Woman + Subs

[SDNalgene]

But it is... The military integrated long before the rest of society did. Women worked factory jobs to support the military before it was widely acceptable for women to work. The military is an avenue of social change. It provides the most unbiased look (as compared to the alternatives) at how things will work mainly because we value mission accomplishment above all else. It is a solid baseline that can be evaluated against. Pretty much nothing else in society gives you that.

See that is my main problem with using the military as a vehicle for social change. The way it seems to occur in the present era does not strike me as an effort towards readiness and mission accomplishment. It seems to be a way to make politicians feel better. For example different physical standards don't seem to be about mission accomplishment to me, they seem to be about making it a more inclusive military.

Not all social change is bad, I am certainly not arguing that there is nothing that the military should change. However, integrating fast attack submarines just doesn't seem like a good idea to me because of the major ass pain it would entail and a huge push to do so in my mind is driven by something other than mission accomplishment.

 

[Brett327]

See that is my main problem with using the military as a vehicle for social change. The way it seems to occur in the present era does not strike me as an effort towards readiness and mission accomplishment. It seems to be a way to make politicians feel better. For example different physical standards don't seem to be about mission accomplishment to me, they seem to be about making it a more inclusive military.

Not all social change is bad, I am certainly not arguing that there is nothing that the military should change. However, integrating fast attack submarines just doesn't seem like a good idea to me because of the major ass pain it would entail and a huge push to do so in my mind is driven by something other than mission accomplishment.

I think you have the whole social change argument backward. The military isn't being used to forge some kind of revolutionary new policies, it's merely catching up to the rest of the civilized world. If the private sector denied jobs based on gender, they'd be sued and lose. The private sector is already there - has been for decades, so let's disabuse ourselves of the idea that this is some kind of social experiment. The experiment has been over for a long time.

While I agree that the military deserves some special consideration because of its unique role (and mission accomplishment does matter, but it's not a trump card), I think any of you would be hard-pressed to come up with a legitimate reason (beyond the standard, "Hey the transition is going to be a PITA") why properly qualified women shouldn't be allowed to serve on subs or that they would significantly impact mission accomplishment.

Brett

 

[scoolbubba]

How would an unplanned pregnancy be dealt with on a boomer? What happens if there is a sexual harassment/assault incident on a steel tube?

This isn't me being a smartass, I don't know how these things are handled in the fleet as it stands, much less how the bubbleheads would deal with them underwater. This is me being a dumbass, I guess

 

[Brett327]

How would an unplanned pregnancy be dealt with on a boomer? What happens if there is a sexual harassment/assault incident on a steel tube?

This isn't me being a smartass, I don't know how these things are handled in the fleet as it stands, much less how the bubbleheads would deal with them underwater. This is me being a dumbass, I guess

According to applicable instructions, just like anywhere else. I have no knowledges of sub life, but I've dealt with pregnancies and the other "legal" issues in squadrons and aboard ship. There's an instruction that explicitly spells out what is done with pregnant women, timelines, restrictions on types of duty, etc. It happens - It's not rocket surgery.

Brett

 

[scoober78]

For example different physical standards don't seem to be about mission accomplishment to me, they seem to be about making it a more inclusive military.

I love that you think half of the @#$% that we do in the military has anything to do with mission accomplishment...

NKO anyone?

 

[Spekkio]

If the private sector denied jobs based on gender, they'd be sued and lose.

Really?

Been to Hooters lately? Strip clubs?

I also don't see women suing the NFL successfully because females aren't allowed to try out. I mean, it could be done...all you have to do is make some rule changes about how men aren't allowed to tackle women and everything would be peachy. The millions it'd cost to renovate all stadiums to have 4 locker rooms would be a drop in the bucket to the billions of revenue owners bring in. There's no good reason NOT to do it, except that NFL fans live in the stone age and don't want the rules to change.

I'm also curious how many females would actually want to serve on subs if they were allowed to do so. If the motivation for integration is to remedy manning issues, I suspect it won't actually accomplish much on that end.

 

[SDNalgene]

While I agree that the military deserves some special consideration because of its unique role (and mission accomplishment does matter, but it's not a trump card), I think any of you would be hard-pressed to come up with a legitimate reason (beyond the standard, "Hey the transition is going to be a PITA") why properly qualified women shouldn't be allowed to serve on subs or that they would significantly impact mission accomplishment.

Using ESL's perspective earlier:

The best way I can see it happening on a fast attack is to wait until we have at least 21 females and assign them to 21 man. There is a head right there with one shower and one stall and two sinks. That will leave the other 100 guys to split 2 showers, three stalls and a urinal, but it could work. I just don't want it to.

In that setup, which sounds plausible, or at least is the only quantifiable solution anyone has put forward here, the math works out like so:

50 dudes/shower, 33 dudes/stall
21 chicks/shower, 21 chicks/stall

That is more than just the transition being the a pain in the ass, that is the majority of the crew getting the shaft in terms of living conditions forever after.

I agree with you that in terms of tactical tasks there will be no change in mission readiness. Given that, why make it way more uncomfortable for the sailors who already live in really cramped uncomfortable quarters? The "we would be sued if it wasn't the military," argument is a moot point, because it is the military so if we are disabusing ourselves of anything let's disabuse ourselves of that. My point isn't that women have no place in the military or nuclear power or anything ridiculous like that. It is simply that in this case it goes beyond what is reasonable and this isn't about mission accomplishment. If it was there would be some sort of quantifiable gain in the subs readiness.

 

[Spekkio]

I am just being sarcastic about this whole thing as I watch people give their opinion on why it cannot be so. I have read every post on this thread and there is not ONE arguement that is compelling.

Ultimately, the burden is to provide a good reason why the change should occur, not to provide good reasons to avoid it. We've already established how difficult it'd be, but no one has provided a good reason why we should bother to overcome it.

So far the only ones posed are to fix manning issues (which I'm skeptical about) and because civilian companies already do it (which is not universally true).

 

[Brett327]

Really?

Been to Hooters lately? Strip clubs?

I also don't see women suing the NFL successfully because females aren't allowed to try out.

Those are very specific cases that do not represent the majority of the private sector. In fact, the law states that employers can discriminate based on gender and even appearance when those specific qualities are deemed an essential part of what an employer is trying to present WRT their business, I.E. no men in strip clubs or trolls working at Hooters. This is clearly not what we're talking about here, but nice try with the specious red herring.

Nalgene: You're all over the map, bro - try to follow me. You're using statements I make about one thing, then applying them to arguments that I'm not making. The point that people would be sued in the private sector isn't a justification for anything, merely an indication to you that integration (if that's really what we're calling this) is not a new social experiment. WE in the military are the ones playing catch-up - not the other way around. Capiche?

Finally, the logistics argument is a weak one. Do you really think we, as a Navy, are so stupid as to not be able to figure out a solution to such a simple problem? Really? We'll make it work - trust me - and lets not pretend like it's going to be some kind of huge burden or sacrifice for the troops - give me a break.

Note on reading comprehension:

Please read and thoroughly understand the concepts and ideas in my post before firing off a misguided retort that completely misunderstands what I'm trying to get across. I know some of you out there are morons - I just hope it's not most of you.

Brett

 

[Spekkio]

This is clearly not what we're talking about here, but nice try with the specious red herring.

It's not specious at all, nor is it a red herring... your statement was that a company would get sued and lose for refusing to hire a gender. I listed 3 companies which would not... at least not for those specific positions. The "civilized world" can recognize that even in the modern age of supposed gender equality there can still be legitimate reasons for favoring one gender for a specific job, why can't you?

I was merely establishing that there are jobs which are given to only one gender for one reason or another, and that those reasons are legitimate. The whole "it's only fair to allow women on subs as well" doesn't hold water. If you don't like physical appearance examples, then the NFL one still stands. I'm sure female centers would have no issues with a man putting his hands between her legs repeatedly. With some imposed rule changes, the NFL surely could accomodate women. But why would they? What does the NFL have to gain by integrating women into the league? The only thing to gain is some misplaced notion of "fairness" that simply doesn't exist in life.

That is the question that hasn't been answered wrt subs. Sure, we could make it work if we had to, but why? Another point no one has mentioned is that the Navy has women do most if not all of the same jobs as sailors on a sub, just on a different platform, so we're not talking job discrimination here. We're just talking about where they could do it. So after all this money, effort, possible hits to tactical readiness, and inconveniences, we will have opened few, if any, new jobs to women in the Navy because they could have done those jobs on a surface ship.

 

[Brett327]

It's not specious at all, nor is it a red herring... your statement was that a company would get sued and lose for refusing to hire a gender. I listed 3 companies which would not... at least not for those specific positions. The "civilized world" can recognize that even in the modern age of supposed gender equality there can still be legitimate reasons for favoring one gender for a specific job, why can't you?

I agree that there are good reasons for discriminating based on gender, but I'm just not convinced that the issue of women on subs falls into that extremely narrow category. If you think it should, tell me why:

Prove to me that there are significant harms to the Navy by integrating, then prove to me that subs are sufficiently different in that respect from all the other already integrated communities, and you'll convince me.

Brett

 

[Spekkio]

That's an impossible task, since you're asking me to prove a negative. As I said before, if you're going to propose a change that is very difficult to impose, then there ought to be a good reason for it. The burden of proof lies on those who support the change.

 

[scoober78]

Ultimately, the burden is to provide a good reason why the change should occur, not to provide good reasons to avoid it.

As much as I admire Brett's logical thought pattern and forensic abilities, I'm going to have to differ in my approach and simply say this...

You got the above wrong Spekkio. Ultimately, it is incumbent on the military to provide cause to exclude because it is a simple matter of law that in this nation, outside the military, such exclusion is not permitted. Title 7, Title 9...clearly this thought is codified and a part of our nation as a whole...therefore...

 

[scoober78]

As I said before, if you're going to propose a change that is very difficult to impose, then there ought to be a good reason for it. The burden of proof lies on those who support the change.

Not if the change rights a greater harm in the legal sense. You are simply incorrect here.

Consider the ADA...(Americans with Disabilities Act)...Despite the fact that every municipality in the country, every business owner, every corporation had to spend billions of dollars rebuilding infrastructure, this is a fact of law. Why? Because it righted a greater injury...lack of equal protection for the diabled.

Do you think that disabled people had to prove this?? Gimme a break. Your argument is the standard "we don't want to" dressed up in an intellectual coat.

 

[phrogdriver]

Don't quote ADA--that law is an abortion on toast. It has been more of a bonanza for attorneys than the disabled.

If everyone for whom accommodation can be made has to be included, then why stop here in our quest for social justice? There are plenty of other people we can accommodate.

Diabetics would be easier to have on board than women--all you need is a small box with some insulin in it. Oh, there might be complications. Well, the medical needs of diabetics are well documented--the doc or IDC can handle it, and if it becomes an emergency, then just surface the sub! Yet, diabetics aren't allowed in subs, or even in the military at all...

The point being, this isn't black and white. There are shades of gray. The mission accomplishment card isn't all powerful. Integrating blacks likely cost the military effectiveness when it first happened, purely in terms of personal friction. Yet it was still the right thing to do. On the other hand, turning the sub community upside down to open up a few extra billets for women doesn't seem to make sense.

Do I know where the line should be drawn? Not exactly, but I don't think we've reached it yet. At some point we may reach it here--perhaps the next generation of subs will change crew requirements enough that this will be more feasible.

This is not a straight social justice question. There are pros-and-cons and trade offs involved. Anyone who thinks this is cut-and-dried in either direction is foolish.