Why are woman not allowed to work on USN's submarines

[Bonza]

Here's a sonar image by the Danish Navy of a Soviet Whisky class, which sank under tow in 2007. Not on the rocks, but on the soft sea bed.

Very interesting, thanks GD. Do the differences in colour denote a stronger sonar reading being returned for a given part of the hull?

 

[dragonfire]

Here's a sonar image by the Danish Navy of a Soviet Whisky class, which sank under tow in 2007. Not on the rocks, but on the soft sea bed.

Looks like a thermal image

But am guessing it isnt since it's already sunk, was there any deaths reported from the incident ?

 

[Grand Danois]

Very interesting, thanks GD. Do the differences in colour denote a stronger sonar reading being returned for a given part of the hull?

The color does represent some property of the returned sonar beam, probably some time-arrival code (depth or distance). The signal can be modulated, though. The multibeam sonars in use here for this type of work can distinguish between differing seabed sediment compositions, like boulders, gravel, sands, bedrock, so expected returns etc are known.

dragonfire, the colors are for visualisation and no one died, as it was under tow with no crew on board.

 

[Lofty_DBF]

I cant stand females onboard submarines it was one of the many reasons I discharged from the Navy.
I know work for a company that fixes the Subs and I cringe every time i hear a female voice making a pipe.
Females have not solved any crewing problems the Sub Force has they are a pain in the Ass.

[Moderator edit]Listen, mate: we'd rather not know about your misogynism. This is not the place for prejudice of that kind. If you wish to express a reasoned view, we'll pay attention, but not to this sort of stuff. [/edit]

If my comments on here come across as misogynist its only speaking from personal experience from many years on submarines.
There is one stag submarine crew at the moment in the RAN they are not looking forward to the prospect of that status changing.
I am a Electrician which is a trade heavily dominated by males I have no problems working with females in this capacity.
When you go to sea on board a operational submarine for weeks on end you might have some idea of what i am talking about.

 

[elgatoso]

The Royal Norwegian Navy subs are SSKs and I would imagine that they have a fairly short patrol duration, at least when compared to something like a USN SSN or SSBN. A short USN patrol might only last a few days, but a long patrol could run a few months. Given the cramped conditions, plus US tendencies to exclude women from "combat roles" a long duration patrol could well become an issue. On surface vessels, especially on large vessels like carriers, it's much less of an issue.

Something else to consider is how female US personnel interact with male counterparts... One might try getting a copy of "Love my Rifle more than you," sorry, don't remember the author. It was written by a female in the US Army serviving in Iraq. I didn't read all of it, but the general sense I got from it was that the troops in the service need to do some growing up...

-Cheers

Kayla Williams is the author

 

[DIREWOLF75]

Something else to consider is how female US personnel interact with male counterparts... One might try getting a copy of "Love my Rifle more than you," sorry, don't remember the author. It was written by a female in the US Army serviving in Iraq. I didn't read all of it, but the general sense I got from it was that the troops in the service need to do some growing up...

Happened to see her interview on BBC World, and yeah "a need for growing up" would be about the nicest way you could describe it.
Complete lack of professionalism is what i call it.

Someone who cant see or act beyond their own macho posturing, really doesnt belong in any military at all.

In comparison, >95% of the cases of military "gender problems" that are considered issues here are so minor they wouldnt even register on Kayla Williams "scale". Only case i can recall that comes into the same vicinity of harassment, got the man in question prosecuted and convicted.
So then is it a difference in society or military culture that creates this problem?
My guess would be both.

 

[John Sansom]

Norwegian subs have been deployed to the Med for several months. Time between shore visits can vary.
I don't think US female sailors are any different than others. That they are more "lively" is just a pathetic excuse.
Norwegian policy is not to let couples sail on the same ship

It would be helpful to this discussion if we could have some of the data generated by some really careful studies "in situ", as it were. My experience is that some men get really stupid in continuing close company with women. On the other hand, through no fault of their own, women's chemistry can make them prone to somewhat erratic behaviour. Sorry, ladies. Just one of the hard lessons of personal experience. (I hope my daughters don't read this.)

 

[DIREWOLF75]

It would be helpful to this discussion if we could have some of the data generated by some really careful studies "in situ", as it were. My experience is that some men get really stupid in continuing close company with women. On the other hand, through no fault of their own, women's chemistry can make them prone to somewhat erratic behaviour. Sorry, ladies. Just one of the hard lessons of personal experience. (I hope my daughters don't read this.)

Heh, try asking a medical specialist in the area about that, about 90% of the time women are men without the very erratic influence of some serious doses of hormones.
The last 10% of the time its a tossup who´s the most "erratic" IF you base your view on medical facts.

The "unlogical and erratic" women is a historical and mythical diminuative excuse for a patriarchal society.
And as noted above, the facts of the matter is that "chemically" the ones in trouble are men, because we have lots of influence from hormones ALL the time, while women are only seriously influenced during certain parts of periods and if pregnant. Of course, this difference between sexes as well as influence overall is much reduced with age.


The most i can say about "in situ" is that women in crews on Swedish subs have caused no real problems(and no silly antics about building separate quarters and whatever), while having added valuable abilities as sonar ops, as this is one area where women have shown to be clearly superior to men(theorised to be due to womens better natural social ability, ie like hearing the difference in tone and inflection as well as better multitask ability being beneficial for the work of sonar(and radar) ops), while slightly inferior as navigators(not surprising since men tend to be better spatially).
When Gotland "sunk" the USS Reagan and then got away from the screen, women were part of the crew every time.

 

[John Sansom]

Heh, try asking a medical specialist in the area about that, about 90% of the time women are men without the very erratic influence of some serious doses of hormones.
The last 10% of the time its a tossup who´s the most "erratic" IF you base your view on medical facts.

The "unlogical and erratic" women is a historical and mythical diminuative excuse for a patriarchal society.
And as noted above, the facts of the matter is that "chemically" the ones in trouble are men, because we have lots of influence from hormones ALL the time, while women are only seriously influenced during certain parts of periods and if pregnant. Of course, this difference between sexes as well as influence overall is much reduced with age.


The most i can say about "in situ" is that women in crews on Swedish subs have caused no real problems(and no silly antics about building separate quarters and whatever), while having added valuable abilities as sonar ops, as this is one area where women have shown to be clearly superior to men(theorised to be due to womens better natural social ability, ie like hearing the difference in tone and inflection as well as better multitask ability being beneficial for the work of sonar(and radar) ops), while slightly inferior as navigators(not surprising since men tend to be better spatially).
When Gotland "sunk" the USS Reagan and then got away from the screen, women were part of the crew every time.

Thanks, Direwolf75. Your answer is why I asked. The Swedish experience appears to have been extensive. To your knowledge, do those folk have any carefully arrived at conclusions on this (other than the anecdotal stuff), and have the Swedes committed to a "mixed" future?

Once again.....thanks.

 

[Bluesaphirro]

Why are woman not allowed to work on USN's submarines?

prefer if you also cite a source

Admin: text deleted. Please read the Forum Rules re posting behaviour and etiquette. One liners are not permitted.

 

[rnn]

The rule that women are not assigned to units with
direct combat as a primary mission does not hold in
a war with no clear front lines.

Women must have the necessary training to support male
combat units.

 

[John Fedup]

The rule that women are not assigned to units with
direct combat as a primary mission does not hold in
a war with no clear front lines.

Women must have the necessary training to support male
combat units.

Women already serve on warships that have direct combat as the primary mission and subs will have women on board Virginias in 2015.

 

[DIREWOLF75]

Thanks, Direwolf75. Your answer is why I asked. The Swedish experience appears to have been extensive. To your knowledge, do those folk have any carefully arrived at conclusions on this (other than the anecdotal stuff), and have the Swedes committed to a "mixed" future?

Once again.....thanks.

Excuse the late reply, i didn´t get a notification of any more replies to the thread at the time.

Extensive might not be the right word since it´s not exactly a big military, but AFAIK, sub crews is one of the areas where mixed crews seems to have been a clear benefit without any real disadvantages, i haven´t heard the slightest peep from even the most extreme critics since my last post here.

And those critics are not exactly quiet about the subject in regards to other areas of the military, and even if their arguments are generally artificial constructs, some of them are at least partially valid (ie like women in general tend to be less strongly built(which is bad for being infantry etc), while ignoring that this is not so much a clearcut truth based on gender, but rather an individual thing strongly affected by genderbased social conventions (ie there´s no good reason to exclude women from somewhere as long as they as individuals can manage what is needed for that position ), that is to say, boys are often encouraged to "play rough" and be physically active from the start while girls tend to be discouraged from such, and while there is a genetical difference between genders, it is small enough that it wouldn´t make much difference if it wasn´t so strongly enforced by culture, ie, if you simply go by what would be the average based on genetics, women would be same height as men and have only a minimally slighter build.


(there was a report released last year(or maybe 2012) that is relevant background to the above, by a very large study(which started as a study on why diabetes was "too common" in India and then became enlarged to confirm or deny incidental and unexpected results), essentially, one of the things they found was that there is no genetic difference between genders in how tall you are likely to grow up, that women tend to be shorter than men is because it´s an almost worldwide norm(conscious or not) that girl children need less to eat, and this affects growth, in the few places they could find where boys and girls were fed the same the average difference in height also disappeared, this sidetracked into additional research about general physique, and ended up showing that differences in build were more of the same rather than dependant on genetical gender differences, there were also indications that the same cultural prejudice was behind that women on average have a smaller brains than men)


Pardon the exposition, but it is an interesting subject and relevant to the thread subject.

Anyway, for the questions, AFAIK, conclusions in regards to subs are clearly positive, and for military overall more positive than negative(with most negative being in regards to the common slighter build of women and the disadvantage that brings to infantry roles) and a "mixed future" is probably guaranteed, even if partially due to political reasons rather than just facts.

 

[pussertas]

Women already serve on warships that have direct combat as the primary mission and subs will have women on board Virginias in 2015.

The first woman to spend a night on a RAN submarine was the then Minister for Defense Material - Browyn Bishop. She was adamant that females could be taught the necessary skills. AFAIK the RAN were against women serving but were harassed into agreement by a feisty Minister. The 'Collins Class' subs are renown for their long periods on patrol.

Later Browyn became speaker of the Lower House of Parliament and made a spectacle of herself by throwing out more members that had ever happened previously. She had a penchant for removing members of the opposition.

The Coalition government declined to endorse her as their candidate for the forthcoming July 2016 election.

A taste of power went to her head. :dance

 

[ngatimozart]

The first woman to spend a night on a RAN submarine was the then Minister for Defense Material - Browyn Bishop. She was adamant that females could be taught the necessary skills. AFAIK the RAN were against women serving but were harassed into agreement by a feisty Minister. The 'Collins Class' subs are renown for their long periods on patrol.

Later Browyn became speaker of the Lower House of Parliament and made a spectacle of herself by throwing out more members that had ever happened previously. She had a penchant for removing members of the opposition.

The Coalition government declined to endorse her as their candidate for the forthcoming July 2016 election.

A taste of power went to her head. :dance

So what - she's a pollie. You haven't answered the question about why women can't serve on subs. Personally I don't see why myself and I have served with women at sea. I do have to qualify myself - for the life of me I cannot understand the logic of deliberately sinking your boat and then having the possibility of somebody dropping explosive bricks on you. Not for all the squirt in the pussers store

 

[Volkodav]

So what - she's a pollie. You haven't answered the question about why women can't serve on subs. Personally I don't see why myself and I have served with women at sea. I do have to qualify myself - for the life of me I cannot understand the logic of deliberately sinking your boat and then having the possibility of somebody dropping explosive bricks on you. Not for all the squirt in the pussers store

Having worked with a couple of female ex-submariners I have found them to be talented, intelligent and capable for the simple reason they had to be. Submariners are an elite, they cannot afford any passengers onboard, you are good enough, or you don't get qualified, the RAN would cancel a deployment rather than send a boat to sea unready, i.e. unsafe and that includes a certified crew, female sailors and officers as well.