Women Will Serve Aboard Submarines
- Thread starter Barbados Slim
- Start date
As I said in the TNZ thread, this is just another "about time" action from the US military.
Well, quarters are pretty cramped aboard all naval vessels. If they can make co-ed crews work on surface ships, I'm sure they can accommodate female crew on subs.
Of course, I can't help thinking of Down Periscope.
“Lieutenant Lake, you are almost out of uniform!”
Just remember not to leave the seat up!
Of course, I can't help thinking of Down Periscope.
“Lieutenant Lake, you are almost out of uniform!”
Just remember not to leave the seat up!
Wow, I had no idea this wasn't allowed in the first place. How sad, glad we've moved past that.
This is disgusting! This is outrageous!! I can't believe this is even an issue!!!
You mean to tell me WE STILL HAVE SUBMARINES??!??!?
You mean to tell me WE STILL HAVE SUBMARINES??!??!?
Building new ones too. 
So is this thread related to this other one?
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=115224
Will a separate head (nautical WC) be required along with sanitary disposal facilities?
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=115224
Will a separate head (nautical WC) be required along with sanitary disposal facilities?
Well, quarters are pretty cramped aboard all naval vessels. If they can make co-ed crews work on surface ships, I'm sure they can accommodate female crew on subs.
Of course, I can't help thinking of Down Periscope.
“Lieutenant Lake, you are almost out of uniform!”
Just remember not to leave the seat up!
Sadly, that was my first thought when reading the thread title.
And... I had no idea the ban was still in effect.
Interesting read on this very subject:
Newport News Daily Press
October 3, 2009
The Debate Is On: Do Submarines Have Room For Women?
By Hugh Lessig
NEWPORT NEWS--Earlier this week, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus was in town and confirmed his desire to end the ban on women serving aboard submarines.
"All other ships have women sailors on board, and they're all doing great," he said.
But the idea has renewed a vigorous debate among submarine veterans and interest groups. Supporters say the Navy should open a door that has been closed to women, but opponents foresee a slew of problems — from flirting, romances and tiffs that harm crew morale to whether female submariners in the early stages of pregnancy would risk the health of their unborn children.
...
Newport News Daily Press
October 3, 2009
The Debate Is On: Do Submarines Have Room For Women?
By Hugh Lessig
NEWPORT NEWS--Earlier this week, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus was in town and confirmed his desire to end the ban on women serving aboard submarines.
"All other ships have women sailors on board, and they're all doing great," he said.
But the idea has renewed a vigorous debate among submarine veterans and interest groups. Supporters say the Navy should open a door that has been closed to women, but opponents foresee a slew of problems — from flirting, romances and tiffs that harm crew morale to whether female submariners in the early stages of pregnancy would risk the health of their unborn children.
...
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, I was going to suggest that women and seamen shouldn't mix at war.
There is the old WW2 joke about how a sailor finds out the water temperature.... he puts his finger in a WAVE
Rii
Rear Admiral
Entrenched bureaucracy resists change? Well I never!
Wait - easy solution to two issues
only put gay/lesbian sailors aboard subs, then don't ask/don't tell.....
Really, this all should be such a none issue by now.
only put gay/lesbian sailors aboard subs, then don't ask/don't tell.....
Really, this all should be such a none issue by now.
Mine, too, but I'm not sad about it. It's actually mandatory when you have my avatar.
I can't decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I mean, one one hand, it's three months in a tin can underwater with wimmin who can't get away.
OTOH, it's three months in a tin can underwater with wimmin and you can't get away. 
Wait, they're giving women the same Rights as men now? I propose a Constitutional Amendment to stop this nonsense.
Do you have a link to this? If it's the entire article, it shouldn't be Posted here for Copyright reasons.
Hmmm, I have a bit of a problem with how the issue is being handled (of course). The way I see it...(cue large Nasat rant, so sorry about this!)
Well, I'm assuming you mean something along the lines of "the right to fully participate in civic actions". But that doesn't strike me as right, personally. That is not how rights should work. Rights ensure freedom and protection, surely, not servitude to a government (voluntary or otherwise)?
Military service is a chore, not a right. I must say I personally find it laughable if something like military service is considered a "right". I'd say freedom from registry for military service is a right, in which case in the USA women have the rights and men don't, so to discuss the issue as a matter of woman's rights simply does not compute with me. It strikes me as very odd- indeed disturbing- that society seems to want to insist it's the other way round. Rights should ensure protection, security and freedom, but apparently no-one is interested in pursuing those rights. Instead they only insist on the "right" to serve the government and put oneself in danger. That sounds disturbing. Rights are to benefit the people, not the government, or they're not doing their job, surely? It seems to me there’s no right to freedom (at least for the boys), only a right to be a servant if a woman should choose to pursue servitude herself. That makes no sense, surely?
*Cue Cynicism* So as usual the government and people only pursue “rights” , and only make an issue of "rights" when those rights ensure a good deal for them, whether it’s at the expense of others or not.
If we're discussing rights as they pertain to military service, there is only one right that matters- the right not to be registered for service should you not desire to be. The right to freedom from government control, because when people serve government and not vice versa, that is tyranny. And before anyone jumps in with the usual "there isn't actually an active draft", that's besides the point. If I had a piece of paper legally giving me ownership of you and control over your body, does the fact that I have no desire to actually enforce anything or impose on you make it okay? Would you then be comfortable with it? Compulsary registry is a way of the government to tell its citizens "You are a resource, at least in potential, for our wars. We do not serve you; you serve us. Your freedom is an illusion. We own you; never forget that". That is not rights in action. It is the absence of rights.
If we're discussing rights as they relate to service, I must say I personally find it the total wrong end of the stick to assume that service is a right and freedom from control isn't. That's simply twisting the concept of rights to tyrannical ends and a means for a government to use the rhetoric of freedom while circumventing it.
Well, I'm assuming you mean something along the lines of "the right to fully participate in civic actions". But that doesn't strike me as right, personally. That is not how rights should work. Rights ensure freedom and protection, surely, not servitude to a government (voluntary or otherwise)?
Military service is a chore, not a right. I must say I personally find it laughable if something like military service is considered a "right". I'd say freedom from registry for military service is a right, in which case in the USA women have the rights and men don't, so to discuss the issue as a matter of woman's rights simply does not compute with me. It strikes me as very odd- indeed disturbing- that society seems to want to insist it's the other way round. Rights should ensure protection, security and freedom, but apparently no-one is interested in pursuing those rights. Instead they only insist on the "right" to serve the government and put oneself in danger. That sounds disturbing. Rights are to benefit the people, not the government, or they're not doing their job, surely? It seems to me there’s no right to freedom (at least for the boys), only a right to be a servant if a woman should choose to pursue servitude herself. That makes no sense, surely?
*Cue Cynicism* So as usual the government and people only pursue “rights” , and only make an issue of "rights" when those rights ensure a good deal for them, whether it’s at the expense of others or not.
If we're discussing rights as they pertain to military service, there is only one right that matters- the right not to be registered for service should you not desire to be. The right to freedom from government control, because when people serve government and not vice versa, that is tyranny. And before anyone jumps in with the usual "there isn't actually an active draft", that's besides the point. If I had a piece of paper legally giving me ownership of you and control over your body, does the fact that I have no desire to actually enforce anything or impose on you make it okay? Would you then be comfortable with it? Compulsary registry is a way of the government to tell its citizens "You are a resource, at least in potential, for our wars. We do not serve you; you serve us. Your freedom is an illusion. We own you; never forget that". That is not rights in action. It is the absence of rights.
If we're discussing rights as they relate to service, I must say I personally find it the total wrong end of the stick to assume that service is a right and freedom from control isn't. That's simply twisting the concept of rights to tyrannical ends and a means for a government to use the rhetoric of freedom while circumventing it.
Last edited:
Best part of the article up thread:
That crap goes on now, a submarine isn't going to change that. Hell some of the biggest gossips I know are or were in the Navy-- no offense to the Ex-Navy around here, just personal experience. We had a neighbor whose son was on the Ike in '94. To hear that boy talk the women that got assigned that ship did nothing but fuck and suck their way through the deployment.
So the whole "people will talk..." argument is empty and ignorant of one as people can use.
That crap goes on now, a submarine isn't going to change that. Hell some of the biggest gossips I know are or were in the Navy-- no offense to the Ex-Navy around here, just personal experience. We had a neighbor whose son was on the Ike in '94. To hear that boy talk the women that got assigned that ship did nothing but fuck and suck their way through the deployment.
So the whole "people will talk..." argument is empty and ignorant of one as people can use.
Point being, that using gossip as an excuse for not doing something is ignoring the reality that it already goes on.