Looks like a member of the top Naval brass is pushing for allowing women for submarine duty again.
The nation’s top military officer has called for lifting the ban on women serving aboard submarines, in a significant step toward reducing the barriers to women in combat.
Navy Seeks to Allow Women to Serve on Submarines – washingtonpost.com
Now anyone who knows me personally knows damn well that I’m hardly the type of person to class women as inferior in any way, shape or from however, as an ex-Cold War submariner I have to say that this is a bad idea all around. And if women were allowed in the submarine force, it should be limited to female officers only. Unless things have drastically changed since my time in the service, allowing women to serve on submarines as officers only at least would allow them some semblance of privacy and separation by rank from the enlisted crew members.
Anyway…
The first reason is privacy. The average age of enlisted on any given boat is around 20 with new “non-quals” (newly reported crew members who are not “qualified in submarines”) running as young as 19. These individuals are can be isolated for up to months at a time from the outside world. Now consider what might happen with a submarine crew of male and female 20-some year olds on a long term operation. As one who used to “be there” all I can say is that it would most likely result in some rather nightmarish conditions.
Officers and enlisted alike literally rub elbows but it’s especially true with the enlisted members. American subs are designed first with it’s equipment in mind and crew comfort coming second. There is no “privacy” on a submarine in the true sense of the word, the only privacy any crew member is allotted is by other crew members being good enough to leave you “alone” from time to time. Even then your still “rubbing elbows” with them.
Secondly, serving on a submarine is f***ing hard and unbelievably stressful. So much so in fact that it can only be qualified as “you had to be there”. If you weren’t there you could never understand. It’s as simple as that.
It takes an entire year just to get through the basic submarine qualifications and until you’re “qualified” you’re worse than useless (and dangerous) and you’re treated that way. The treatment isn’t done out of sheer meanness though. Being mean doesn’t enter into it at all. It’s just part and parcel of what it means to serve on a submarine. They, meaning the qualified members of the crew, have to know where your breaking point is, it’s absolutely vital to find this out and female crew members would be no exception to the rule. Every new crew member goes through this—no exception. There would be no room for anyone citing “abuse” or sexism on a active submarine. You either deal with it or be booted off. That’s one of the reasons that the serving on a submarine is strictly voluntary in nature.
And third. It’s going to cost too much.
Uh, what?
I mean it. Converting a submarine to accommodate women’s special needs was approximated at close to a billion dollars per already existing submarine and that was during my time.
I’m not pulling this out of the air mind you. There was a in depth study already done on the possibility of women serving on a submarine that was included in a larger study done by the Navy to ascertain if the best possible use of submarine crew combinations were being utilized. They even sent out a nuclear sub with an all female crew that had been specially trained for this study.
They didn’t last long.
Suffice it to say that locking up 90 or so women in a 290’ by 36’ equivalent of an underwater sewer tube became a recipe for disaster despite their training. They just simply could not get along. The other anomaly which no one expected was that the boat came back with the sanitary system that deals exclusively with the “heads” (bathrooms) completely bound up (not a good thing in regards to a submarine). The system simply wasn’t designed to deal with non-degradable items the size of a sanitary napkin. The entire system would have to be redesigned to accommodate these type of items. Perhaps they’ve found a cost effective way around this problem by now.
As a final note, a submarine environment by it’s very nature tends to be rather unhealthy. Cuts and scrapes don’t heal, colds and flu’s tend to last until the next port of call, occasional long periods of high CO2, toxic gas (never, ever deep fry scallops in anything but fresh oil) and other such atmospheric wonders that can occur despite the best in environmental controls can severely degrade the health of any submariner during their tour of sea duty unless things have drastically changed since my time—which I doubt.
I could go on but I won’t. There’s just too much—even to sum up.
So in risk of being labeled a male chauvinist, which I’m not, mixing genders on a nuclear powered submarine is not, in my experienced opinion, in the best interests of the US Navy.
Any dissenting opinions welcome.
Edit 01/02/09: Okay, I know, where’s the citations, references, etc to the above statements? I finally had the time to sit down and do some serious searching and I’m posting the links to two PDF documents I’ve uploaded. One is a 2001 study of the medical implications of women serving on submarines and the other is a smaller report covering the late 90′s to early 2000′s of women serving on Victoria class submarines (diesel/electric) which are even smaller than our current fast attack subs at least in size and accommodations. Apparently they have a few female enlisted serving aboard subs already. These are obviously more recent documents than the one I mentioned and tends to contradict my own opinions in some ways and validates them in another but I’ve always believed in keeping an open mind about things. I haven’t had the time to everything these reports have to say of course but what I did see makes for some interesting reading.
US report–”Medical implications of women serving on submarines”
Canadian report of women serving on Victoria class submarines
No dissenting comments from the peanut gallery, I’ll take your word on matters such as this.
.-= Elaine´s last blog ..Dave Letterman Top 10 List =-.
Hello there Peanut Gallery
These “top brass” obviously have no clue whatsoever about what life is like on a submarine, especially for the “fast attack” class. I’d consider it an “oh well” type situation except for the fact that it would create an explosive situation on any sub that could easily endanger crew and ship. Perhaps I should write the Navy?
Having spent 22 years on SSBNs, I must agree with your synopsis. The “top brass” who are suggesting this course of action have obviously never deployed on a submarine of any kind and are totally unfamiliar with the stresses involved. I have never made a deployment without extra mattresses put in lower level Missile Compartment (640 class) or second level Missile Compartment (Trident) outboard of the missile tubes because of extra bodies onboard. There was no actual privacy for those guys except a bed spread hung up in front of their rack area. Would extra female riders bump male crew members from their racks for “privacy” concerns in those situations? Most likely! I think this is a bad idea that needs to be thought out a bit better.
Chuck – Absolutely. I think that the matter of “equality of the sexes” would take on a whole different meaning entirely when it’s applied inside of a submarine 1000 miles from anywhere and several hundred feet beneath the surface of the ocean (like most “ideals” when applied to a submarine environment).
Sorry for the late reply. Service related type disabilities tend to distract in the most interesting ways.
I have nothing against females serving in the military and I have come to terms with how I was raised by my southern father to treasure women and in summary I no longer have problems with women dying in combat just as men do. It is a true sign of providing equality..the equal right to die for your country.
BUT, geeze this idea that you can put women on crews subs and it not eventually causing someone to loose their reputation, career, their marriage and probably their retirement grade unfairly is IMHO childish, solely political correct thinking.
Now if you can find enough females qualified to run their own, segregated, all-femail boat then I say right on!
Pal – Sorry, I missed your comment somehow. So welcome and all that.
All female crew? I believe they tried that at one time or so I heard while I was riding around in one of those things. It was said that the special study failed because they (the all-female crew) couldn’t get along with each other. Ya’ never know though.
I rode 637 class “fast attack ” subs back during the cold war. I agree the brass is playing politically correct BS on this subject. Maybe female officers would work out.
Enlisted females, living equally in the normal environment of a submarine at sea, would be a distraction at minimum, and cause many problems that could not be dealt with in simple methods. I am not questioning their abilities or professionalism here either.
Its simply if you mix sexes in the twenty something range, in a seriously closed environment for months at a time, sex will eventually be a given. So careers, marriages, and reputations will be at risk if this were to be implemented fleet-wide. And as mentioned, building boats to accommodate, or retrofitting subs to do this, would add enormous costs to the submarines.
Jim – Heh-heh. Let’s just say I wouldn’t want to be riding any boat that had what you might call a co-ed enlisted crew. Nope, probably couldn’t pay me enough.
I was a 637 rider also. I was on one of the “stretch hulls” (USS Silversides).
This entire article is sexist. Every person must be judged on an individual basis, not by class, race, or gender. Have two women ever gotten along? Yes. Therefore that theory is invalid. What “special needs” must be accommodated? Tampons? Not likely to cost a billion dollars.
And privacy… ah. People really need to get over themselves. If you volunteer for such a position, you do so with the full knowledge that “OMG” someone of the opposite sex might see you naked. I know thats a big step for you, but for most of civilized society, not a big deal.
You obviously have never been inside a sub. I’ve never served on one but I did have the pleasure of touring the USS Tuscon (LA class fast attack sub). Cramped doesn’t even begin to describe how small those things are. From what I’ve read and from what my submariner acquaintances have told me, it is a VERY high stress environment, even with an all male crew and when all is going well. A bunch of horny 20-something males mixed with females on a submarine is just asking for trouble. Do you know how many women get pregnant on tours in the surface Navy? Its a significant amount. However, on a surface ship a pregnancy can be dealt with. The female can be flown out and a replacement can be flown in. Not so on a submarine. Submarine’s typically don’t surface at all unless there is an emergency. Evacuating a pregnant sailor would present an undue strain on the submarine’s crew (finding a replacement) and even worse, it would jeopardize the mission. I’m now starting to ramble so I’ll shut up and leave you with these words. The military is not a social experiment. The military exists for one sole purpose, to protect the interests of the United States of America. Everything else is secondary. Putting women on subs would only serve to compromise that mission and to do so out of political correctness would be a huge mistake.
Sorry but that’s absurd to say that “A bunch of horny 20-something males mixed with females on a submarine is just asking for trouble”. What about homosexual men? Are there hundreds of gay gang rapes that are just accepted every year on submarines? We need to stop perpetuating this idea that men can’t control themselves around women because it’s completely ridiculous.
We expect to trust the safe operation of billions of dollars worth of naval hardware to “20-something males” but we assume they’re completely incapable of GANG RAPING their fellow sailors. Give them some credit.
Gang rape? Did I say that? I don’t believe I did. What I mean by that statement is that sexual relationships WOULD happen which would lead to several things. First, it would lead to bad blood between the Sailors (admit it, you would be jealous if someone was getting nookie and you weren’t, especially if you were at one point during the cruise, remember, there is NO privacy on a sub so everyone would know about any relationships). Second, females WOULD get pregnant and that would risk compromising the mission of the submarine. The surface Navy and other branches of the military have enough problems with sexual harassment and women getting knocked up on deployment. In the high stress environment of a submarine this would be much worse because when subs go out on a patrol, they are there for the duration. They can’t chopper off a crew member if something happens to a crew member like the surface Navy. Surfacing a submarine mid-patrol risks exposing the location of the submarine which in turn compromises the mission. As for homosexual men? They can’t get pregnant like women can. Those are just the facts.
do you have any sources you would like to cite, to back up your statement of “There was a in depth study already done on the possibility of women serving on a submarine that was included in a…”
Matt – A good question. Unfortunately, no I haven’t. But it’s not some arbitrary guess on my part.
What you need to understand is anything at all to do with the submarine force, with the exception of it’s existence and the occasionally allowed tour ( where everything but the galley stove is covered up) is classified. Yes, I know that’s convenient but then again if you go back a bit in this personal blog of mine you’ll see I don’t talk a whole lot about my experiences in the submarine force during the Cold War. In fact I can count all the posts on one hand and still have fingers left over.
What I can tell you is that the study included sending out 3 different types of crews for a series of drills than what is the normal compliment on a submarine (officers and enlisted).
1. A full crew of only enlisted personnel.
2. A full crew of only officers.
3. An all female crew.
Although the all enlisted crew were the most successful of the 3 test runs the study proved that the best submarine crew make up was a combination of male officers and enlisted.
I stand by what I said in that I believe that a trial program of putting female officers on fleet ballistic missile submarines might be successful even to the point of trying the same thing on the smaller fast attack subs. Other than that, it’s a mistake to think it would anything other than a recipe for disaster.
I just read this, and it sounds a lot like “Submarines are high stress, no privacy, and men can handle that but women can’t. Not that I’m sexist or anything”.
I don’t see why this would be so difficult. Women who can’t handle the stress and lack of privacy will do what men who can’t handle the stress and lack of privacy do — they don’t volunteer.
Here’s my simple idea:
- Require at least one female officer per submarine with women on it (to help with sexual harassment), also actually follow up on sexual harassment instead of ignoring it or covering it up.
- Require all women deployed on submarines to take birth control (if you don’t want to take birth control, you don’t work on a sub — it’s a step up from how it is now).
- Put trash cans in the bathrooms. I find it hard to believe that the Navy did a study on this and didn’t bother to ask a single woman how they deal with menstral pads.
I think Brendan makes the most valid points and presents some really good ideas. As a female enlisted person for about a decade myself, I think that the issues you find insurmountable can be dealt with. I think there are plenty of female members of the military who would willingly take birth control or even undergo reproductive surgery for the honor of serving in restricted combat positions and on submarine crews. Think about all of us in forward positions now who carry the same weapons and take the same risks as our counterparts in infantry in just the same locations and vehicles – but we can’t do the job on paper. We’re mechanics, truck drivers, medics, and combat comm. We get shot at just as much when we’re overseas. And yes, we shoot back.
I truly understand your concerns and that of the Navy. I understand more than many do just how dangerous male teenagers and 20-somethings can be around women in combat situations. However, I think that it is a gross generalization to say that women cannot cooperate or handle stressful situations. Some of the best combat doctors and medics that I have met and seen in action were female. I would like to see the details of the study you cite, as I think an all-female crew is a perfectly viable option in these days of loss in the ranks across all branches. Permitting female officers would also open doors. I wonder if the members in the study were given the same training and had the same experience as the male crews? Do you think they were picked at random immediately before the study, fresh out of boot camp? Trained the same? We need the ‘manning’ in the US forces, why not? You get twice the numbers when you open career fields to qualified women.
As for Brendan’s point on sanitary napkins, I just have to shake my head in disbelief at the naivety. Men are so damned scared to really find out what goes on with women’s menstrual cycles. As I am an ornery NCO, let me enlighten you -
- There are now several pills that can be taken to completely cease menstruation. They are FDA approved and in production. Why not require those?
- Tampons are an acceptable alternative to sanitary napkins, and are much more biodegradable. Also, other non-flushable waste must be generated on a sub.
Again, I have to restate, those of us who really want these jobs – we are willing to make sacrifices. Personally, I wouldn’t mind having parts of my reproductive system surgically removed if it meant I got to be officially recognized in one of the gender restricted military career fields. I think that any woman who really wanted to get into this career field would bust her ass to meet the fitness standards and any medical or psychological requirements. However, the possibility does not even exist now.
Nemhain – Welcome! You bring up some excellent points and some up to date information on the subject.
Interesting fact: Of everyone that applies to the US Naval submarine force, only 20% (+/-) ever see a boat.
I could write up a whole other post just in answer to your comment (maybe I will at that) but for now let me see if I can give a bit more insight into the situation.
I can’t quote specifics on the study that was done during my time on board subs. I was privy to some of the general results but not involved in the study itself. Basically it was a two week exercise consisting of tracking targets, weeding out non-threatening contacts from contacts of interest and firing a certain number of exercise torpedoes at them. Number of “hits” were counted of course but also from everything that means a successful section tracking/fire control tracking party to the efficient and successful operation of the sub itself, right down to the smallest detail.
Either way, what purportedly happened during the study was that an all female crew did not work out for reasons of not being able to work together successfully enough to ensure the safety and acceptable operation of own ship. Keep in mind that a fast attack submarine has a normal compliment of 90 to 100 crew members confined to a living/working space of around 200′ x 30′ (more or less) divided into 3 distinct water tight sections, not counting the reactor compartment, with smaller compartments within each section (subs are double hulled vehicles consisting of a smaller pressure hull inside of the “whale shaped”, free-flood superstructure that defines the familiar shape of a modern day sub). All I know is that it was reported that a 90 to 100 all female crew comprising of both officers and enlisted were not able to get along well enough in the extremely confined environment of a fast attack submarine to be able to complete the two week operation.
To put a slightly different light, a Vietnam vet turned Cold War submariner once told me that there was little difference between what he went through during his tour in Vietnam and what he experienced in the submarine force. He said that it wasn’t getting shot or wounded or captured that drove you insane, it was everything that led up to it. And he said that was exactly what a submariner goes through every day. I was not in Vietnam (too young, barely) so I had take his word for it although several other Vietnam vet acquaintances of mine agreed with his assessment. One other thing to keep in mind. On a sub there’s no place to be alone, no place to hide, no place to “cool off”, No going on deck to take a few breaths of fresh air. And absolutely no distraction from the operation of the boat can be tolerated.
You’re a female combat veteran. Given all the above you can make your own judgement on whether an all female submarine crew, with the required training, could function efficiently in that type of situation.
On other points you brought up. I can’t really believe that in a mixed gender sub crew that the women would have to “fear” their male counterparts. Quite the opposite in fact. If I know my fellow submariners like I do the females of the crew would be well protected, maybe too protected at times. Sure, there’d always be the isolated incidences just like you would find in any stressful environment in the military but I would not want to be the submariner that attempted to “assault” one of the female crew members on board any deployed boat. He’d probably have to be put under guard for fear of his life. Working and living in a closed, isolated environment with no place to run works both ways.
Surprisingly enough my wife brought up the point that “The Pill” would have to be absolutely mandatory, not so much as a contraceptive but so each female crew member could judge when her monthly bout of PMS was due and compensate accordingly. Now I’m not one of those males who shied away from things like menstrual cycles or internal examinations. I figured the more I learn about them the better but I never would have thought of that solution (just proves she’s smarter than I am which is why I married her). I also know that each individual woman reacts differently during PMS, some experiencing mild or negligible mood swings while others experience violent mood swings and everything in between. Where the disposal of tampons and the like on board a submarine is merely a physical problem to be tackled by modifying the on board sanitary systems, the real problem lies in the mood swings that can occur during PMS and being able to compensate effectively. Even though submariners by necessity are a pretty stable bunch, tempers can run on edge at the best of times while under way .
I don’t really believe the submarine force would require female crew members to undergo physical sterilization. That would be a bit drastic on their part but I can guarantee that a pregnancy would pretty much mean an automatic disqualification and removal from submarines. Not as punishment but simply as a necessity. For one thing a submarine is an unhealthy environment in more ways than one and would definitely endanger an unborn baby’s life. Suffice it to say that female submariners and pregnancy would definitely not mix. I’m not too sure what the solution would be as there’s no contraceptive or so called “rhythm method” that’s 100% proof against anything. I’m sure they’ll find a way if this does happen and females join the sub force. Like you said; “those of us who really want these jobs…”.
I agree that a good start is to assign female officers to submarines first. Get that aspect well established and go from there. One or three seasoned female officers on board a submarine would help immensely when the first female enlisted “non-quals” begin arriving.
Thanks again for your reply and please fell free to respond. It got me to thinking. So did the others, BTW.
You keep bringing up the study in which an all women crew did a bad job at sea. However, could the reason they did such a bad job be due to the fact that they didn’t have any experience? I doubt any crew would do good if all of the members had no sea experience.
The same arguments were made before females were assigned to combatant surface vessels as well. While there are some cases of fraternization, harassment, etc, the number of incidents has proven to be small and has not impeded the Navy or any other branch of the military from performing their missions.
Deployment schedules did not change, nor did the missions assigned to the commands. Learning curve of course, but no major disruptions.
Secondly, a deployment isolates the entire crew. Submariners are not unique. The only real difference is how many hours of sunshine some members of the crew are privileged enough to enjoy. Engineers on the surface fleet see little more sun than the submariners.
The shape of the people tank and its relative position to the surface of the ocean does not have any real bearing on crew morale or performance.
Lastly, as a fellow Submariner, I understand your undying respect for the submarine qualification process, however, the Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist (ESWS) qualifications were, when I qualified, more stringent and covered more information than my Sub quals.
Sub Quals teach you that specific boat, Requal each transfer. ESWS quals teach you about ALL the vessels, combat sytems, etc for the fleet, in addition to the command specific information.
Just one example, I finished all of the qualification req’s for ESWS, including the 4.5 hour final board with CO, XO, Command Masterchief, and all Department heads, as an E-4, and had to wait until after I made E-5, to wear the insignia, or to receive any of the many benefits of ESWS quals.
I wear both qualifications with equal pride, which did not sit well with my Submarine commands by the way.
I think women will be serving in all positions throughout all services soon. It would be nice if this was due to the military making the decision that their history of sexual discrimination was no longer acceptable, however it will probably be based more on the military’s inability to recruit new bodies for the billets.
Women, homosexuals, albinos, Muslim, No matter how the arguments are framed, discrimination is discrimination.
I am personally much more concerned with relaxing the criminal record thresholds, and the crimes that can be waivered. The Navy spent the late 80′s on Project Upgrade, getting rid of the criminals and unnecessary loads, and now almost anyone can get in again.
MM1(SS/SW) 1978-1992 70% service connected disabled Veteran
Okay, I am not qualified to disagree with most of what those who served, which I have not, testify here BUT I just don’t understand how one can cover the subject and not mention the many pregnancies which have happened on co-ed crews.
Young people are young people and IMHO, one in five, would boink the other even with a superior holding a Bowie knife at their throats the whole time threatening imminent demise.
I don’t see how a nuclear attack sub tour could survive such an event. The just expect the tour would be compromised at some point to get rid of the pregnant crew member.
Anyway, I do wish to point out that I am not against women serving where it is possible; quite the opposite.
Citations are also welcomed. It’s tough to offer opinion one way or the other when the only backup is “I’m not making this up” and references to a 40 year old study you so 20 years ago.
I’m not trying to be antagonistic, but I’m an undecided sub vet from Gulf II and people have been asking me about this issue a lot since Ray Mabus’ appearance on the Daily Show. I can’t give credence to affirmations based largely on an invisible source.
Your value for the cost to retrofit a submarine for coed duty are grossly mistaken, even with adjustments to dollar value over time.
Hey all – I wanted to let you all know that due to all your insightful comments I added an edit to the original post and included links to 2 more recent reports (spanning the late 90′s to early 2000′s (.pdf downloads). I uploaded them to my downloads folder on this site so I could guarantee they’d always be accessible.
The first is a 2001 report done by the US navy on the medical implications of women serving on submarines and the other is a Canadian Navy report of women serving on Victoria class fast attack subs (a modern diesel/electric). And although I haven’t had the time to read everything these reports have to offer, they do contain some rather interesting reading.
Thanks for all your comments. They made a crusty old submariner think a bit.
Kirk M
“Now anyone who knows me personally knows damn well that I’m hardly the type of person to class women as inferior in any way..”
You wouldn’t class women as physically inferior? Because they are.
CMB (Welcome!) – In the strictly physiological sense and by definition you’re correct. By nature, a woman’s muscles are not as dense physically as a man’s and therefor a woman is not as physically strong as a man–by definition. However, in my years of experience I have found that more times than not, a good woman is able to do whatever needs to be done whenever it needs to be done despite what the books and definitions might say. I’ve seen it too many times to ignore it. Not all women of course but then again, not all men are as strong as they should/could be either, yes?
Very insightful post and comments. As a woman, I feel that we should not ever be allowed to serve on a submarine. I agree with some of the obvious reasons that were posted in the comments, but it really boils down to emotions. Women are just too emotional, period. It doen’t surprise me at all that it was found during that study that none of the women got along. And even if it weren’t an exclusively female crew, a mixed one would be just as bad. You could take the toughest female out there and put her on a submarine, and she’d still find something to freak out over…