The Navy’s announcement last week that women will be assigned to submarines is depressing news. Is this the military or the Goodship Lollipop? Consider young women and men in tight quarters and tense circumstances. Think of something so simple as a wake-up call when sailors change watch. A submarine is not like the spacious and  accomodating  Star Trek Enterprise, in which men and women lived without apparent complication.

MarkyMark writes:

I’d heard about the Obama Administration’s plans to put women on subs, and it’s a BIG mistake! I say that as a Navy veteran. I served during the 1980s; I was too young for Vietnam, while too old for the Gulf War. Back then, women only served on tenders, supply ships, and other non-combatant vessels in the Navy. When we’d tie up next to a destroyer tender, those of us who served on combat ships would hear all the stories about illicit liaisons, pregnancies, the drop in morale, — and this was on a support ship! 

On combat ships, it’s even worse. The ship’s mission effectiveness is reduced. Millions have to be spent on renovating berthing spaces to accommodate women, money which SHOULD be spend on weapons systems, propulsion, and anything else that will enhance that ship’s COMBAT effectiveness. Then, you have all the soap opera BS that follows when you mix the sexes in a tight, confined environment. By the way, this is done when they’re young and-pardon me for saying it-horny! The boys and girls on the ships will be thinking about lots of things, but the mission isn’t one of them. At least it won’t have the undivided attention it should. There are a number of complications that arise when you mix men & women on surface ships.

For example, what happens when the messenger of the watch has to wake up the next watch section? When I was in, you’d just walk to the guy’s bunk, wake him up, then be done with it. With women in separate berthing areas, how does something so routine get done, particularly when the “man on watch” is a man? I remember when I had fire & security watch in the barracks; we had to yell ‘Man on deck!’ just to walk through and make sure everything was all right. The thought of entering any female’s room never occurred to us guys. What happens when there are female watchstanders who have to be awakened? This is just a routine evolution; can you imagine what’d happen for anything more serious?!

Then, there’s the issue of women’s sensitivities. They’re bad enough when they work in an office where they can go home at five! I know, because I’ve worked with them in office environments. What will they do when they not only have to work with people they don’t like, but eat, sleep, bathe with them, and put their lives in one another’s hands-and do so for MONTHS at a time?! Guys may not like each other on board, but they can see past their grudges and take care of one another. Guys also don’t hold grudges like women do, either. I remember having a shoving match with a guy who, later in that deployment, would be my ‘running mate’ out in the town! Women, on the other hand, will remember a slight from decades earlier, and they’ll remember it to the last detail. This is not a slight against women; their tendency to focus on little details is useful in the home environment. However, on ship, it’s a recipe for disaster.

Oh, and that doesn’t even acknowledge the fact that ships are DANGEROUS places! There are all sorts of hazardous chemicals, ammunition, explosives, weapons, etc. awaiting the unwary. This is just your normal ship; this doesn’t include aircraft carriers, which are even more dangerous (the flight deck comes to mind). For example, the torpedoes I used to handle would give off hydrogen cyanide as one of its exhaust gases! They had a salt water battery, which would start the torpedo’s engine upon launch. You can bet your bippy we were VERY careful about keeping that covered up! The props were razor sharp also.

Now, we’re going to put women on subs: Great! Let’s compromise our military, and our national security even more! If auxiliary ships are no place for women; if combatant surface ships are no place for women; what makes anyone in their right mind think that submarines are right for women.

What worries me is that, assuming the Republicans take over again, they won’t UNDO these ‘reforms’. They didn’t after taking over after Clinton’s terms in office. It was Clinton who put women on combat ships back in 1992. When the GOP took over (they held both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. from 2000-2006), they made no effort to undo the damage Clinton wrought on our armed forces. I’m worried that the same thing will happen here. I just have to shake my head at this insanity…

What people must remember is this. War is man’s business, not women’s. Furthermore, it’s a YOUNG man’s business. At 48, I simply do not have the requisite temperament to fight in combat. You see, as I got older, I became, shall we say, more cognizant of my mortality! I realize that I got hurt more easily, and I took longer to recover from said hurts. That makes a guy more cautious; that makes a guy think, “Gee, if I do X, the consequences will be Y…” Young men don’t know this; why, they have the world by the tail! That makes them so eminently suited for combat.

In closing, putting women on board subs is a disaster; it’s a train wreck waiting to happen! The efforts to put women on auxiliary ships failed; it was fraught with problems. The effort to put women on combat ships has been a failure. Likewise, the efforts to put women on subs will fail too. Anyone advocating this lunacy has NEVER, ever, ever served a day in the military! Check ’em out; none of them have. Just because you can mix men & women on TV shows, such as Star Trek, doesn’t mean you can do it in real life! You can read more of my thoughts here. 

Lisa writes:

I am literally amazed.

Actually I am surprised that it has taken this long to get them on subs. While a “midshipman” 20+ years ago, I was hauled along with my male classmates to tour subs during summer training to help mids decide what part of the US Navy they’d like to request. The girls were ushered into the room where the ice cream machine was, and served ice cream and hit on by the rest of the crew while our male classmates got the interesting tour.” We knew we’d only be there an hour, so it was humorous. NONE of the girls were complaining that submarines were not a career choice for female mids. We DID joke that if we stayed by the ice cream machine for too long, we wouldn’t be able to get back out the hatch and would have to stay on board.

I shudder to think of what will happen to these girls: if a woman is out for six months on a sub, and goes nuts or clains she “was abused,” she will be sedated and put in the looney bin medical ward on the sub. You WILL be found “emotionally unstable” if you go to your senior officers about abuse. You will be surrounded by men, some senior to you and told jokes like, “What’s long and hard and full of seamen?” and when you blush (if you can) they will laugh and say “A SUBMARINE!” They WILL pin you in between a group of them and grab you. I can see their point of view: If you, a woman, got on a sub with a metal tube full of guys and you think you aren’t painting an “open season” sign on your back, you ARE “emotionally unstable,” or very naive.

Katherine writes:

You are so right about women in the military. A disaster. My son is career military, enlisted, and the stories he has told me. . . it is frightening, nauseating, depressing in every way. 

What I tell my son is this. These poor souls join the military because our society does not value a woman’s role. I know. I have been there. You get no strokes for being a full-time homemaker, homeschooling mother. The military is exciting, glamorous in its way, and you get lots of positive stroking for being a woman in the military.

Rita writes:

Women in the military are generally a disaster. How do I know? I was in the Army in my late teens and it was a waste of tax dollars. There were VERY few women I knew of who belonged there and would have been an asset in a war-time situation.

Please follow and like us: