 2 at protypem you know the ones, thos PITA double knockers, then I think I can manage to muscle a hatch closed. I am not exactly a petite little thing, and my we did have hatches on aircraft carrier that we had to "muscle" open and shut.

Oh yes, PRT, I cannot even muster up the response for that one. Is that all you guys have?

Squidward, thank you very much for your insight. It is great to have intelligent conversation once in awhile. It used to piss me off on advancement exams when we would have to try to answer questions about fryers and washing machines so I completely understand about the comment about carrying your own weight in a command that small. I only wished that we could purge some of the people that we had on the surface.

Oh and as for my husband speaking up. He doesn't have to, I know it is a hard job, I sat up many nights waiting for him to come home from work just so I could have a few minutes with him before he went to sleep and did all over the next day. Contrary to popular belief here, I am not that daft or arrogant to think that his job is an easy walk in the park.

2/25/2010 2:13 PM

 
Blogger Erica said...

squidward- I forgot to say that I know all about stupid people and uniform regs when getting off of watch. I used to get yelled at about my hair all the time and walking around with our sleeves rolled up was a big no no, but we were allowed to when we were on watch.

I do think that for the most part, sub guys are a much more laid back group, and I think that is really cool.

2/25/2010 2:17 PM

 
Blogger Oz said...

Listen good, friend. I don't care what you call it but when you target a person for constant misery it's harassment. People who harass their shipmates are nothing more than garden-variety assholes - teamwork's worst enemies.

By the way, I hope you appreciate that everything you said in that other post was basically the major argument against racial integration of the service. Just sub in "black people" for "women:"
'[R]egardless of whether {black people} CAN do the job, I think there are certain jobs they should not be doing.'
'Regardless of what evidence is presented to promote the service of {black people}... (keeping in mind that there is plenty to back preventing said service), I will never support it.'
'It is nothing personal and not {racist}, just my opinion.'
'I want {black people} to have the opportunity to do whatever they want, while they understand there are just certain things that they should not be doing.'

So yes, there will be personnel problems. But I'd bet the farm that most of them will be caused not by women who aspire to join the ranks of the Navy's elite mariners but by bad seeds already here who, like you, just aren't willing to get along.

"BTW, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what view of me you have."

I assure you it's mutual.

2/25/2010 2:22 PM

 
Blogger a_former_elt_2jv said...

Um, uh, opening MS-1 and MS-2 at prototype or other locations was definitely not the hardest thing to do on the boat.

I'd say the stores load out for WESTPAC (an entire two weeks), crawling into the main condenser for cleaning, moving oxygen cans, loading pastel colored cylinders into ERF, bilge diving, painting, and MG rigout were the hardest things to do on the boat.

Pretty much what you said was akin to telling a SEAL that I did some push ups in boot camp, so I would've been a SEAL too. One might very well get into a fight with the entire 'missile compartment division' of the Kamehameha over that.

Don't minimize the work required for a submarine. It's definitely not the same as on the surface!

2/25/2010 3:07 PM

 
Anonymous BobC said...

Erica,

You are welcome if I can wait outside the shower, holding a magazine upside down, peaking over the top as you get out.

Straight guys on the boat did it to eachother. I would hate to leave you out.

2/25/2010 3:44 PM

 
Anonymous bill said...

Someday you're going to say something I don't like to my girlfriend and it's going to lead to a fight. Right in the middle of a mission. The crew splits, some for this guy, some for that guy. Everybody gets pissed off because somebody is going to mast. Good order and discipline goes down the tubes at the worst possible time. All over a girl.

2/25/2010 3:52 PM

 
Blogger Erica said...

BobC- Meh, you wouldn't want to look at me, but by all means, whatever floats your boat.

FWIW- there are main condensors on carriers that have to be cleaned too. I never downplayed anything, and I do not have very much to compare it to, but cut me some slack here because I am trying to relate.

If you all can't get past the he said/she said let's fight over some girl crap, then that really shows the maturity level of all parties involved. I'm just sayin.'

Thanks for the entertainment.

2/25/2010 4:21 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the survival of the species argument made earlier is a clear reason for this policy.

Zombies might not be a credible threat but aren't all of the SSBNs designed for nuclear war?

That's the perfect reason for women on submarines and outweighs all of the other concerns.

2/25/2010 4:30 PM

 
Blogger Ret ANAV said...

Squidward sez:
"My impression of the surface navy had always been a greater number of less competent people engaged in way too many silly non-mission related tasks."

Your impression is shared by many, including myself. There is all this talk about starting with women JO's then CPO's. While that concept is sound in theory, I can't help but think to myself that that may contribute to more problems down the road. CPO's who are a product of SURFOR upbringing will have far more to UN-learn than a new recruit right out of the box. Specifically:
1. Procedural Compliance is a totally foreign concept to SURFOR (though they TALK a good line about it).
2. 50% of SURFOR CPO's do NOTHING during the day. We've all seen this.
3. The other 50% do EVERYTHING... mainly because they never trained their troops to do it FOR them OR their troops are too busy engaged in way too many silly non-mission related tasks.

Do I indict the people? No...they are products of their previous training and have never been taught that another way may be better. SURFOR CPO's are perfectly happy screaming at a sailor for having his or her hands in their pockets simply because somewhere back in time, someone told her that was important. The concept of "Keep the main thing the MAIN THING" will come as a rude shock to some of them.

2/25/2010 4:47 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oz,

Claim the position of being opposed to women on boats, or in most military units in general, is somehow equivalent to being a racist if you wish, but in Logic 101, that is called a Bad Analogy.

If this change in any way, shape or form results in any reduction in a boat's ability to efficiently do it's job (and it will), it shouldn't happen. Something as simple as one pregnancy, which WILL happen, eliminates any perceived benefit. That alone is reason to oppose this change. However, some of us will never, under any circumstances, agree that this is the right thing to do. But we'll be here to tell you, "Told ya so," at the appropriate time.

2/25/2010 5:57 PM

 
Anonymous BobC said...

I welcome women. When I was on Guam, an Australian boat pulled in. They said women aboard eventually became like your sister; Your smelly, hairy sister.

What I find funny are all the manly man submariners on this thread. You were in the minority when I was in. I was a nuke. While we were king of the dorks, we were still dorks.

2/25/2010 5:58 PM

 
Blogger Oz said...

@5:57-

Analogies are rarely exact fits. (They're also rhetorical devices, not logical ones.) The point was that every one of the objections that other guy raised were of the same baseless vein as the racist arguments ~60 years ago. Like The Dude said, that's just, like, his opinion, man. His argument was "I don't want to work with women so I'd cause problems."

Of course the change will result in a decrease in performance. All changes do, since it takes time to adjust. That's why we have movies like Men of Honor - the changes can sometimes cause highly dramatic tension. Neither is it enough to claim potential pregnancy as a proposal killer since it's just one extra way a woman can get off the boat among so many other ones. In my last tour we had guys pulled for suicidal gestures, crippling injuries, near-fatal illnesses, DUI, other forms of misconduct, and even gross underperformance. Every one of those losses was disruptive, badly timed, and not easily replaced, but they all happened to males. Funny how nobody here's complaining about the guy who destroys his shoulder playing rugby while his division is already undermanned in a refit but some future woman might get pregnant on a sea tour (and oh, by the way, they do come back to the force after maternity leave) so we can't have them. I don't buy it.

2/25/2010 6:54 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes it is a bad idea, but it will fissile out once things start going south. Submarine leadership isn't stupid, they just don't have enough rank to block this entirely. VADM Donnelly probably nearly puked when he got orders to make this happen, but they are going to be safe about it. Picking Nuke Officers is a much safer bet, back when I was interviewed there was one girl out of 25 who got picked up for SWO-N, and she was on track to graduate with honors from MIT. Believe it or not, there are some motivated, and intelligent women in the Navy who won't do stupid sh*t, and know that mission comes first. Just that there's not very many of them. Most of the one's who are risky to the program aren't gonna pass the nuke interview because there's far more at stake if they let morons into the nuke program. No political bs is going to overcome the aftermath of a investigation into a nuclear accident aboard a Naval vessel because someone below standards got hired on to make the crews more "diverse." All those guys at the top, Secnav, CNO, would get fried on the spot.

You guys are talking like there's 18 yr old female enlisted coming aboard. That's way off, for BNs and GNs, and probably never on SSNs. Cause that's gonna take modifications, and modifications take lots of money.

And guess what, there's a lot of feminists out there who are gonna be knocking on the door, but once they did a 70-90 day patrol with 150 dudes in complete isolation, who will mostly be accepting to them, I'd be surprised if a significant number want to go back.

2/25/2010 7:12 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The previous commnet made a statement about the navy not allowing subpar performance for the sake of stupidity (my word). There is an article online where a Naval Academy professor found out that the academy was being stacked with certain groups to meet the paper quotas and he went ballistic. Not sure whatever happened, he was a civilian professor not Navy. But he was really upset that the Navy would even hint at selecting the lesser qualified to meet the bean counters garbage of diversity.

2/25/2010 7:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where is everyone going to fuck at? Will there be a special area for it when they reconfigure the boats to accommodate females?

2/25/2010 8:05 PM

 
Anonymous mark said...

well, of course...

2/25/2010 8:37 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had that English Professor at the Academy during my plebe year and his article was dead on. See address for article (I hope it is correct one, if not, apologies): http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,80480,00.html. I probably did fall into one of those equality over quality slots (minority over superstar). I saw him shortly after the articles release during my firstie year, and it was apparent he was stressed over the reaction. I ensured him that I agreed with every word he said, and would make it my professional goal to live up to the expectations of a graduate of USNA (hopefully I will).

That same year I selected Subs. I spent a good deal of time discussing various options with officers at the academy but Subs stood out for a few reasons. There is an elite attitude, the crews are close knit, the "majority" of personnel are amazing, and possibly most importantly I didn't have to deal with members of the opposite sex. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't because of the women I attended school with as much as it was the standards applied to each sex.

I expressed this attitude to my Academy sponsor (wonderful program, I hope to one day sponsor a midshipmen myself if in the area), who happened to be a Navy Captain, an amazing mentor, and the head of the admissions board. To say he was displeased with my last reason would be a drastic understatement. His wife, nicknamed "the admiral", was even more angry. How could I say such a thing after all the professional development we go through? Plain and simple, it is the standards. PRT, sexual harrassment, language in mixed groups, etc. They're not equal. Perhaps PRT standards are "physiologically" equal, but that doesn't mean that a girl who exerts X strength, equivalently equal to guy X strength, will hold the strong back into place over the busted pipe and save the crew. Effort does not equal output in some cases, but that is just the physical argument.

To make this work, our culture needs to change. You want to really make it different from all the previous "less than smooth" transitions (surface ships, race, etc.), knock down all the walls. Integrate at all levels, make things co-ed (showers, heads, etc. - which will piss off many wives/husbands), enforce standards equally, and rip bad apples off that boat as soon as they are identified. Somebody wants to pick on a lady just because he doesn't think she should be there, he's booted. No stack of months of documented paperwork to make him go, he is booted (sick of not seeing shit bags go because the paper stack just wasn't quite thick enough). The same goes for some girl who can't hack it.

There are so many things in the way of making this work and paperwork is just one example. My suggestion to overcome them in the most expeditious manner is to choose the best CO, XO, and COB (CO and COB second tour) and stand back. Let them operate as they see fit, and when it comes to crew issues trust them to make the right decisions. From there, cross your fingers that they are as good as they appear to be. Once it's done, take all the lessons, disperse outward slowly, and cross your fingers.

This is just the opinion of a lowly J.O. If this results in a bad lesson for the navy was it worth all the PC bull shit that put us in this position? We are a war fighting force and anything that decreases maximum effectiveness just feels wrong.

2/25/2010 9:39 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On another similar yet different topic that will impact boats, the service chiefs have voiced their opinion on the proposal to revamp the homo acceptability policy in the military. The Marines, Army and Air Force are OPPOSED to any change while the CNO and Joint Chief are all for sucking it up with the POTUS.

2/25/2010 9:52 PM

 
Anonymous Eric Sillaman FTC SS said...

PUSSY does not belong on submarines! Period!

2/25/2010 10:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First of all, we're dumbing down the Naval Academy," Fleming said in an interview. "Second of all, we're dumbing down the officer corps." Article about the dumbing down of the Naval Academy and officer corpses (teleprompter miscue, lol) is here, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/07/02/ST2009070203194.html. Check it out if you have time, a good read and illustrates why so many chucklheads and knucklheads are making the grade.

2/25/2010 10:14 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Naval Academy Professor Challenges Rising Diversity link

2/25/2010 10:21 PM

 
Anonymous mark said...

Interesting item re: CNO and Joint Chiefs Chairman. My guess is they are playing ball with POTUS and powers of Congress in a challenging budgetary environment competing with other services for their piece of the Defense pie. Especially with current shipbuilding needs, perhaps most pressingly in the Sub force.

2/25/2010 10:33 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is probably not too far from the truth. I have heard of the “Cash for clunkers program” but the “Fags for Frigates program” is much more noble, lol. When you have already sacrificed your character, honor and integrity, what are a few fags among friends with the chance to scoop up a few extra warships? They call that taking one for the team, lol… Of course there could be many more creative names like, “Sucking for Submarines.” Where have all the genuine and real leaders gone? Perhaps the CNO and Joint Chief are working on their next gig and maybe the POTUS has offered some coffee running jobs for them in his cast of clowns, crooks and thieves?

2/26/2010 4:49 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(Erica = "Go on a be biased, but if you call the Miami Dolphin cheerleaders and Jessica Simpson in a santa hat a great time, then by all means carry on!")

I was talking about the "ship's band" - that played several times for the crew (on their off time - not sleeping)... but nevermind! Apparently, humor doesn't work with angry females? And if I remember correctly - Jessica Simpson's santa hat is not what the crew was looking at... I think it was the skin tight Santa Suit with the front unzipped to her belly button, but again, I'm a dude - and clearly look at things differently!

So once DADT is repealled - where will the transexuals be berthed? Male or female berthing? Or do they get two racks? Depending on how they feel that day? And just what kind of training program are you going to use so we can understand and "accept" that kind of psycho nut job excuse for a lifestyle?

Will I then be able to bring my sheep along on patrol as well - if that is my preference? So much to think about really?

And I thought we were just in the service to break stuff and kill bad guys.

SCPO, Ret.

2/26/2010 5:46 AM

 
Blogger Erica said...

PUSSY does not belong on submarines! Period!

Wow, way to contribute. You get the award for the best comment ever!

"I was talking about the "ship's band" - that played several times for the crew (on their off time - not sleeping)... but nevermind! Apparently, humor doesn't work with angry females? And if I remember correctly - Jessica Simpson's santa hat is not what the crew was looking at... I think it was the skin tight Santa Suit with the front unzipped to her belly button, but again, I'm a dude - and clearly look at things differently."

I am sorry, I forgot about the ship's band. Now I am back on track. Woohoo, the ship had a band? I missed that one. I thought they just volunteered so they could have an outlet to play because if they were MUs then the Navy really needs to work on who they pick for that.

Anyway, I am generally sarcastic during these types of conversations, I am not angry in the least. I fail to see a lot of logic in this conversation, but then again when a change is suggested that is not well liked, one can expect that there will be a huge opposition. It is only natural.

Anyway, if a woman wants to be submerged on a submarine with a bunch of smelly men in a stale atmosphere, by all means, go ahead. I know what my limitations are, and I spent months at a time out to sea with smelly, stinky people that I could never get away from except in the confines of my beautiful, comfortable rack. I got some of the best sleep ever in that thing. It was grand. I need the chance to get air and sunshine, so I am very much aware of the psychological impact that being on a submarine could have on me.

I am just trying to spread the love in the fact that not all women are whiny, and use pregnancy as an excuse to not do our jobs sort of people. I was enlisted, and had an obligation and my standards were never that low that I would ever consider during something like that. I was married right after I reported to my ship, but the thought never crossed my mind.

You are only as strong as your weakest link, and I hate to break it to you, but if there is a woman on a submarine who is willing to bust her butt, and does her job well, then she will not be the weakest link. The ones who are bitching and moaning, and going out of their way to make her life miserable will be, and they are the ones who need to go, not her.

One more food for thought. How do you all know that the guy standing in the head looking over the top of a magazine while you get out of the shower is gay or straight? Gaydars are not always right you know. I'm just sayin'.

2/26/2010 6:26 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since no one has said this yet, here is the reason NOT to let women on submarines:

1) It all comes down to economics and retention. The submarine force already struggles with retention for nukes and officers. Let's assume that officers have a 30% retention rate after their JO tour(which, in reality would be a really good year for retention). Historically, women have a retention rate in the military that is roughly half of that of men, so in this case 15%.

So basically, you need two women to make the same retention numbers as one man. Perversely, the better the submarine force becomes at recruiting women, the worse the retention picture gets => The more costly it gets to crew your boats. In 6 years, as the budget axe is falling all over the place, do we really want to sit and answer the question of why we now need 145 people per boat to fill the same jobs that we previously only needed 120 to do? It's a recipe for screwing yourself down the line.

2) There's approximately fifteen female high school students TOTAL that want to be submariners. This is a fact, everyone knows that the pool of potential applicants is likely, extremely low. At best, we hope to cannabilize some portion of the women that already join the Navy to serve on surface ships. It's not like this is going to tap some hidden portion of women population that would join the Navy only under the circumstance that we allowed women on subs.

3) Flag level officers have already said that there will be extreme pressure to have one of those initial batch of female officers become a CO. They're already floating ideas for unfair treatment to make it easier for the female officers to have a family and still advance their careers, such as multi-year sabbaticals in the middle of their career to allow time for raising kids.

Taking one class of people on the boat and giving them extra consideration is completely screwed up, and once people see it in action it will cause a lot of resentment.

Yes, as rubber ducky says, we can't stop it, it's an order, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea

2/26/2010 6:32 AM

 
Blogger Erica said...

So if the retnetion of females is much lower than the male counterparts, wouldn't you (collective) want to try to figure out the reasons why?

I know that there are men who don't give rat's ass about whether or not women stay in, that is fine, but why not dig deeper and find out why? Well, why not dig deeper on the retention issue for everyone for that matter.

I believe that the Navy should be more family friendly as far as everyone is concerned, but have not thought of a good enough way to make it so. I firmly believe that children need their fathers just as much as they need their mothers and men should get the same amount of time off that a woman gets. I realize that this is not possible because of obligations to the military, and working in an environment that is primarily made up of men.

I do not agree with a so called sabbatical like a previous poster mentioned. That is completely unfair and will give women even more of a bad reputation then they all ready have, as far as stereotypes are concerned. If a woman wnats to have a family, she will wait out her time, choose which is more important, or find a way to make it work.

2/26/2010 7:06 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

You guys don't like the laws? Change the legislation. Or the legislature. You don't like the Constitution? Amend it. But for Christ's sake, quit whining.

erica: I encourage you to keep beating the shit out of these twits. Though it is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel...

2/26/2010 7:07 AM

 
Anonymous ET1 (SS) Smoothy said...

With so many comments and opinions, it’s hard to decide where to start. I’ll jump in somewhere in the middle, and try to watch my back for the flack I’m sure to receive.

1. Habitability: This is going to be a concern for everyone aboard the boat (men and women). Men are going to be upset because of the “special treatment” given to the women (separate but equal is an archaic term that needs to go away if you ask me). People try to make logical arguments about this issue, but sound like idiots trying to get there point across (me included). If a woman wants to serve aboard a submarine, there should be no “habitability” changes made. Use the same 3 sinks and shitters in the ML head. Wait in line for the 3 total showers available to the crew just like everyone else! (yeah, I was fast attack tough). If anything, this will help both sides get over the apprehension of perceived bias towards female feelings.

2. Pregnancy: My fellow submariners, I will say this as politely as I can. GET OVER IT! Think about your shipmates with kids (or think about when you welcomed your child into the world). This is one of the most amazing things that we do as humans. Did you bitch about the guy who went on baby leave the day before an underway because his wife went into labor? Or, did you commend him for “getting the good deal” and “sticking it to the man”. You probably cursed his name while you sucked up his watches, but deep down you were happy for him because he was sharing in one of the few reasons we were put on this earth.
Yes, I understand that a woman becoming pregnant prior to deployment is more of a hassle, but let’s look at it from a slightly different perspective for a second. Do you think the women who volunteer for this pioneering effort are going to be the type who are planning there pregnancies to conflict with the ship’s schedule? I’m reasonably certain that the mentality of the sailors who will be joining our ranks will be very close to the mentality that we strive for in all of our wet behind the ears non-quals. They will most likely be dedicated to success, and will put the family desires on hold to prove to the naysayers that they can do the job.

2/26/2010 7:22 AM

 
Anonymous ET1 (SS) Smoothy said...

3. PRT Standards: Really!?!?!? This is the argument you’re going to use. Think about the fat fucks and skinny bastards on the boat who can barely fit through a hatch or lift a submersible pump. If anything, the PRT results shipboard might go up. Maybe having a few women on board will raise the awareness of how out of shape some of the crew is, and maybe they’ll be motivated to hit the elliptical or the weights after watch rather than hitting the soft serve machine for seconds!

4. Special Attention (that “isn’t” harassment): Grow up ANON! Usually I try to not slam someone for there stupidity, and accept there opinion as just that, but there are certain times that I can’t control my anger at the stupidity I am presented with. Do you honestly think that making someone’s life miserable makes them (or you for that matter) a better person? As much as I hate to reference it, think about the Demi Moore film G.I. Jane. While it was a work of fiction, the character played by Demi Moore personified the grit and determination of a woman (think about when your wife is totally wrong about something, how stubborn can she be when the evidence against her is overwhelming). If you push someone and make there life miserable, the only thing you are going to do is make them want it more while making yourself look like a pompous, arrogant, prejudiced, ass!

5. What will the wives and girlfriends think argument: Who cares? The NAVY doesn’t, that’s for sure. They will use the tried and true argument we have all heard 1,000 times before, “When did they change the seabag issue to include a wife or girlfriend?” Is it a statement I agree with? NO, but it is a fact. So, to make a long story short, wives and girlfriends will get on board with it, because if they don’t trust there husbands to work with a member of the opposite sex, chances are the relationship has other issues that need to be dealt with as well. If anything, I think the husbands and boyfriends of the women on board would have a bigger issue with it then the wives club. Hell, I might have more concern about what the husbands/boyfriends are doing on shore to (I mean with) the wives club.

2/26/2010 7:23 AM

 
Anonymous ET1 (SS) Smoothy said...

6. Surface nukes work as hard as Submariners: So, I got out of the navy a couple of years ago, and I now work at a shipyard, so I think I might be qualified to comment on the differences between the sub and surface world. When I talk to some of the civilian engineers that I work with, here is what they have to say about the two different fleets. “If you need an answer from someone on a submarine, you can go to the 1st class or the senior 2nd and get a good answer. On a carrier, don’t waste your time with those guys, go to the Chief. 9 times out of 10 the blue shirts on a carrier don’t know, or don’t give a shit!”
You see, it’s not just the submarine community that acknowledges the difference in the mentality, it’s the perception of the outside agencies that interact with both communities. The responsibilities on a submarine are drastically different than those of a surface ship. Tell me, how many DC men does a submarine go to sea with? That’s right, the entire crew can cross rate to DC, because when something goes wrong with 800+ feet of water above your head, you don’t just call the fire department and wait for them to respond, you attack the problem and trust in the cook standing next to you holding the fire hose or the yeoman applying a strongback to a pipe to save your ass and keep the surface to dive ratio at 1.
So, Erica, I respect you for your service, and I’m not trying to say that my sweeping generalization of the surface community applies to everyone, but I do believe that perception is reality. You see, think about RC division on a carrier. It has like 50+ people in it. On a 688, you’re lucky to have 7 including the Chief. There is no shirking of responsibility, or hiding on a sub. You don’t get to spend your first 12 months on board in B-nuke or whatever it’s called these days. The day you step on board you are expected and required to pull your weight.

And now for my opinion about the overall issue at hand:

Personally, I think the submarine force is successful because of the relationships the crew on each ship has with one another. Each ship is a close knit fraternity house whose brotherhood is built on trust and mutual respect for one another. The submarine community is one of the last bastions of male society that has been relatively untouched by the hand of a woman. Yes, it’s sexist of me to not want a woman to serve aboard a submarine, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to hem and holler if my boss thinks it’s a good idea. I will express my concern for the manner in which it is executed and ensure that everyone in my division and aboard my ship is treated fairly and given the respect they deserve. But, alas, I do not have to experience this grand experiment that my serving submarine brothers are about to be subjected to. I will say this, it will be tough, much will be learned, but in keeping with the great traditions of the submarine community, we will adapt, we will overcome, we will prevail. (yeah that last part is cheesy, but it’s true!)

2/26/2010 7:23 AM

 
Blogger Rubber Ducky said...

et1(ss): you have my recommendation for chief...

2/26/2010 7:31 AM

 
Anonymous ET1 (SS) Smoothy said...

rubber ducky...

If only the reserve selection board read these blogs...

Being a nuke in a surface non-nuke reserve community is very tough mentally. Having to deal with people who want to give someone a "speeding ticket" for not tucking there boot laces in properly is very stressful at times.
It's even more difficult come exam time. I would love to see the questions asking me what kind of test source is in an APD instead of what type of antenna is this (picture a shoddy 3-d image containing 6 lines crossing each other in some sort of pattern).

Enough of a rant. Thanks for the compliment, even if it was sarcasm (honestly i'm not sure).

2/26/2010 7:40 AM

 
Blogger Erica said...

you don’t just call the fire department and wait for them to respond,

For the last time, it is comapring apples to oranges here. A submarine is a much smaller community. Think about 120 people compared to 5000? Yeah, you are going to have to know how to depend on each and everyone of those people when you are on a sub.

Here is how it worked on an aircraft carrier, and I am just talking about the nuke side, I do not know nor do I care about what the airdales did. You had your watchstanders typically it was a 5 and dime or 5 and 15 watch rotation. My first Med cruise was 5 and dime, my second was 5 and 15 and that was because I was senior. Anyway, that was pretty much the ORSE rotation. We had a CAT team that would respond to casualties after the initial CPs were completed. If there was another watch that was needed, say because of the EDGs starting, then the off going watch would take over that watch.

The only time we ever had a so called "fire department was when there was a major load center fire and that was to relieve the watchstanders and CAT once the intial CPs were complete. See the beauty of an aircraft carrier is that there is enough room for people to be more specialized. There is the space why not use it?

Nubs go to RT until they qualify BNEQ. An aircraft carrier plant is vastly different from what we are taught on in prototype and most of us tried to get out of BNEQ as fast as we could. CPOs don't always know the answers and to be truthful, I only had a good experience with a handful. The rest were just really good at being awful to those around them because they were the chief and they could. Who was going to stop that?

I digress, sorry for the tangent.

In all actuality, how many of you have truly feared for your lives while out to sea? On my husband's last boat they had a CLOD book and one of my favorite quotes that he told me about was "Don't worry about the fire, the flooding will put it out." That was awesome, but you all take pride in knowing that person next to you is just as capable when it comes to an emergency, but have you ever tested that theory?

2/26/2010 8:35 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tested that theory, you mean coming through in a pinch?

In real casualtys, I have seen fires and leaks secured many times faster than any drills. I have also seen people freeze in the middle of chaos and need a nudge to get their butt and brain engaged with the problem. I think that it is just human nature to seek survival and self-preservation and to sometime freeze in chaos. I once had an OOD while I was DOOW who said his scope was black. He was in shock and speechless and I directed emergency deep not wanting to end up in the Lessons Learned binder as an anonymous boat in an incident. Subamarines used to practice "forceful backup" and really it is good practice to always take good care of each other, no matter what the circumstances or scenario. I assume that they still teach "forceful backup".

2/26/2010 8:46 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I read somewhere their periods attract bears. Bears can smell the menstruation."

"Well, that's just great. You hear that, Ed? Bears. Now you're putting the whole station in jeopardy."

2/26/2010 9:04 AM

 
Anonymous STSC said...

Women on submarines will RAISE the professionalism of the force. Standards will go UP, not down.

Will there be some resistance? Absolutely. Will there be a few who will have to go Mast or Courts Martial before seeing the light? Possibly.

Every time I've been underway with females, and from everyone I've served with who has submerged w/ them aboard also, the boat crew ramped up and carried on getting the mission accomplished w/ no major issues. Hiccups, yes, but we didn't have to pull in or send off a SITREP.

The berthing issues are EASILY surmountable on the SSBN/SSGN platform w/o too heavy a burden or cost. Converting 688's or VA class will be a bigger challenge, but with the ingenuity and innovativeness that we as a force have solved other problems, we can solve these as well.

Can women do the job? Yes.
Can we do the same job we've always done next to them? Yes.

Are we overall as a force resistant to this change? Yes. We'll get over it & past it.

Enough with the belly-aching. Start looking forward to problem solving and managing the change that is going to happen, whether you like it or not.

If not, the hatch is that way. FYI, the civilian sector is co-ed...

2/26/2010 9:07 AM

 
Blogger Erica said...

"Tested that theory, you mean coming through in a pinch?"

No, I mean an actual OMG, I am afraid for my life emergency.

You sort of alluded to my point but I did not want to bring this up because of the whole "women not being able to handle emergencies because they are the weaker sex." This argument is bound to happen. I do like this quote right here: "I think that it is just human nature to seek survival and self-preservation and to sometime freeze in chaos." I completely agree that it is human nature, meaning everyone, and not just finger pointing that women would not be able to handle a life and death situation. In the difference between fight or flight you have to teach someone to fight if you think that they will have a tendency to run.

2/26/2010 9:10 AM

 

<< Home