Next? Sisters in a submarines:

WASHINGTON — Top Pentagon officials are calling for an end to the U.S. military’s historical ban on allowing women to serve in submarines.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the top U.S. military officer, advocated the policy change in written congressional testimony distributed by his office to reporters on Friday.

“I believe we should continue to broaden opportunities for women. One policy I would like to see changed is the one barring (women’s) service aboard submarines,” Mullen said.

Charles Mudede—who writes about film, books, music, and his life in Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, the USA, and the UK for The Stranger—was born near a steel plant in Kwe Kwe, Zimbabwe. He has no memory...

21 replies on “Re: Working Ladies”

  1. more women on subs might just mean less guys flipping to the gay side. i mean not that its a bad thing but come on as the saying goes, ‘100 sailors go down and 50 couples come up.’

  3. Just because a submarine is the biggest and most blatant primate-penile-erection-dominance-display ever produced by the mind of man, I don’t see why females can’t serve aboard as well as males. Grow the fuck up, Navy.

  6. Is the military run by a bunch of Retarded Dumb Ass Dick Heads Breeders? I think it is.

    I vote to sink all the fucking subs, and then put women in charge. We don’t need all that seamen.

  8. this is a terrible idea.
    imagine 100+ guys in the military underwater for 3-6 months with little access to porn, their families, and now a smoking ban? i’m guessing the rape situation will be about as bad as what’s going on with all other branches that allow females.

  9. @ 5 Pretty shocking, right? And of course, the classic patriarchal fear is why they don’t allow it:

    “They say, ‘How could we have the women sleeping in the same area as men?”‘ said Campbell, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC).”

    Of course, women are only around to sexually tempt men, lest we forget our place. We shouldn’t even be sleeping near those men, for then we would be guilty of tempting them into wanting sexy things from us. Lord knows that if men see women sleeping, they are forced by their instincts to initiate babymaking. Its not like the women would actually be working, anyway.

    Sheesh. C’mon Navy, welcome to the 21st century. I had a good buddy who was in a sub for 9 months and yes, he said it was cramped and isolated. He said it was rough. However, being in the army is rough. Being in the Navy is rough. If a woman wants to step up to the plate and spend time cramped in submarine, by all means the Navy should be supporting that choice.

  10. @8 – if that’s really the case, and I have to admit I’m skeptical, perhaps removing the rapists and potential rapists from the situation would be the better solution, instead of blaming the victims and potential victims. Clearly our armed forces should be female only.

  11. @11: the presence of women does, in fact, tempt men, even the occasional gay man, to initiate sex with them. notice that there are 6 billion people on the planet. on the whole, that didn’t happen because women initiated the sex.

  12. In a word, people, it’s always been about plumbing.

    Showers and toilets. Add women to the crew, you have to make a women’s set of showers and a women’s set of toilets.

    Existing submarines can’t be redesigned for this. As it is, over 100 men share 3-4 showers and 3-4 toilets. If this topic were to be addressed, it would have to be done so upon the next design of a submarine class (or maybe a redesign of the new Virginia class). The current fleet really isn’t up for this sort of thing. Nobody talks about it, but that’s really at the heart of the issue – call it an excuse, if you prefer. Whatever. It’s worked up to now and will probably continue to work.

    Here’s why: Taxpayers already squawk at the price of submarines and one of the ways the fleet affords it’s underwater component is by cutting costs for anything considered non-essential.

    Just sticking ONE female on a boat would require a redesign costing millions (bilions fleetwide) and a loss of internal volume that would otherwise be used for equipment storage or crew berthing. Taxpayers spend more while the submarine loses a noticeable chunk of it’s “people space.”

    On top of that, as some have pointed out, there’s the new additional risk of undesired incidents – yes, boys and girls sometimes play together. The huge additional headache this causes for the management is worth a mention.

    With all that, in mind, it’s a worthwhile discussion. I guess. Makes all the civilians rosy and happy. But it’s an argument that has been going on for decades, and those are the relevant arguments. Continue.

  16. Re: 12, I was hoping someone would chime in who has some knowledge of submarine accommodations. But I don’t get it–on the one hand, people say “there’s absolutely no room to spare; every cubic inch is needed for equipment storage, stacked bunks, etc.”, but if so, then where can they possibly have sex together? Surely not on the bridge under the captain’s nose?

    Secondly, I’ve been on scientific field trips where guys and girls stood naked together next to a cattle trough or whatever, soaped up and rinsed off without boners or orgies breaking out. If so-called adults can’t handle that on submarines, put a thin wall between paired gang showers; guys shower together, girls shower together. That doesn’t seem like it would require a lot of cubic inches or a major redesign.

    Thirdly, since I’m of a practical bent (or just plain bent), since the military’s so big on social engineering and mind control, why not just sit everybody down and explain that regular masturbation is important for mental and physical health and proper attention to duty. Everybody should be able to pull that off, so to speak, in their racks with the curtains drawn. Professed asexuals go to sick bay for regular e-stim sessions. …Kidding on that last one. Okay, I’ll stop now.

  17. @15 Why no all-female submarines, then? Love that question. It opens the Catch-22 of the matter: how can you get enough female submariners to crew a whole ship, when there’s no existing manner in which to train female submariners? (and don’t say simulators – that’s just a Hollywood lampshade trope)

    I’m not saying it’s impossible. A European or Australian submariner could shed some insight here. I’m just saying that’s what the arguments are, since integration on naval vessels became an issue.

    I know people get all emotional about this and feel they have an opinion that’s relevant. But people who feel so strongly about the matter can always feel free to enlist and do their part for the system. Short of that, it sometimes comes across as the politically-correct or egalitarian form of chicken-hawk philosophizing.

    @16 People can have sex or masturbate in many odd places, regardless of gender or inclination. Consequences are more severe in the engine room (nuclear concerns), and dudes catch dudes doing things they’d rather not have seen (quite often, actually). The reality can be best described as somewhere between a fraternity house and prison.

  19. One thing that’s different about submarines: because (even with the modern, larger versions) there’s a lot of time spent basically tuck in extremely close quarters 24/7 with everyone else, the Navy does a lot of testing of potential submariners. They look for the most boring, stable and sane people; even very slight nervous tics, habits, or personality quirks get magnified like 1000 times when you’re all stuck together with zero chance to escape from it. Some part of that applies here with women; they’re reducing any possible variable to the absolute minimum.

  20. you know, this is gonna come of sexist…and it may or may not be true overall or relevent, but ill just throw this thought into the mix: people keep emphasizing close quarters, and honestly, the biggest problem i see is women living in close quarters with eachother. Iv tried that (i am one) and its just not pretty. just throwin that out there.

Comments are closed.