Woman + Subs

[scoober78]

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

I don't disagree about the ADA, but it is illustrative of the point that it is not incumbent on the group being excluded, but the group doing the excluding to prove why that exclusion is appropriate.

 

[Brett327]

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...

Agreed!

abortion on toast

That sounds delicious!

Brett

 

[SkywardET]

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

I think it really boils down to the potential for a pregnancy underway. While on a surface ship, no matter which surface ship, you either have access to aircraft or a port call or will have access very likely within six weeks.

Boomers go underway for set timetables and basically never interact with the outside world. Less than half the crew knows where they even are. They never make port until the cruise is over. Is it really worth any literally unnecessary risk, however small, to expose our strategic assets?

Now perhaps such an issue is ameliorated for fast attacks, especially those traveling as part of a CSG and therefore have access to aforementioned air assets, but I really don't think it's such a good idea for Boomers. Having women on-board literally adds a new category to the ORM sheet, or whatever STRATCOM uses as equivallent, of the medium-high-severity, low-probability type.

 

[Random8145]

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.

Why shouldn't a business owner be allowed to discriminate against a disabled person? The purpose of the business is to make a profit. No business owner should be forced to have to accomodate the disabled. If someone is truly disabled, that is what social programs are for.

 

[CommodoreMid]

I think it really boils down to the potential for a pregnancy underway. While on a surface ship, no matter which surface ship, you either have access to aircraft or a port call or will have access very likely within six weeks.

Boomers go underway for set timetables and basically never interact with the outside world. Less than half the crew knows where they even are. They never make port until the cruise is over. Is it really worth any literally unnecessary risk, however small, to expose our strategic assets?

Now perhaps such an issue is ameliorated for fast attacks, especially those traveling as part of a CSG and therefore have access to aforementioned air assets, but I really don't think it's such a good idea for Boomers. Having women on-board literally adds a new category to the ORM sheet, or whatever STRATCOM uses as equivallent, of the medium-high-severity, low-probability type.

I still don't think that's a legitimate enough reason to keep women off. Serious injuries/accidents are possible on board no matter what; what do the subs do now when they have a crew member who needs to get off due to medical emergency?

 

[m26]

Why shouldn't a business owner be allowed to discriminate against a disabled person? The purpose of the business is to make a profit. No business owner should be forced to have to accomodate the disabled. If someone is truly disabled, that is what social programs are for.

If I remember my employment law correctly, you cannot discriminate based on gender, disability, etc. However, if one of these things actually prevents the performing, or significantly handicaps the ability to perform, necessary job-related tasks, you are within your rights not to hire that person.

 

[SkywardET]

I still don't think that's a legitimate enough reason to keep women off. Serious injuries/accidents are possible on board no matter what; what do the subs do now when they have a crew member who needs to get off due to medical emergency?

I knew someone would bring this up. You are right, and I bet medivacs have occurred before on Boomers. However, pregnancy doesn't have an equal chance of occurring in both men and women. It's literally one added possibility, either "accidentally" or intentionally, but it applies only to women. Is it really worth it? As I said, if this is inevitable, then we shall eventually find out.

No amount of desire for fair play can override biological capabilities.

 

[Brett327]

I knew someone would bring this up. You are right, and I bet medivacs have occurred before on Boomers. However, pregnancy doesn't have an equal chance of occurring in both men and women. It's literally one added possibility, either "accidentally" or intentionally, but it applies only to women. Is it really worth it? As I said, if this is inevitable, then we shall eventually find out.

No amount of desire for fair play can override biological capabilities.

Pregnancies while underway are extremely rare, and while I never underestimate the ability of the average Sailor to find places to bang each other, I would imagine that it would be challenging to do while underway on a sub. Pre-deployment medical screening can weed out any "legit" pregnancies. At any rate, IMO the chances of it occurring are so slight that it ought not weigh significantly in the calculus of integration.

Brett

 

[ea6bflyr]

I think it really boils down to the potential for a pregnancy underway. While on a surface ship, no matter which surface ship, you either have access to aircraft or a port call or will have access very likely within six weeks.

Boomers go underway for set timetables and basically never interact with the outside world. Less than half the crew knows where they even are. They never make port until the cruise is over. Is it really worth any literally unnecessary risk, however small, to expose our strategic assets?

Now perhaps such an issue is ameliorated for fast attacks, especially those traveling as part of a CSG and therefore have access to aforementioned air assets, but I really don't think it's such a good idea for Boomers. Having women on-board literally adds a new category to the ORM sheet, or whatever STRATCOM uses as equivallent, of the medium-high-severity, low-probability type.

What happens to a sailor who suffers a life threatening illness onboard a Boomer?

Here's your solution: All females aboard SSN/SSBN will be on mandatory implant birth control.

What other excuses do we have to avoid putting female sailors on subs?

-ea6bflyr

 

[PropAddict]

Here's your solution: All females aboard SSN/SSBN will be on mandatory implant birth control.

Shhh. . .don't say that too loud. With all the budget cuts, some bean counter my figure out it's cheaper to run a Navy eugenics program and sterilize us all, rather than let us run around and sire all these dependents.

 

[Alpha_Echo_606]

Shhh. . .don't say that too loud. With all the budget cuts, some bean counter my figure out it's cheaper to run a Navy eugenics program and sterilize us all, rather than let us run around and sire all these dependents.

Nonsense, they are counting on you to breed and raise the future Navy. :icon_wink

 

[Alecta]

Umm, not every woman can take birth control. One of the most glaring reasons is that depending on the woman's medical/family history, hormones in birth control have been linked to this pesky little thing called breast cancer.

 

[SkywardET]

Pregnancies while underway are extremely rare, and while I never underestimate the ability of the average Sailor to find places to bang each other, I would imagine that it would be challenging to do while underway on a sub. Pre-deployment medical screening can weed out any "legit" pregnancies. At any rate, IMO the chances of it occurring are so slight that it ought not weigh significantly in the calculus of integration.

Brett

Pregnancies underway are very rare, that's true. That still cedes the risk, though. I would not go so far as to say it is infintessimal, as it already happens in the fleet now. I am not quite sure I understand the need to take the risk for our strategic assets, especially ones that surrender their biggest advantage when they surface.

Further, there are still the logistic issues, especially when it comes to replacing a pregnant sailor prior to deployment. On my last deployment, an SK1 on her second tour on the ship made her first deployment since she joined 12 years prior. She had been scheduled for a few deployments prior to that one, but was carrying children.

I, for one, don't like the idea of restricting women from having children during their child-bearing years. Therefore, such an issue must be addressed. It already is in the fleet now, and it causes some hardships but it is dealt with. Everyone should at least acknowledge that.

What happens to a sailor who suffers a life threatening illness onboard a Boomer?

Here's your solution: All females aboard SSN/SSBN will be on mandatory implant birth control.

What other excuses do we have to avoid putting female sailors on subs?

I don't know, I guess the SSBN surfaces and the sailor gets airlifted off. Again, assuming the chances of a life-threatening illness are equal between men and women, that is just a straw-man contention against the underway pregnancy argument. I would be very surprised, to say the least, if any man in the Navy needed to be offloaded from a ship on deployment due to a pregnancy.

It's not an excuse. I am merely acknowledging all possibilities.

 

[navygirl7]

I agree that the pregnancy problem is easily solved by mandating birth control- a much less invasive method than implant birth control would be Depo-Provera. Depo is a shot that a woman recieves once every 3 months, and it is virtually 100% effective, as women do not even get their period on it. It could be required from two months before deployment until it's over, and it's fairly simple for a woman to stop it after deployment if she wants to get pregnant.

Yes, there are side effects. However, Soldiers are required to be vaccinated for Anthrax and Smallpox before they are deployed to Iraq/ Afghanistan, for which possible side effects are paralysis and death.

Being on a sub is a choice. As yet, no one is forced to be on a sub (at least not until after they sign up to be on one). Being put on birth control could simply be part of that choice.

 

[SkywardET]

I didn't realize you guys were serious about mandatory implant birth control. That would certainly eliminate the risk. The status quo is still the easier solution, as mandatory implant birth control has its own issues. However, so long as the logistic and perceptual/attitude aspects are handled, such a change could definitely take effect.

But mandatory implant birth control? Seriously?