Thursday, February 08, 2007

Female Submarine Crew Inadvisability Underscored

In October 2005, Molten Eagle offered this: Female Submarine Crew Advisability. Now, NASA has an embarrassing problem with one of its astronettes, also a Captain, USN.

This much may now be clear:
NASA's psychological screening for its astronaut program probably did not differentiate adequately between male and female applicants. This may have been due to simple historical precedent (original astronauts had only been male). More likely, the failing was not an oversight so much as an intended result of a "politically correct view." The PC view holds that gender differences are inconsequential to job performance. The same thinking not only paved the way for very bright and physically fit women to enter the astronaut program, it ushered in fast track mechanisms for achieving rank and opportunities that are usually exrtremely competitive.

Regarding assigning women crew on U.S. submarines, much has been written. Many with and without impressive submarining experience are against the proposition for a variety of reasons stemming from women's health issues to berthing and privacy requirements. One, for example said: Personally, as an officer, I would not have wanted women on my crew, even if the women were better performers.

Another submarine officer holds a popular contrasting view: My recommendation is that if women must be integrated into the force, they come in as senior officers.

As in Captain. Therein lies the rub. Submarine psychological screening may well have been the basis for NASA's astronaut screening monograph. Imagine the female astronaut, Captain, USN assigned as CO of a ballistic missile submarine (larger vessels which afford more privacy and space needs). Not very funny, is it?

Although one poor example must not be the basis for a generalized conclusion, the single case is enough to invalidate all of the psychological screens used to date for female astonauts.

In fact, it should be a wake up call for a lot of people in high places. Are you listening?

Labels: , , , , ,


At 08 February, 2007 21:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very good melding of the two issues, women on subs and as astronauts, combining into one big reason why they shouldn't be in the military. I agree 100%. See my blog post Our Brightest Star - Our Darkest Shame.

At 09 February, 2007 03:02, Blogger Vigilis said...

Sonarman, just read your "Our Brightest Star... "

The PC-business is not helping anyone to think critically, and it seems to serve only those with some hidden agenda that cannot withstand proper scrutiny. In the latter class I would place too many politicians, would be highbinders and all trial lawyers.

At 09 February, 2007 19:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that it is high time that we get out of our comfort zone and open our eyes to the real world. It seems that everyone that opposes women on submarines has absolutly no knowledge of the reality. The bottom line is that it works. MANY countries allow women on submarines (spain and sweden for example)and on diesel boats no less. The only concession on Spanish boats is that women get to shower every day while the men get one every three days (and a little sign on the head).

The bottom line is that it is our own inability to deal with a few simple issues that is preventing us from tapping into an expanded talent pool. The examples that come from surface sailors do not apply to the submarine force. Why? Because Submariners are vastly more professional that surface sailors. This is not a matter of community bashing, it is a fact. All you have to do is compare the NJP records of commands. There are just as many problems with male surface sailors as female.

Allowing women on submarines would mean having more high quality Submariners and fewer low quality Submariners.

I am not some Schmuck by the way, I am a Senior Chief who has been punching holes on both boomers and fast boats for 15 years. Time to get with the program.

Submarines once.....

At 10 February, 2007 18:55, Blogger Vigilis said...

Anonymous senior chief, thank you for presenting your argument so persuaively. I am sure everyone has now changed their mind. Did you bother to look up and read my first post on the matter? I really do not think you digested those facts.

You would have found that some high-profile, educated women are against the utterly stupid move, too.

By the way, once it is done there would be no turning back. Australia has now gone down this stupid path to the peril of their male submarine recruiting! Frankly, I am not surprised by that.

Please don't try to tell us about diesel boats that spend so much time in port. I was a fast attack guy that spent much more than the wimpy, boomer-standard 90 days at sea each cruise!

While I have not been on subs in some years, it is my hope that crews have not been as "feminized" as you apparently are. When was your last physical? I suggest you load up on testosterone if you are really a male chief, which my professional acumen makes me seriously doubt!

At 19 February, 2007 12:50, Blogger Old Gary said...

The Senior Chief is wrong, he IS a Schmuck. Get with the program indeed!

Sounds like he wants his girlfriend assigned to his boat.

At 19 February, 2007 19:16, Blogger Vigilis said...

Old Gary, thanks for your comment. As I stated, I have serious doubts that the anonymous senior chief is a male, and even greater doubts that he could be submarine qualified. Of course, I could be wrong, in which case his quest for female help begs many questions akin to the conclusion you expressed. Thanks again.

At 14 April, 2007 22:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"high-profile, educated women"

List 'em, then.

And then tell me how many have technical/engineering backgrounds or have the experience necessary to say women don't belong in combat or on a submarine.

The only woman who is going to convince me that females don't belong in the military are the ones that have served...with distinction.

At 15 April, 2007 14:30, Blogger Vigilis said...

Anonymous, besides the two provided in my first post? You are an anonymous commentor and perhaps a student, in which case, please complete your own research.

Female Naval Academy graduate Patty Marr served with distinction at sea (as a Division Officer) and meets all of your "convince me" criteria except perhaps for her engineering/technical background (which submarine officers of the line possess, by the way).

Here sre some of her quotations:

"I can speak from experience that `women at sea' is no success story. Average women do not have the upper body strength of the average man.

"I passed all my tests, but I could not lower a submersible pump into a flooded space. Who would you prefer in wartime?"

"Pregnancy and sea time are incompatible. If women become pregnant, they must eventually depart the ship. Submarines must have 100 percent crew readiness even in dental health."

"Could you imagine a monthly pregnancy screening for women assigned to submarines? I was the division officer for 60 people, of which six were women, and three of those were removed during deployment for pregnancy."

"The Navy discriminates-against obesity, illness, disability, age and yes, sex. The military's mission is to effectively fight wars, not be an equal opportunity employer pandering to every special interest group."

"Maybe we should make submarines handicapped accessible too. I hope our military commanders have the courage to stand up against this pressure just as they need to in the heat of battle."

Anonymous, it is indeed fortunate that people like yourself who prefer to ignore inconvenient facts (as opposed to popular myths and notions) do not have to be convinced about Female Submarine Crew Inadvisability, legally or otherwise.

If you want gender equality to trump military readiness, why don't you become another lawyer in the JAG? The last country to have billets for lawyers on submarines was the USSR.

At 02 March, 2010 23:46, Blogger pearnbran said...

Congress has 30 working days to object to the plan.

give me a break. . . .

Look I severed in the Navy,on a ship with women on board.

and OK depending on the job they are just fine, but that was a surface ship.

submarines are a whole different story.

as long as gender preference is in place as far as physical fitness are in place.
this should not be put in place.
If they want to lets make a sub 100% women and see how they do.

I just wonder how many of my fellow posters have been inside a Submarine?

also their deployment responsibilities are much more demanding.

OK I do realize that women's roles in combat have changed in twenty years.

But as long as the Physical standards are lowered for women this should be avoided.

On board underway on a Submarine when a problem/casualty(damage control not personnel) all hands are expected to act.

no one can take a back seat..because I have cramps,or I cant lift it..all hands..

I've worked with women in uniform and seen it.
you can not tell me it still doesn't happen.

so if you want to put them on board, fine...but make it a all women crew and see if they make the grade.

then there comes the logistical issues...where are they going to sleep? shower?

folks I build them, and let me tell you , the redesign issues are going to be a nightmare.

It kind of brings to mind the first battle of bull run when citizens from the town came in carriages and brought picnic lunches to witness the glory of war...that kind of backfired.

finally do we need a bunch of PMSing bitches with multiple
warhead deploy-able missiles?

this isnt GI Jane..its for real

The points that i see are the following

there are enough upper echelon high ranking women who see submarines as well as any special operational units as part of that dreaded glass ceiling.

they cite that women are in the space program as well as pilots for some of the most sophisticated airframe in the sky.

what they fail to see on paper are the intangibles that dont appear when quickly glanced at during a power point presentation

I'm sure Barbara Boxers name is on that comity as her disdain for the Uniform is well known.

and as I stated in my first part of this article why not commission a ship with a 100% crew of women?

that eliminates the berthing area and "head" issues.

it can be a sink or swim type of arrangement.

But we all know is this comes to fruition, they will want us men to do the heavy lifting or to shoulder the blame.

the real challenge will come with our special operations community

90% of the milatary women say that the Move GI Jane was one of there favorite Movies. And they hold that that's going to be the final barrier to break.

But as long as they are allowed to swim slower, run slower, do fewer push ups..etc that's not going to happen also, when dealing those elite units..its not just physical capabilities but one of spirit,

women who read that might not think that this is not a fare assessment....get over it, isn't fare

At 03 March, 2010 15:34, Blogger Vigilis said...

Well, Gibby, contrary opinion abounds. This poorly supported opinion appeared in yesterday's New London The Day:

"Ten percent of men on board get pushed out of the way so somebody else can expeditiously execute these emergency procedures. Think.
- Frank Balantic Niantic"

My first question to Frank Balantic Niantic is where did you get your 10% of men statistic? Did you make it up like other feminists?


Post a Comment

<< Home