"U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on subs"

Discussion in 'Submariners' started by soleil, Sep 26, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    Yeah, just what you need, some moody bitch with PMT as panel watchkeeper. :?
  2. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    My, my, what a Luddite sexist you are! One day the fact that women couldn't serve at sea will be looked on as one of those unenlightened practices of the dim and distant past, like children down coal mines and male homosexuality as a crime. BZ the USN!
  3. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    There have been some "moody bitches" panel watch keeping :D
  4. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    Please, pass on to us the benefits of your seatime experience, Wardmaster.
  5. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    One day, PC twunts like you may, (but I doubt it), realize that there are situations in this world were woman are most definately not equal to men. On a boat you can't have a bad hair day or get all away with the fairies because you have PMT.

    Here's a thing throbber, there are no spare bodies on a boat, everyone has a job to do, and those jobs tend to be rather critical to the safety of the boat, and, unlike in your cozy PC world, on a boat, one **** up can kill the entire crew in a heartbeat.

    You can have a weakest link on a skimmer, you can't on a boat, that's why Submariners are such a ferociously close knit bunch.
  6. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    I haven't actually served on a submarine (so could someone tell whether I'm correct on this?) but it seems to me that, based on the degree to which the RN separates the accommodation of men and women on bases and ships it doesn't seem practical to do this on a boat (again, this is based on what I've read, not personal experience)

    The only way to do it without seriously cramped sleeping arrangements would either be to not separate men and women (something I can't see happening), radically redesign the boats or to have all female crews on certain boats (a concept that I'm sure will provoke some interesting responses).
  7. Guns

    Guns War Hero Moderator

    Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    xxxxxx edited
  8. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    Well, actually most woman do underperform once a month, some drastically so. NO amount of PC boll0x can overcome a fact of biology.
  9. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    Someone, anyone can step up and take over, like say the skipper...? Don't expect a boats skipper to run fwd to shut certain valves.... :roll:

    Ships have more resources for that sort of stuff, very hard to replace positions on a submarine due to someone constantly getting cramps... :wink:

    Don't confuse the 2, if you haven't served on boats, you aren't exactly qualified to form an opinion....I have sailed with women on skimmers and they are fine and are capable of doing what's required of them...but the boat scenario is a whole different beast... :wink:
  10. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    Could it bring "Hot Bunking" back again? :D
  11. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    Nice to see that the USN is catching up with the RAN..Female sailors have been on RAN boats (subs) for a few years now. When are the RN going to follow? 8)
  12. When the RN brings back diesel boats perhaps?
  13. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Now, that would be a move in the right direction. They could all mess in the afterends so no expense in redesigning the living accomodation
  14. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    I have been moody and I was a panel operator - do I qualify?
  15. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    And you are a Jock - Yes you qualify :wink:
  16. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    Could have been one of em :D
  17. Ninja_Stoker

    Ninja_Stoker War Hero Moderator

    Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    Ho-hum, here we go again.

    Like it or otherwise, despite the fact that few females would wish to serve on boats, the submarine service would quite possibly be the first to admit that the argument against females serving on boats would not stand up to legal scrutiny & it will doubtless happen sooner than many may like to think.

    The old chestnut about latent carbon monoxide on nuclear boats, potential damage to the foetus based on assumptions rather than catalogued facts derived from US 'research' is conveniently sheltered under the "duty of care" umbrella at present. The traditional, oft heard counter argument running along the lines of: "What if the female is sterile....?"

    Then we go down the route of accommodation issues, as we did on minesweepers. It's perhaps worth having a look on the Astute boats to see if bunk spaces can be divided & the Bombers SR accommodation to see whether that argument still holds water for the time being. Likewise heads & bathrooms- we currently have Officers, Senior Rates & Junior Rates ablutions- how bonkers is that?

    Doubtless there will be those that will cite females serving on boats as their reason for leaving the service, much as the same category of people did in the general service. The mistaken belief being that the service could not run without their expertise: It did previously & it will again.

    Whether it's right or wrong is open to conjecture, but it will happen.
  18. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    I was a panel operator and was NEVER moody, and I'll slap any [email protected] who says I was :evil: :angry5: :thumbleft:
  19. Re: "U.S. Navy ‘moving aggressively’ to allow women on s

    And there we have it. It will be nothing to do with operational reality or efficiency, it will be a decision driven purely by PC lawyers and their interpretation of trendy laws.

    The Israelis tried the game of fully integrated front line forces and rapidly dropped it. They found that when the shit hits the fan, a basic bit of hardwired male biology often kicks in, 'protect the females' with sometimes bad results.

    It's all well and good for naval gazing PC lawyers to espouse a 'we are all equal' mantra in their cozy chambers, but it's hard enough to think about dogging down the hatch and dooming a compartment full of blokes screaming at you to let them out when you spring a leak, you'd have to be a bloody cold hearted bastard to do the same without hesitation with the female berthing area and ignore their screams, and on a boat, the seconds while you struggle with that dilemma could be the difference between saving the boat and disaster.

    Boats ARE different, you're always a heartbeat and a mistake away from being killed in a totally hostile environment, and in an environment where a split second can mean the difference between survival and disaster, it's no place for PC driven compromises.

Share This Page