- Joined
- Feb 12, 2006
- Messages
- 24,373
- Reaction score
- 14,953
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Dude...
I already went there.....
See posts back.
Just sayin'. :roll:
Suppose great minds think alike?
Women on a submarine worked for Tony Curtis.
For example . . .
YouTube- Operation Petticoat Preview
[Trivia Fact: Tony's daughter Jamie appeared in the TV version of Operation Petticoat.]
I don't know if you guys have ever been on nuclear powered sub but there is no room on them......I got a tour of the USS OHIO a trident sub by the Chief of the Boat in 1981.....I can honestly tell you the only way women can serve on a subs if they have their own......The boats are so small the guys hot bunk on them (guys share racks). a surface ship is like a luxery llner when compared to a submarine......
A problem with having their own subs is and all women crew could not handle the physical requirements involved...........Another huge problem will be wth the wives of the guys serving on the subs........They will never put up with it....trust me...........
Oh?
How many hours you spend at test depth, non-qual?
My wife told me abotu the "alpha female" syndrome, where a strong female leader in a group can have an effect on other females in the group. I.E. they all PMS on HER scheduale. Now I have no clue if this is actually true, but do you REALLY want to chance a submarine where 5 days a month the women are in total bitch mode?
There are a lot of situations aboard a sub that takes physical strength....Most women don't have it...
It'll be the TDU weight loads.
All the crew have to hand-to-hand those things down into the boat. We loaded them by the ton, and there were eight ten-pound steel disks in each box. They have to be handed down vertical ladders, and we lost the tallest man on the boat, because, naturally, he was placed at the bottom, and the man above him dropped a box. Didn't kill him, just destroyed his shoulder.
How many women are going to be standing at the bottom of THOSE ladders, hmmmm?
I got the COB to loan me three seamen so we could carry eight R-114 refill cylnders down from the McKee, the tender. They weighed forty-five pounds apeice, there wasn't a truck handy, and after we hiked them over, little old me had to climb into the damnedest places to hoist them into their stowage brackets. How much help is the lady Machinist's Mate going to need to do her job as the ships Air Conditioning technician?
The Ohio has been converted to a platform type ship from a Trident.....They need a lot of space to launch the Tomahawk missiles...........I have been down in the berthing compartments of both the crew and the chiefs with the COB....Trust me there is no room......
Its kind of ironic that we are talking about the OHIO because I was at a change of command ceromony for her last Friday.........
I have seen women Aviation Ordnancemen load 500 pound bombs, 3 women, one on each end with a length of pipe screwed in, 1 in the middle guiding it.
I don't thank Scarecrow often, but every so often he says something really great, and this is just such a post. Accurate and amusing in one nice package.
By the way, as any one who has served on a carrier will tell you, with 6000 people, there are very few places without heavy traffic.
When you are at General Quarters and your GQ station is to man a P250 or P500 pump on a damage control team you have to carry it down into a compartment to fight a fire there is no one to help you..its your job.....I know because my first GQ station was to man a P250 pump on the destroyer I was on.......
Big difference Redress......
Another problem as someone mentioned would be handling gas bottles...I don't know how many they have on a sub but on a destroyer they have a store room full and they all have to be loaded and stowed manually and those babies are heavy as hell....Not easy work for a big strong man let alone a 100 pound woman when the bottles weigh twice as much as she does.........
I know I had no problem finding a cubby hole, to get my freak on, when I was in the Navy. Ahhh, the memories. :mrgreen:
Let's see.....0215 Engine Room Lower Level. This watch station is huge, encompassing the SSTG LO Bay, the Condensate Bay, the PLO Bay, the MSW Bay, the ASW Bay, and all of Engine Room Middle Level Aft, almost half the engine room.
The hourly logs have been taken....that takes three minutes. The #2 LOP was shut down, cleaned, and put to work on the Starboard SSTG LO Sump. The PLO Strainer got it's daily cleaning at 0030, the Port SSTG LO Strainer was cleaned at 0120, the Starboard SSTG LO Strainer was cleaned at 0140. It took 30 seconds to shift from #1 and #2 Condensate Pumps to #3 and #4, which was done at 0010. It took five minutes to shift from #1 and #2 R114 AC units to #3 and #4, which was done at 0024. The ship is currently cruining at PD off the coast of China on routine patrol, no manuvers are expected this midwatch.
There is NOTHING left to do for the next four hours but take those hourly logs. Fifty seven minutes of each of the next four hours will be spent trying to find something interesting to do, and failing. This is when the ERLL watch pulls his spinal tap syringe from his pocket (the ELT's use them for boiler water oxygen sampling) and he climbs up to be under the Main Engine aft journal bearing, because he knows the Engine Room Upper Level watch has to put his face right THERE to read that thermometer. So you squirt him. He'll try to squirt you when you're reading the ERFW pump outlet thermometer.
It's not only distinctly possible to see the Engine Room Supervisor, the Engineering Watch Supervisor, and the Auxiliary Electrician Aft before they see you, but fairly easy to move around the watch station to hide from them, a game most ERLL watches play. But this time, when the Engine Room Supervisor comes down, the Lower Level watch and he get together. The EWS is supervising the Engineering Laboratory Techician's reactor sample, and that pins the EOOW in the Manuvering Room for nearly half an hour. The AE aft is cool, he has a thing with the cook that he doesn't want to mess up. So there's no problem sneaking back behind the condensers for a little fun.
THAT's how it will work on a submarine.
Glad to see a non-qual has some "facts".
I got my dolphins a long time ago, I don't need someone who hasn't lived the life to tell me "facts".
1. and if you had and all female sub? There are very few women who could lift one of those pumps....
You crack me up......Before you get all defensive......It does not make a rats ass whether women serve on subs or not.............I am just telling you from what I know about it though my experience it would be hard as hell to accomplish....Now go take your attitude to your room........
I went to a survival school At Warner Springs in the moutains of California one year and it was 20 below.......There were 6 Seals in our class and you don't know the half of it......I almost thought those guys were not human......
Yeah, right...........:rofl
Since we are telling sea stories, I saw a training film on Navy Seals one time it included guys jumpimg off 12 story buildings. Parachuting with half chutes so they could get down faster//////going on 100 mile hikes.........living off the land, escape and evasion (I was there for this) eating roots, roaches, ants, spiders...I ate the roots but starved otherwise...Lost 20 lbs in 5 days.........
Instead of relying on their personal experience like it actually means anything to anybody.
When they babies submerge they stay submerged until their patrol is over.........
And, Navy, regarding your SEAL story... we took SEALS down the river frequently because they apparently liked to do whitewater training together. Most of the ones I met were cool. But the bastards I had in my raft that one day were not. And I **** you not that it was my goal that day to make them cry uncle, and I succeeded. ****ers didn't know what they were doing when they pissed off their guide at the beginning of a 24 mile, Class V run in an Extreme raft.
I see; just a different kind of discrimination
What changed in the military during the late 40's to warrant overturning discrimination on the basis of race? Did white soldiers become more enlightened? Did someone discover that blacks were actually capable of doing jobs other than personal aids and truck drivers?
I always find it comical to watch how people rationalize their own bigotries and justify discrimination on that basis.
Is that a challenge? You do not know me nor do you know what I can or cannot do. Til then? You can shut your face.
Blacks served in the US military since the Civil War, in combat units.
Sorry, no dice.
They were in "segregated units." and served in the US military since the civil war.
See Examples...
54th Massachusetts Infantry
92nd Division
Tuskeegee Airmen
Man you really need to study your history.
I find it comical that people who have no idea were we have been as a country, want to guide us blindly into the future without a clue. How can you tell us where to go when you have no idea where we have been?
My view has nothing to do with discrimination or bigotry. It has to do with understanding that males and females are (unlike racial differences) built completely different. Females are not built for the rigors or stresses of combat, men are. Simple FACT.
Oh my God; you mean there were black people around during the Civil War? :shock:
You're right, I do need to pick up a history book
I think the time has come to allow women to serve in all areas of the armed services, including subs.
You will forgive me if I don't buy that? The SEAL's I have known, would rip your head off and shove your raft up your ass.
Hey, I could be wrong. :roll:
Not......
I think what rivrrat is trying to say is that:
Some, perhaps only the tiniest minority of, but some, women can do 99% of the things men can do. Perhaps that tiny 1% of things women can't do should be limited to men.
But not based on sex.
Based on ability.
If the women can't hack it, then they can't hack it, and shouldn't be allowed into the situation where their lack of strength/whatever puts others in jeopardy.
Regarding the females on subs bit:
I believe she is attempting to say that it is unnecessary to retrofit/modify the subs. Leave things the way they are, just change the navy regs on coed situations.
Let em all shower together, no need for coed facilities.
If the men get hard-on's, let em go wack off, and both parties should just laugh it off, as it is a natural reaction and only a small minority of men can control it in all situations.
If a women was going to complain about such, she shouldn't be on the sub to begin with.
Or...something.
Here is a good example of one reason I am so against females being in ground combat. (not so much against the sub thing, but it has it's own set of issues)
Back many years ago I was working at a temp agency. I had a friend April who worked with me at the different sites.
April made the same amount of money I did per hour.
It never failed that when we went to a new site she would end up doing something like putting small electronic parts into a little box. It was hot in the plant so they gave her a fan and a chair. I on the other hand was in the same heat in the same plant strapping Bobcat front ends to pallets by myself. Same amount of pay.
Even working at other company's as a regular employee it would go the same. I am breaking my back, some female is sitting down doing much of nothing for the same amount of money. Same job title, same pay, very different work loads.
Now jump ahead to the Army. Fat out of shape females were the norm. They could barely do a female push up, let alone a real one. Or little skinny females that could barely lift an M16A2 and fire it correctly. I did not see many females I would want beside me in a combat situation. Hell, I saw many men I did not want to be beside but it was the exception, rather than the rule.
I know plenty of females that could handle it and did even back then. I am pretty certain Riverrat, for example would make a fine combat solider, but she is the exception rather than the rule.
I just don't see any gains or benefits for putting women in combat or even subs.
Seems to me his example confirms that men are not the equal of women, since he had to do hard manual labor while his colleague sat and did assembly work. So it seems to me it is you who are sexist and not promoting equal work for equal pay.The same sexist attitude that says women aren't the equal of men is also the same sexist attitude that makes allowances for them as per your examples.
I think what rivrrat is trying to say is that:
Some, perhaps only the tiniest minority of, but some, women can do 99% of the things men can do. Perhaps that tiny 1% of things women can't do should be limited to men.
But not based on sex.
Based on ability.
If the women can't hack it, then they can't hack it, and shouldn't be allowed into the situation where their lack of strength/whatever puts others in jeopardy.
Regarding the females on subs bit:
I believe she is attempting to say that it is unnecessary to retrofit/modify the subs. Leave things the way they are, just change the navy regs on coed situations.
Let em all shower together, no need for coed facilities.
If the men get hard-on's, let em go wack off, and both parties should just laugh it off, as it is a natural reaction and only a small minority of men can control it in all situations.
If a women was going to complain about such, she shouldn't be on the sub to begin with.
Or...something.
it's just not as simple as that. Sometimes common sense outweighs perceived inequality, and in this case, common sense tells us this isn't a good idea. the subs WOULD have to be retrofit.....at a cost. women can serve in many capacities and there is no reason to make major changes to accomodate the few women who could qualify. as long as other, equal opportunity is available, (pay, rank, etc) there should be no issue with restricting this area to men.I think what rivrrat is trying to say is that:
Some, perhaps only the tiniest minority of, but some, women can do 99% of the things men can do. Perhaps that tiny 1% of things women can't do should be limited to men.
But not based on sex.
Based on ability.
If the women can't hack it, then they can't hack it, and shouldn't be allowed into the situation where their lack of strength/whatever puts others in jeopardy.
Regarding the females on subs bit:
I believe she is attempting to say that it is unnecessary to retrofit/modify the subs. Leave things the way they are, just change the navy regs on coed situations.
Let em all shower together, no need for coed facilities.
If the men get hard-on's, let em go wack off, and both parties should just laugh it off, as it is a natural reaction and only a small minority of men can control it in all situations.
If a women was going to complain about such, she shouldn't be on the sub to begin with.
Or...something.
The same sexist attitude that says women aren't the equal of men is also the same sexist attitude that makes allowances for them as per your examples.
You still completely ignore the fact men and women are different physically and mentally. Both are better at things the other is not.
It is just not as simple as you try to make it.
Nothing sexist about accepting the biological differences.
What was the point of your example?
No, they wouldn't need to be amazons. They would simply need to be strong enough, just like a man would be. Essentially, it's like this: They should only have PEOPLE on the sub physically capable of performing the necessary tasks. Gender is irrelevant.
I am.
Easy fix with birth control
Many men don't either. Your point is?
Oh wait... your point is that maybe the PEOPLE on the sub should be physically capable of performing the necessary tasks? I agree. What does this have to do with gender, though?
No more than any man who is equipped to do it. Just have to hire a PERSON physically capable of performing the task.
Not all women are as strong as some men. Not all men are as strong as some men. Not all women are as weak as other women. blah blah blah
Some women CAN do the same as SOME men do. The only offensive thing in your statements is the sheer ignorance about the capabilities of the female form.
Yes, men and women are different! SHOCKER!
And, some women can physically perform at the same level as some men.
Umm.. yes. Would you let a 100 lb man on board who couldn't do the job? Why would you let a woman onboard who couldn't do the job? That would just be retarded.
They can open the door for themselves.Well said.
Open the door for women and if they are qualified as per your last paragraph, put THOSE women on board.
I understand the first women allowed on subs would be officers on the larger Ohio class subs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?