i find this to be a bad idea which, IMO, will only lead to added stress on-board these subs. i am all for women serving in the military (to a degree) but one place they do not belong is in a tight confined space for 4 months straight.

Quote :

"Women to Start Serving on Submarines, but Not Everyone's On Board Another exclusive "men's club" is about to go coed: The U.S. Navy will soon allow women to serve on submarines. Women have served side-by-side with men for decades in all branches of the military, but submarines, up until now, have remained off-limits. The reason, the Navy says, was privacy. Crew members generally sleep 9 to a room. Up to 40 people can share one bathroom. Even officers bunk together. There was also the unspoken concern: men and women living 24/7 in extremely close quarters might develop uncomfortably close relationships. Small "attack" submarines simply were not designed to allow one population to have separate quarters and bathroom facilities. And while larger, defensive subs could have accommodated women, the Navy said that allowing women to serve only on those vessels would have put them at a disadvantage when seeking promotion within the ranks, since they would have to compete with men who had served in both attack and defensive vessels. But now, with the introduction of its new Trident guided missile submarines -- subs as large as the defensive ballistic missile submarines but outfitted to carry out offensive missions -- the Navy says it finally will be able to offer women both privacy and a viable career path. Because a junior officer's room was designed to bunk three people, the Navy plans to admit three women -- two junior officers and a senior officer -- onto each of its eight Trident submarine crews by January 2012. They will have to share a bathroom with nine men, but the Navy says the crew will use a simple reversible sign to indicate who is using the facilities, enabling both sexes to get the privacy they demand. No modifications required. But not everyone's on board. John Mason, a retired senior chief petty officer who served on four ballistic missile submarines and served on two surface ships with women, is one of many retired officers who say bringing women on submarines will be easier said than done. "It is impossible to pass one another in most passageways or working areas without turning sideways to pass one another," Mason wrote in a letter posted on the Navy Submarine Group Ten's official blog. "It is almost inevitably that some form of physical contact will occur.” "During times of emergencies," he continued, "the situation becomes even more critical because shipmates are rushing to their casualty or their battle station, some going forward, some going aft, some climbing over one another to relieve a watch station. All of these actions are critical to ensure the safety of the mission, the ship, and the crew. And all of them result in physical contact of one form or another." Combine that physical closeness with being out to sea for up to four months with minimal outside contact, and you're just asking for trouble, Mason says. "Sexual harassment forms a major factor in the workplace environment, whether military or civilian, for very good reasons," he says. "You cannot close the hatch on a submarine, submerge, and tell the crewmembers, 'don't act human.' We can have idealistic expectations, but we must live in a realistic world." The Navy says it is being realistic -- by realizing that it's not meeting its officer recruiting goals and that more and more women and fewer and fewer men are getting technical degrees. "We need to open up that aperture so we can bring in these highly qualified, intelligent, enthusiastic women into the submarine program so we can maintain our personnel rankings," Rear Adm. Barry Bruner told FoxNews.com. Also, Bruner says, sailors aboard submarines today don't have the same "hangups" as prior generations. "They don't really care if it's a man or a woman. They don't really care if he or she is black or white, tall or short, fat or thin. What they care about is can they do their job," he said. But some of the sailors' spouses don't share that indifference. "The Navy wives, I think, are the most vocal," said Linda Cagle, the owner of a restaurant near the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base. "They do not think it's a good idea, they do not want women on submarines with their husbands or their boyfriends." The Navy hopes the penalties for "fraternizing" -- ranging from fines to dismissal and two years' confinement – will ease some of those concerns. And if crew members were to defy the rules? If a sailor got pregnant on board, the Navy says, it would get that woman off the submarine as soon as possible, just as it does if a male sailor has a medical emergency. "Every week or two weeks or month, at least, we have a significant health issue on a submarine," Bruner said. "It might be an acute appendicitis; it might be a heart condition. It could be anything ranging from significant problems with your eyes to who knows what -- a broken bone -- and we would handle the pregnancy the same way that we do those injuries." But considering that less than 1 percent of women in the Navy have become pregnant while on board surface ships, he said he doesn't anticipate having to deal with that issue often, if at all. One issue he is dealing with is whether the policy will carry over to the enlisted ranks, where more than 80 sailors, some as young as 17, sleep nine to a room and share two bathrooms. "To bring women enlisted on board we'd actually have to make modifications to the ship," he said. "I can't tell you exactly what they would be, because although we're beginning to look at this, we really haven't gone far enough down the road to determine which submarines we're going to put them on and how we're going to make sure they have privacy." The Navy says it isn't having a problem meeting its recruitment goals for enlisted sailors, so it has time to explore the issue. And it sees no better starting point than admitting female officers. "Anytime our culture has made progress there are challenges associated with it," Bruner said. "So there are challenges with this. But if there's anything that I've learned in my time in the service, it’s that we make no changes without a lot of forethought and a lot of detailed planning.""

4/29/2010 1:47:30 PM

Why not?

The men "just can't control themselves?"

You're right, they belong in the kitchen.

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ]

4/29/2010 1:49:45 PM

I'd imagine there is next to nothing in terms of privacy on a Sub.

4/29/2010 1:55:48 PM

Sounds no different than a battlefield.

I suppose women shouldn't serve there.

Also, Black people, because they do not belong in a tight confined space for 4 months traight.

And the gays.

4/29/2010 2:00:14 PM

the only real concern would be the extra space needed for duplicate facilities.

4/29/2010 2:03:32 PM

They didn't need duplicate facilities on Galactica. They don't need 'em here.

4/29/2010 2:05:52 PM

Quote :

"Sounds no different than a battlefield. I suppose women shouldn't serve there. Also, Black people, because they do not belong in a tight confined space for 4 months traight. And the gays. "

dude, seriously, your narrow minded way of thinking doesn't belong in this thread. This is about practical reasons why two different sex's can't serve in a sub together.

Women have separate sleeping quarters, bathrooms, etc then men. A sub is limited in space so such requirements would be difficult and costly to tax payers.

Not to mention require additional supplies then men and generate more waste then men because of the additional supplies.

4/29/2010 2:06:03 PM

Seems like God is on a troll roll.

4/29/2010 2:08:18 PM

When is he not trolling lol

4/29/2010 2:08:59 PM

Quote :

"dude, seriously, your narrow minded way of thinking"

Quote :

"two different sex's can't serve in a sub together."

4/29/2010 2:09:50 PM

WTB: Out of Context

Quote :

"This is about practical reasons"

4/29/2010 2:11:15 PM

Continue to have single-sex submarines and admit humanity's short-comings; ie, the limits of a submariner's self-control

or

Allow women onto submarines; equality for equality's sake, at the expense of efficiency. What are we defending that is more important than equality?

4/29/2010 2:34:09 PM

If your battle is equality, lets start with things that we're all affected by...starting with insurance.

4/29/2010 2:36:54 PM

Are you guys arguing against both women officers and women enlisted sailors?


To me there is no reason to not allow women officers, It seems like their facilities would already be private enough.

Enlisted sailors it gets more complicated.

Props to the Navy for bringing this up for discussion on their own (if that was the case)

4/29/2010 2:45:36 PM

enlisted sailors.

4/29/2010 2:51:08 PM

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1969602,00.html

Not a bubblehead...never served on a sub.

...just saying--don't fuck this up.

4/29/2010 2:54:47 PM

This will quickly die down after the first couple of rape lawsuits.

4/29/2010 2:57:06 PM

simple solution, have separate attack subs with all men or all women on it.

Then we can also see who's better at fucking enemies up

4/29/2010 3:07:25 PM

I'm assuming this "all-female" sub would stay in the port where it belongs?

4/29/2010 3:23:33 PM

Quote :

"Allow women onto submarines; equality for equality's sake, at the expense of efficiency."

How exactly would it be less efficient? Would the women be too busy doing their nails?

4/29/2010 3:28:55 PM

have you ever been aboard a submarine and seen how small they are inside?

I'm not saying it's not doable...I'm saying that either you are an idiot or deliberately refuse to engage in well-constructed debate.

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ]

4/29/2010 3:35:28 PM

Okay, so no fat guys..

now, why can't women serve?

4/29/2010 3:35:58 PM

alright, you are really starting to irritate the shit out of me (and not just this thread).

if you want to be disingenuous, go do it in chit chat. you post almost nothing constructive.

4/29/2010 3:39:27 PM

I'm not being disingenuous. If you want to defend his point about it being less efficient, do it. If not, don't try to defend it.

He said it would be less efficient.

I asked why.

You said subs are small.

I said that still doesn't prove why women can't serve.

And then you say that I'm pissing you off. That's where we are now.

4/29/2010 3:44:10 PM

Quote :

"simple solution, have separate attack subs with all men or all women on it. Then we can also see who's better at fucking enemies up"

4/29/2010 3:45:34 PM

Quote :

"You said subs are small. I said that still doesn't prove why women can't serve."

You either know nothing about women or theDuke is onto something. (I'm guessing both)

4/29/2010 3:47:44 PM

Let me know why men and women can't shower and sleep in the same quarters.

If you're using the "oh because they'd be attracted to each other" argument, then I suppose that heterosexual men and homosexual men can't shower and sleep in the same quarters either?

4/29/2010 3:48:51 PM

^^^^ No, you said that you don't see how it's less efficient.

Quote :

"If you want to defend his point about it being less efficient, do it"

Subs are fucking small. If you have separate facilities (berthings, heads, etc) for men/women is an inefficiency that hurts more when you don't have lots of space to absorb a little "wasted" space.

You'll notice that at no point have I argued that we shouldn't do this--I've just said there are legitimate concerns that we shouldn't ignore, and that there will probably be some prices to pay for doing it.

What irritates the hell out of me is the goddamn retarded way you argue everything. There are plenty of people whom I usually disagree with who don't piss me off.

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ]

4/29/2010 3:58:56 PM

^he's addressed the issue with having to add in separate facilities.

Quote :

" Let me know why men and women can't shower and sleep in the same quarters. If you're using the "oh because they'd be attracted to each other" argument, then I suppose that heterosexual men and homosexual men can't shower and sleep in the same quarters either?"

4/29/2010 4:01:18 PM

4/29/2010 4:01:56 PM

oh holy fuck, they aren't going have a little floating nudist colony. the philosophical argument is irrelevant--the reality is that the option isn't on the table, and you're a fool for framing your argument in that context, sitting there smugly thinking you're all enlightened and shit for thinking of a concept so cutting-edge. It's not that everyone else is incapable of thinking outside the box--it's that ideas like that get blocked by the fairy tale filter before offered up in legitimate discussion as even a plausible yet unlikely solution.

At least GoldenViper openly acknowledges that everything he proposes is complete fantasy. Being self-aware is a huge first step.

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 4:12 PM. Reason : ]

4/29/2010 4:04:56 PM

Quote :

"Let me know why men and women can't shower and sleep in the same quarters. If you're using the "oh because they'd be attracted to each other" argument, then I suppose that heterosexual men and homosexual men can't shower and sleep in the same quarters either?"

4/29/2010 4:05:04 PM

^^Now who is being hyperbolic. I don't see why that's so unreasonable. They're all responsible adults who are serving, living, and dying with each other. Why can't they shower, shit, and sleep in the same area as well?

I think that's a legimate question.

4/29/2010 4:06:21 PM

If you think that's a legitimate question, you are so far behind the power curve that any further input from you is utterly futile. It doesn't even merit debate.

4/29/2010 4:09:50 PM

There was a great documentary on PBS recently about women on aircraft carriers. All of them had boyfriends on board, and obviously a few on the side. But really, why would women join the military other than to get their brains fucked out and be the center of attention?

4/29/2010 4:12:13 PM

You won't even humor me with a response?

I mean, is this a "unit cohesion" argument again?

4/29/2010 4:12:34 PM

Present Day Reality, meet God. God, reality.

We're about 500 years away from co-ed showers.

Please don't post screencaps from starship troopers. I'd like to keep viewing this thread from work.

4/29/2010 4:13:43 PM

But why? You keep saying it as if it's some unfalliable truth. What's the reason? The men "can't help themselves?" They'll "be distracted?"

4/29/2010 4:14:42 PM

Besides, this is the Navy after all, so they're not really soldiers. It's just factory work with a chance of drowning. Sex was common in General Motor's factories too.

4/29/2010 4:15:08 PM

Look, start yourself a little thread about why we have separate shitters for men and women if you really want to discuss that.

That's an academic, philosophical argument, and has no actual impact or relevancy, most especially in the U.S. Navy. It is a 100% waste of time to even discuss it in the context of women on subs.

4/29/2010 4:16:31 PM

On the contrary, it's entirely relevant.

The main defense against putting women on submarines, at least from what I've gathered in this thread, is that it would take up too much space to add extra facilities.

Now, while we can debate that point seperately (and in fact I think it's entirely feasible to build a submarine with "coed" facilities), it appears that your argument is that there isn't enough space.

So, I ask you, why isn't there enough space? Why can't they share facilities? And all you've given me is dismissive hand-waving as if that's a preposterous proposition.

But didn't we hear similar arguments when women wanted to serve in the general military?

"Bah, preposterous! Why, they'll have to build separate bathrooms and showers on all of the bases! The men will be surrounded by women in those tiny fox holes! Anything could happen!"

And look where we are now. Women serve on bases. Women serve in the military along side men.

So, why not submarines?

If, as you say, the argument is that the men will be too distracted by naked women being around them all day, isn't that an argument against repealing DADT as well? After all, if homosexuals are showering alongside heterosexual men, they'll have naked bodies to stare at as well.

If anything, this shows the puritanism in the United States. Ever been to Spain? People walk around butt naked on the beaches all the time. No one cares. It's no big deal. If two normal people can walk around on a nude beach and have it be no big deal, I can't imagine why a trained soldier on the most expensive military on Earth can't handle his fellow soldier showering next to him.

4/29/2010 4:23:33 PM

Shhhh...grown-ups are talking.

4/29/2010 4:24:22 PM

You only look like an idiot when you do stuff like that. You know that, right? I mean, if you want to just go ahead and admit that I'm right and you're wrong, you can do it like a man instead of some ad hominem bullshit.

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 4:26 PM. Reason : ]

4/29/2010 4:25:29 PM

Quote :

"It's no big deal. If two normal people can walk around on a nude beach and have it be no big deal, I can't imagine why a trained soldier on the most expensive military on Earth can't handle his fellow soldier showering next to him."

hanging out on a nude beach != taking a shit/piss in front of some random member of the opposite sex.

also....^

Quote :

"Shhhh...grown-ups are talking."

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

4/29/2010 4:27:38 PM

double post.

[Edited on April 29, 2010 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

4/29/2010 4:27:38 PM

Quote :

"hanging out on a nude beach != taking a shit/piss in front of some random member of the opposite sex. "

Last I checked, we have these things called stalls.

Why look, here's a commode on an old sub: http://navsource.org/archives/08/679/0867404.jpg

4/29/2010 4:29:48 PM

Quote :

"Shhhh...grown-ups are talking."

4/29/2010 4:30:25 PM

Quote :

"Shhhh...grown-ups are talking."

4/29/2010 4:30:53 PM

Quote :

""Shhhh...grown-ups are talking.""

4/29/2010 4:35:03 PM

If I were stuck on a sub with a bunch of dudes, I would love to have some women on board. Especially if I could bang a couple of them. The only ones who wouldn't like this are the fat dependasaurus military wives.

4/29/2010 4:40:05 PM