M14 Forum

TampaSsgt · May 6th, 2010, 10:24 PM

The Navy lifts ban on women serving on submarines. Any comments from our Navy members? Pro or Con.

Quote:

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/may...news-breaking/

First female officers headed to subs feel blessed

Navy lifts ban on women serving on submarines

Quote:

Midshipman Jessica Wilcox, center, responds to a reporter's question at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., Thursday. Wilcox is one of 11 women selected to begin training to become submarine officers this summer in a program that takes at least 15 months. They will report for duty aboard a submarine by 2012.

The Associated Press

Published: May 6, 2010
Related Links

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

So far, eleven female midshipmen have been accepted into the Navy's training program. Several talked about how their hopes and aspirations went from the buzz of possibility to thrilling reality.

"I didn't want to get excited yet," Midshipman Abigail Gesecki, of Nanticoke, Pa., recalled when she first heard that a policy change to allow women to serve on subs was under consideration. "And then it happened, and I was like: Wow! I'm in shock. It was a little bit of a feeling of shock that everything that I really wanted I got. It doesn't always happen that way in life."

A total of about 20 women will begin training this summer to become submarine officers in a program that takes at least 15 months. They will report for duty aboard a submarine by 2012. The first group of women will consist entirely of officers. They will be assigned to guided-missile attack submarines and ballistic-missile submarines, which have the most living space in the Navy's fleet.

Three women will be assigned to each submarine's rotating crews. That will allow all three women aboard a sub to share a single stateroom for sleeping. A single bathroom shared by the vessel's 15 officers will have a sign to show if a man or woman is inside.

The change is the latest generational leap at the academy. One student noted that her father graduated in 1971 — five years before women were admitted to the academy.

"He thought he was shocked when I got in here," Midshipman Elizabeth Hudson, of Plymouth, Mass., said. "He's up for a new round of that now. He's very excited."

Midshipman Jessica Wilcox, of Honesdale, Pa., said she has wanted to be an officer on a submarine since her first year at the academy. Wilcox said she was drawn by the highly technical and skilled professionalism she saw in both the officer and enlisted ranks during a 24-hour submarine tour.

"For me, the best part of it was definitely the interaction between the officer and the enlisted crew," Wilcox said.

Midshipman Kayla Sax said she was attracted by the amount of responsibility junior officers have on submarines.

"You sort of jump in really quick," Sax said. "You're trying to qualify to operate a nuclear reactor. You're trying to qualify on all the watches at the same time that you're trying to lead the sailors in your division."

The change in Navy policy has brought some protests, especially from wives of sub sailors, because of the tight quarters and minimal privacy in the vessels, in addition to tours of up to 90 days at sea.

But Midshipman Misty Webster, of Wesley Chapel, said she doesn't believe the close quarters will be a concern, because male and female midshipman have been working together through four years of school, where each class is about 20 percent female. She also said the smaller quarters make for a more cohesive and professional atmosphere.

"We're used to interacting with them on a day-to-day basis," Webster said of the men.

Midshipman Kristin Lyles, of Fairfax Station, Va., said her classmates have been supportive.

"They were extremely happy when we found out on Monday that we were selected, because I feel like that's going to be the same experience we're going to have in the fleet to some extent — because we've lived with these guys for four years and they're like our brothers in many ways," Lyles said.

Several of the women said that they're just excited to be heading for leadership roles in the military, and the chance to serve on a submarine is a plus.

"Mostly, I think we're excited about just serving in whatever role the Navy needs, and this happens to be a special time in the Navy and the stars kind of aligned for our class group," said Midshipman Laura Martindale, of Roselle, Ill.

TampaSsgt · May 8th, 2010, 04:27 PM

I find it interesting that there have been no comments made either pro or con.

I posted this on another website and got the following from different members there ....

Quote:

All I can tell you is from my experience on surface ships. Let it first be said that I am not anti-women, not a woman basher nor femiphobic. Bringing women on board did not enhance readiness, did not bring anything necessary to the table that was missing. What it did bring was its own set of problems that, if anything, made mission accomplishment more difficult. First, just the necessary physical conversions to accomodate females cost millions, if not billions, of dollars and additional down time in the shipyards for each ship. Also, there are the inherent problems of very close quarters for young and not so young men and women in prolonged confinement, especially during the extended times at sea. Lots of activity both off and on duty, not to mention wrecked marriages that just might not have happened if women had not been onboard. I can't tell you how many times we had to deal, and how much time we had to expend, with disciplinary issues related to the "battle of the sexes." Another readiness issue that gets overlooked during much of the discussion is pregnancy. Every shop, office, gun/missle crew is manned, or womanned, to a specific number of people. This includes every essential battle station. The loss of even one person can be devastating. My particular signal gang might have 5 to 7 people on a destroyer or cruiser. If a female gets pregnant she is immediately removed, necessarily of course for health and safety reasons, from the ship and flown home even while on deployment. She is not replaced unless and until she has the baby and is allowed to exit the Navy, at least nine months. She stlll counts as being onboard, on the job. How many job crews can easily accept a 20% loss of manpower and still operate while maintaining a 24/7 watch. The already heavy work and duty load just gets shared by the few people left behind. I have seen and heard of much greater losses. Some of the larger ships, think aircraft carriers, have lost dozens either immediately prior to or during deployment, not to mention lots more afterward. I would think the problems cannot but be greatly magnified on already cramped submarines. Certainly gives a whole new meaning to the term "hot racking." Do not be deceived, this is not, and has never been, a demanding "readiness" issue and readiness must be the driving factor for our military.

Quote:

I spent 6 years in the Navy and about 4 years of that on Submarine duty ! I think It is about time women were allowed on sea billets ! It will make them better sailors and it is more fair to the men sailors who have had to fill the sea billets for years while women in the same rate served in shore duty ! Our women are smart and strong and have proved themselves to be capable of about any task I can think of!

Quote:

To add to what the Senior Chief said, subs get depolyed for months at a time, sometimes without surfacing during the patrol. As a Crypto guy with about 10 years in the USN let me say that some of the intercepted traffic we got was via subs that were in places subs can't go (politically). Is the Navy going to compromise the mission so these new sailors can go have their baby?

I'm sure the women can do the job asked of them, that's not the issue, but the interpersonal problems for the entire crew they inherently bring aboard with them is detrimental to the mission, to their shipmates and to the security of the US...

Bad idea in my opinion...

Quote:

If you are a Navy Machinists mate you might spend 5 years at sea for every 2 years of shore duty ! If all the shore billets are filled by women who cant fill the sea duty billets It is hardly fair to the men who have to do all the sea duty ! I dont think you will have nearly the problems on a Sub as you would on a Surface ship ! Once you are part of the crew Sub people maintain very close relationships !Slackers are not well tolerated ! If you dont do your job . you will be gone ! i think women deserve the chance to prove themselves!

Quote:

The idea that we should segregate men and women is increasingly archaic. If women want to serve on submarines and they qualify, then the idea that they can't be allowed because they might get pregnant is patronizing and it diminishes the standing of our brave women in uniform. These are soldiers, not "purdy lil' ladies."

Quote:

The thing to remember is that it isnt fair to them or to us to limit what they may or may not do based on our prejudices instead of their abilities ! Yes, I still want to protect them too ! But we should limit that to when we are on land and away from our shipboard duties ! A Submarine is unique in that the duty is not so much physically strenuous as it is mental ! Also when we go to sea we all go together and either we all come home or we all don't !!Cool heads and swift correct action brings us home ! If you want to protect a woman crew member from danger ,the best thing you can do is your job !Trust her to do hers

... still curious what the Navy members here feel about this.

johnny jr. · May 8th, 2010, 04:54 PM

no bad words? must mean all good words?
my opinion? if she wants to fight like a man she better take-it like one?.( wars only)no domestic stuff!.

dwight55 · May 8th, 2010, 08:02 PM

As I sit here, I can feel the flames coming: but it really is a simple answer.

God created woman as a helper for man, . . . not an equal, . . . not a replacement in kind, . . . not with the same abilities, . . . not with the same inclinations, . . . but with a set of her own strengths and weaknesses.

To say she should be offered all opportunities that are available for men is indeed noble, it is akin to being a grand desire, and it shows equality of thought and foresight. But putting women into situations like this is about as practical as putting screen doors on submarines.

But, if it has to be, . . . then men should also get 4 days or so a month where they can rant and act like a dork with never so much as even a discussion about it. Everyone just looks the other way and says "You know, . . . "

When their partner becomes pregnant, they should also be sent off the ship with her to the "rear area". And after the baby is born, the man should also get several weeks to "get over" the birth of the child.

Yessir, . . . I'm for equality of the sexes, . . . but only if it is EQUALITY. This half baked stuff where the woman gets the gold mine and the guy gets the shaft, . . . nahhhhhhhh !

May God bless,
Dwight

bartender · September 27th, 2010, 05:56 PM

I do not think it is a good idea. I was on the ssn681 batfish back in the early 80s. there is know way a woman or women would do good on the boat I was on. It would not be good for morale as sailors do get lonely out at sea. The class I went through in nuc school (8203) had the last females to go through. They (3 or 4) all had to go to a target (surface) ship. They quit letting them into the nuc program because, at the time, I do not believe they let them in engeneering (not 100% sure of this). I also do not like that there are two standards, one for men and one for women. I you want to do the job, then there should be one standard. Later, Jonathan