Are we beyond the Male-Female barrier?

**Pal334** · 10-02-2009, 08:59 AM

What say you? Is it time to break some of the artificial barriers that the military has imposed on females in our Military? I will give my view shortly. Below is an excerpt of what the Navy is proposing:

Navy Officials Push for Allowing Women on Submarines
By John J. Kruzel
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29, 2009 - The Navy secretary yesterday advocated for allowing women to serve on submarines, which would require ending a long-standing ban.
"This is something the [chief of naval operations] and I have been working on since I came into office," said Ray Mabus, who was confirmed as the secretary of the Navy in May. "We are moving out aggressively on this.

"I believe women should have every opportunity to serve at sea, and that includes aboard submarines," he told reporters following a tour of Northrop Grumman Corp.'s Newport News shipyard.

Mabus is one of several top Navy officials recently to call for ending a long-standing policy barring women from serving on submarines. Officials have cited a lack of privacy and the cost of reconfiguring subs as obstacles to allowing female crewmembers to serve aboard the vessels.

Navy Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, acknowledged that special accommodations would be a factor, but one that's not insurmountable.

"Having commanded a mixed-gender surface combatant, I am very comfortable addressing integrating women into the submarine force," he said in a statement last week. "I am familiar with the issues as well as the value of diverse crews."

Roughead said that he has been personally engaged through the years in the Navy's debate of the feasibility of assigning women to submarines.

"There are some particular issues with integrating women into the submarine force -- issues we must work through in order to achieve what is best for the Navy and our submarine force," he said. "This has had and will continue to have my personal attention as we work toward increasing the diversity of our Navy afloat and ashore."

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed the issue with the Senate Armed Services Committee this month.

"I believe we should continue to broaden opportunities for women," Mullen is quoted as saying in response to written questions posed by the Senate Armed Services Committee. "One policy I would like to see changed is the one barring their service aboard submarines."

Mullen, a staunch champion of diversifying the services, said this month that having a military that reflects the demographics of the United States is "a strategic imperative for the security of our country."

**SARKY** · 10-02-2009, 09:39 AM

You say the military imposed those boundries, NO! it is society that has imposed those boundries. After 20 years of service (Navy), I was there before women were allowed in the squadrons and after. Some women are just plain girly while others, for lack of a better term are tom boys. Some work their asses off while others are screwing their asses off to avoid work (especially in hash enviroments). Some I've written atta boy after atta boy for while others I've had to council from day one until they left my shop. Is it the same with the men?, Well yes but to a much smaller degree as they tend to be shamed by their male shipmates whereas the females tend to be coddled. I also saw women get pushed for advancement ahead of men doing a better job just so the skipper could lay claim to the first woman to make cheif or what ever else they wanted kudos for.

**BENESSE** · 10-02-2009, 09:40 AM

Integration of any sort is initially hard and wrought with challenges especially in the military. But they it's the right thing to do and deserves every effort to make it work.
It's counter-productive and a drain on our resources to maintain the status quo and resist the inevitable.

**crashdive123** · 10-02-2009, 11:42 AM

In the early 90's we took a bunch of dignataries out to sea for a dog and pony show. I had a very long conversation with Senatory Inouye from Hawaii while I was standing watch as Diving Officer. He was very suprised when I said to him that I felt that women should be allowed to serve in submarines, or any other area of the military. He commented that most senior enlisted folks that he had spoken with felt quite differently about it. I went on to say - that standards, both physical and mental should not be changed to accomidate anybody just to force a social experiment. He looked puzzeled. I explained. I said that the physical demands of serving on a submarine were minor compared to the mental demands. I saw no reason why a similar percentage of women (compared to men) wouldn't be able to mee those demands. He still looked puzzeled. I further explained that groups like the Navy Seal (which I have worked very closely with) have strict physical and mental demands that most men in the service could not meet. To change those demands to accomadate women would be wrong. He seemed to understand. I continued to explain that ships should not be retrofitted to accomadate seperate berthing and lavatory facilities. Surface ships do this to the tune of millions of dollars. Space onboard a submarine is very limited. I don't remember what the numbers were in the 90's to retrofit one, but they were significant. I explained that a professional sailor was a professional sailor and would conduct themselves accordingly. He explained to me that due to human nature we could not have males and females berthing and showering together. I then asked him a question (remember this was the early 90's). My question is not appropriate for the public forum, but I was not allowed to talk to Senator Inouye any more (three more days).

**BENESSE** · 10-02-2009, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by crashdive123

In the early 90's we took a bunch of dignataries out to sea for a dog and pony show. I had a very long conversation with Senatory Inouye from Hawaii while I was standing watch as Diving Officer. He was very suprised when I said to him that I felt that women should be allowed to serve in submarines, or any other area of the military. He commented that most senior enlisted folks that he had spoken with felt quite differently about it. I went on to say - that standards, both physical and mental should not be changed to accomidate anybody just to force a social experiment. He looked puzzeled. I explained. I said that the physical demands of serving on a submarine were minor compared to the mental demands. I saw no reason why a similar percentage of women (compared to men) wouldn't be able to mee those demands. He still looked puzzeled. I further explained that groups like the Navy Seal (which I have worked very closely with) have strict physical and mental demands that most men in the service could not meet. To change those demands to accomadate women would be wrong. He seemed to understand. I continued to explain that ships should not be retrofitted to accomadate seperate berthing and lavatory facilities. Surface ships do this to the tune of millions of dollars. Space onboard a submarine is very limited. I don't remember what the numbers were in the 90's to retrofit one, but they were significant. I explained that a professional sailor was a professional sailor and would conduct themselves accordingly. He explained to me that due to human nature we could not have males and females berthing and showering together. I then asked him a question (remember this was the early 90's). My question is not appropriate for the public forum, but I was not allowed to talk to Senator Inouye any more (three more days).

Right on Crash, couldn't agree more!!!

It should be about meeting the requirements.
If you don't, you're out, no matter what gender.
End of story.

**doug1980** · 10-02-2009, 02:05 PM

That's a tough one. On one hand I say why not let them, if they have what it takes to do the job then so be it. But on the other hand I feel it could be more harm than good. While deployed I was stunned at the amount of "relations" that went on. Of course I can't say much because that's where I met my wife, and we had "relations" too. It did however take focus off what was important. The old arguement of if you have a male and female troop injured who do you think will get the immediate attention? It will happen, just a force of habit I guess. But then again some things women could do better than men. I'm glad I don't have to make these tough decisions. I wonder though, how many women really want to do some of those jobs? I mean I tried to be a Ranger and realized that it was way more demanding than I wanted so I can only imagine what a female would think. So I guess I would say if they want it let them try but like crash said don't make special accomodations and spend all that money either.