Unsurprisingly, Sexism Lives - Women On US Submarines

[Trolldor]

Gender has nothing to do with competence.

lol.

Then why this?

if anything, being female is a plus

Ohh.. I see, knee jerk reactionism again.

For fuck's sake. Women are as equally incompetent as men, and as equally arrogant.

[tattuchu]

Gender has nothing to do with competence.

lol.

Then why this?

if anything, being female is a plus

Ohh.. I see, knee jerk reactionism again.

For fuck's sake. Women are as equally incompetent as men, and as equally arrogant.

Well...um...hang on, lemme try and squirm my way out of this.
Er...gender has nothing to do with competence. But I said women generally don't have that whole ego thing in the way. So that's not a competence/incompetence sort of thing. That just means they're easier to deal with

[ficklefiend]

I know an ex-navy guy, in his 60s, who still argues women shouldn't even be allowed on ships because they will inevitably get raped.

He also argues that gay men shouldn't be allowed to serve because they will then do the raping.

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

I know an ex-navy guy, in his 60s, who still argues women shouldn't even be allowed on ships because they will inevitably get raped.

He also argues that gay men shouldn't be allowed to serve because they will then do the raping.

Now that = lulz for the sheer stupidity.

[ficklefiend]

I know an ex-navy guy, in his 60s, who still argues women shouldn't even be allowed on ships because they will inevitably get raped.

He also argues that gay men shouldn't be allowed to serve because they will then do the raping.

Now that = lulz for the sheer stupidity.

I just worry what happened during his navy career.

[Ian]

I know an ex-navy guy, in his 60s, who still argues women shouldn't even be allowed on ships because they will inevitably get raped.

Raped? I'd say no more than in the general population. Probably quite a bit less, considering ships aren't an especially private environment, and the wrath of military justice.

This isn't to say that young sailors of both genders aren't sexually active onboard ships, especially while deployed for months at a time. My last ship was the USS Iwo Jima. 1200 sailors (around 20% female) plus an additional 1700 Marines while deployed. The women had their pick of deployment flings. Anybody want to venture what the term "Marine Mattress" referrs to?

[mozg]

Well...um...hang on, lemme try and squirm my way out of this.
Er...gender has nothing to do with competence. But I said women generally don't have that whole ego thing in the way. So that's not a competence/incompetence sort of thing. That just means they're easier to deal with

Easier to deal with?

The worst boss I ever had was female. She was a manipulative, backstabbing, lying bitch who would constantly pull out the crocodile tears to try to guilt her employees into doing whatever she wanted. She was a horrible person, completely egotistical, and I hated working for her. When I quit, she tried to force me out before my notice period so that she wouldn't have to pay me the back vacation days I was owed.

That place was 70% female, and I couldn't stand all the catty gossip and bullshit that went with it. Left there to work in a place that is at least 80% male. Some of them are egotistical, some of them aren't, but all of them will up and tell me if they have a problem with me rather than snipe behind my back. As far as egos go, being surrounded by people who are extremely egotistical but only about things that are completely shallow is fucking MISERABLE. I spent far too much time hearing them cut up on whoever wasn't in the room because her hair/clothes/shoes/other status symbol wasn't up to par, and bitch about their husbands being cheap bastards. If you think women aren't egotistical, spend some time listening to them assess the looks of another woman.

I don't think it is at all fair to generalize that women are 'easier to deal with' or that they don't have that whole 'ego thing'.

[BrettA]

To be honest, there are always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space for a long period of time, in addition to the potential dangers of having any group of people in a confined space. I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to serve on submarines out of hand but you would at least have to investigate the consequences first.

So what honest investigations have concluded that there are "always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space for a long period of time, in addition to...", please? And I'd guess that "consequences" are a known quantity since this scenario has been happening with other navies for years, as mentioned. And if there were problems, I'd have expected these people to point to USN studies or investigations after allowing women to serve in the surface force... surely *that* would have been studied.

...it's harmful to force them to show preferential treatment to women just to strike a balance. In fact, it's hypocritical and that generates anger.

But to relate that to *this thread* is completely off base, since there has been 100% preferential treatment towards men - not women - until very recently in this regard. That fact should generate some anger, IMO, and not just from women.

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

To be honest, there are always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space for a long period of time, in addition to the potential dangers of having any group of people in a confined space. I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to serve on submarines out of hand but you would at least have to investigate the consequences first.

So what honest investigations have concluded that there are "always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space for a long period of time, in addition to...", please? And I'd guess that "consequences" are a known quantity since this scenario has been happening with other navies for years, as mentioned.

There have been no investigations as far as I know and that's why I'm saying there should be. I was giving my opinion. Such problems could include, ironically, sexist behaviour directed at female crew, which would in turn damage the morale of the woman and drive down her performance. Like I said, there will always be the potential for problems. Of course there can be problems within an all male crew but the addition of women could add to that list of issues.

Of course I'd like it if someone with more knowledge about the situation on submarines could weigh in, I'm speaking as an outsider here so I have no real experience of the scenario we're discussing.

...it's harmful to force them to show preferential treatment to women just to strike a balance. In fact, it's hypocritical and that generates anger.

But to relate that to *this thread* is completely off base, since there has been 100% preferential treatment towards men - not women - until very recently. That fact should generate some anger, IMO.

Firstly, I was responding to Mai - my bad for not quoting, sorry.

Secondly, I specified that this is an emerging problem affecting my own generation. We've been brought up, largely, to respect women and treat them equally. Yet whenever we make a decision, like picking more men than women, that is not in any way based on sex, we're accused by women of sexism. That in itself is sexist and hypocritical and it's damaging the progress made by feminists over the past century by creating a backlash of annoyance and outright anger amongst younger men: this in turn leads to genuine sexist treatment of women by younger men. It may not be the reason why Mai's cousin-in-law is sexist but I know that it's one of the reasons why guys my age can be sexist

I'm not saying women have no right to be angry, they certainly do, but they have no right to jump to the wrong conclusion constantly. Favouring either sex in order to strike a balance is wrong.

[BrettA]

To be honest, there are always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space for a long period of time, in addition to the potential dangers of having any group of people in a confined space. I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to serve on submarines out of hand but you would at least have to investigate the consequences first.

So what honest investigations have concluded that there are "always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space for a long period of time, in addition to...", please? And I'd guess that "consequences" are a known quantity since this scenario has been happening with other navies for years, as mentioned.

There have been no investigations as far as I know and that's why I'm saying there should be. I was giving my opinion. Such problems could include, ironically, sexist behaviour directed at female crew, which would in turn damage the morale of the woman and drive down her performance. Like I said, there will always be the potential for problems. Of course there can be problems within an all male crew but the addition of women could add to that list of issues.

Well, why, oh why, would you state that:
"To be honest, there are always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space..."
or even, say:
"To be honest, there are always going to be a reduction in social problems when you put men and women into a confined space..."?

Why "honestly" take one side... yours is the side of course than men have often taken time and time and time again when women enter the usual workplaces of men? Where is the honesty in a biased and unsubstantiated (or seemingly unfounded) assertion like yours? This integration of the sexes in the workplace has been ongoing for more than a century - surely we'd have heard of the generalized problems if indeed they existed? I submit that if you want a study specifically on US women on US submarines at this point in time, put women aboard and study! Otherwise you'll get people conducting the 'study' starting out with attitudes like Admiral Carroll in the article or people who state that "To be honest, there are always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space..."!

Of course I'd like it if someone with more knowledge about the situation on submarines could weigh in, I'm speaking as an outsider here so I have no real experience of the scenario we're discussing.

As the OP, here I am, weighing in. So what issues do you want a submariner to address, please? However - as I alluded to in the link - if women do well and aren't the cause of (lol) social problems in the surface force and on small-ish boats of say, Norway, Oz ad Canada, there's every reason to expect the same in US submarines - especially the relatively spacious boats in their (nuclear-powered) force.

...it's harmful to force them to show preferential treatment to women just to strike a balance. In fact, it's hypocritical and that generates anger.

But to relate that to *this thread* is completely off base, since there has been 100% preferential treatment towards men - not women - until very recently. That fact should generate some anger, IMO.

Firstly, I was responding to Mai - my bad for not quoting, sorry.

Secondly, I specified that this is an emerging problem affecting my own generation. We've been brought up, largely, to respect women and treat them equally. Yet whenever we make a decision, like picking more men than women, that is not in any way based on sex, we're accused by women of sexism. That in itself is sexist and hypocritical and it's damaging the progress made by feminists over the past century by creating a backlash of annoyance and outright anger amongst younger men: this in turn leads to genuine sexist treatment of women by younger men. It may not be the reason why Mai's cousin-in-law is sexist but I know that it's one of the reasons why guys my age can be sexist

I'm not saying women have no right to be angry, they certainly do, but they have no right to jump to the wrong conclusion constantly. Favouring either sex in order to strike a balance is wrong.

Hmmm... so sorry that the women you meet "jump to the wrong conclusion constantly". That would be frustrating. Most that I know don't (and I'm gone for a bit, now...).

[AnInconvenientScotsman]

To be honest, there are always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space for a long period of time, in addition to the potential dangers of having any group of people in a confined space. I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to serve on submarines out of hand but you would at least have to investigate the consequences first.

So what honest investigations have concluded that there are "always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space for a long period of time, in addition to...", please? And I'd guess that "consequences" are a known quantity since this scenario has been happening with other navies for years, as mentioned.

There have been no investigations as far as I know and that's why I'm saying there should be. I was giving my opinion. Such problems could include, ironically, sexist behaviour directed at female crew, which would in turn damage the morale of the woman and drive down her performance. Like I said, there will always be the potential for problems. Of course there can be problems within an all male crew but the addition of women could add to that list of issues.

Well, why, oh why, would you state that:
"To be honest, there are always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space..."
or even, say:
"To be honest, there are always going to be a reduction in social problems when you put men and women into a confined space..."?

Why "honestly" take one side... yours is the side of course than men have often taken time and time and time again when women enter the usual workplaces of men? Where is the honesty in a biased and unsubstantiated (or seemingly unfounded) assertion like yours? This integration of the sexes in the workplace has been ongoing for more than a century - surely we'd have heard of the generalized problems if indeed they existed? I submit that if you want a study specifically on US women on US submarines at this point in time, put women aboard and study! Otherwise you'll get people conducting the 'study' starting out with attitudes like Admiral Carroll in the article or people who state that "To be honest, there are always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space..."!

I'm not quite sure where you get off saying that women don't jump to conclusions when you're doing it right now. I never said, "women cause social problems in the workplace." I said, "when you put men and women into a confined space". Stop putting words in my mouth.

Of course I'd like it if someone with more knowledge about the situation on submarines could weigh in, I'm speaking as an outsider here so I have no real experience of the scenario we're discussing.

As the OP, here I am, weighing in. So what issues do you want a submariner to address, please? However - as I alluded to in the link - if women do well and aren't the cause of (lol) social problems in the surface force and on small-ish boats of say, Norway, Oz ad Canada, there's every reason to expect the same in US submarines - especially the relatively spacious boats in their (nuclear-powered) force.

I'd like to ask a submariner about the conditions, specifically. Small boats aren't the same as submarines. On a boat, there is still an outside you can go to and you're aware that there is fresh air and plenty of space outside. I'd imagine that when deployed, submariner get very little if any time topside and they will be very aware that there is no going outside. They are, in essence, trapped. I also said that there would be problems with men alone in a confined space for a long time, or women alone in the same situation, so don't go taking comments out of context again, please. You've assumed, ironically enough, that because I'm a man I think women shouldn't be allowed on submarines. I explicitly stated that this was not my opinion; I said studies should be done to see if it's a good idea or not. Even if it turned out it wasn't a good idea, I'd still support female submariners in an all female crew.

Firstly, I was responding to Mai - my bad for not quoting, sorry.

Secondly, I specified that this is an emerging problem affecting my own generation. We've been brought up, largely, to respect women and treat them equally. Yet whenever we make a decision, like picking more men than women, that is not in any way based on sex, we're accused by women of sexism. That in itself is sexist and hypocritical and it's damaging the progress made by feminists over the past century by creating a backlash of annoyance and outright anger amongst younger men: this in turn leads to genuine sexist treatment of women by younger men. It may not be the reason why Mai's cousin-in-law is sexist but I know that it's one of the reasons why guys my age can be sexist

I'm not saying women have no right to be angry, they certainly do, but they have no right to jump to the wrong conclusion constantly. Favouring either sex in order to strike a balance is wrong.

Hmmm... so sorry that the women you meet "jump to the wrong conclusion constantly". That would be frustrating. Most that I know don't (and I'm gone for a bit, now...).

Like I said, you're jumping to the wrong conclusion by calling me sexist, even when I took steps to ensure that this didn't result. I've said that I don't support outright prevention of women serving aboard submarines, yet you assume that I do. Tigger was completely right, no matter how many times I stated my support for women, I'm still being branded a sexist. How nice.

Let's be clear, I don't give a shit what gender someone is. Nobody should be singularly identified by their gender. Personality, skills and abilities are far more important. However, in this case, I think caution should be shown and studies done. In no way am I saying and at no point have I said, "Hurr hurr womans shouldnt be allowed on boatses evar cos they iz bad".

Nobody should be judged on one identity, one facet of their being.

[BrettA]

I'm not quite sure where you get off saying that women don't jump to conclusions when you're doing it right now. I never said, "women cause social problems in the workplace." I said, "when you put men and women into a confined space". Stop putting words in my mouth.

Not based on what you state, since I never said you stated that women caused problems and thus never put the words in your mouth. Sorry you interpreted it that way (I said as I alluded to in the link) and since thus seems to be a simple distraction to the question you avoided when you assumed negative rather than positive (or even neutral) consequences when women were introduced to the environment (post to follow). Or for that matter, my apologies if I put words in your mouth and don't see it right now.

Of course I'd like it if someone with more knowledge about the situation on submarines could weigh in, I'm speaking as an outsider here so I have no real experience of the scenario we're discussing.

As the OP, here I am, weighing in. So what issues do you want a submariner to address, please? However - as I alluded to in the link - if women do well and aren't the cause of (lol) social problems in the surface force and on small-ish boats of say, Norway, Oz ad Canada, there's every reason to expect the same in US submarines - especially the relatively spacious boats in their (nuclear-powered) force.

I'd like to ask a submariner about the conditions, specifically. Small boats aren't the same as submarines. On a boat, there is still an outside you can go to and you're aware that there is fresh air and plenty of space outside. I'd imagine that when deployed, submariner get very little if any time topside and they will be very aware that there is no going outside. They are, in essence, trapped. I also said that there would be problems with men alone in a confined space for a long time, or women alone in the same situation, so don't go taking comments out of context again, please. You've assumed, ironically enough, that because I'm a man I think women shouldn't be allowed on submarines. I explicitly stated that this was not my opinion; I said studies should be done to see if it's a good idea or not. Even if it turned out it wasn't a good idea, I'd still support female submariners in an all female crew.

I'm not taking you out of context - I'm only referring to issues you assume would be negative with the introduction of women. And in the context of "small-ish boats of say, Norway, Oz and Canada", boats *are* submarines (i.e. these are other nations allowing women on submarines and the "small-ish" was in comparison to large nuclear boats (i.e. submarine are boats, not ships). So what conditions, "specifically", since I am a submariner and stated so in the linked article? I also said, "here I am, weighing in" when you wanted submariners to weigh in.

Like I said, you're jumping to the wrong conclusion by calling me sexist, even when I took steps to ensure that this didn't result. I've said that I don't support outright prevention of women serving aboard submarines, yet you assume that I do. Tigger was completely right, no matter how many times I stated my support for women, I'm still being branded a sexist. How nice.

Let's be clear, I don't give a shit what gender someone is. Nobody should be singularly identified by their gender. Personality, skills and abilities are far more important. However, in this case, I think caution should be shown and studies done. In no way am I saying and at no point have I said, "Hurr hurr womans shouldnt be allowed on boatses evar cos they iz bad".

Nobody should be judged on one identity, one facet of their being.

I don't recall calling you sexist. I recall noting that you assumed negative results from the introduction of women when I see no reason why you wouldn't assume a neutral or positive result. Better yet since you say you don't know, why assume any position? Now I'll admit that to me that kind of negative assumption sounds pretty sexist, but I don't think I mentioned that.

And why in this case of allowing women on boats (submarines) should caution be shown and studies done, when women have served on boats (submarines) and the surface force for years? As I mentioned but you ignored, you may get people conducting the 'study' starting out with attitudes like Admiral Carroll in the article or people who state that "To be honest, there are always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space...", when there seems to be no reason for such an assumption.

[BrettA]

So let me try again with the question you avoided earlier...

To be honest, there are always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space for a long period of time, in addition to the potential dangers of having any group of people in a confined space. I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed to serve on submarines out of hand but you would at least have to investigate the consequences first.

So what honest investigations have concluded that there are "always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space for a long period of time, in addition to...", please? And I'd guess that "consequences" are a known quantity since this scenario has been happening with other navies for years, as mentioned.

There have been no investigations as far as I know and that's why I'm saying there should be. I was giving my opinion. Such problems could include, ironically, sexist behaviour directed at female crew, which would in turn damage the morale of the woman and drive down her performance. Like I said, there will always be the potential for problems. Of course there can be problems within an all male crew but the addition of women could add to that list of issues.

Well, why, oh why then, would you state that:
"To be honest, there are always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space..."?

I note that you automatically assume the negative when women are introduced. Why not say:
"To be honest, there are always going to be a reduction in social problems when you put men and women into a confined space..."?

Or since you state you don't know, why take any position at all? Or why not take a neutral one rather than the negative you chose to take?

That is, why "honestly" take one side... yours is the side of course than men have often taken time and time and time again when women enter the usual workplaces of men? Where is the honesty in a biased and unsubstantiated (or seemingly unfounded) assertion like yours? This integration of the sexes in the workplace has been ongoing for more than a century - surely we'd have heard of the generalized problems if indeed they existed? I submit that if you want a study specifically on US women on US submarines at this point in time, put women aboard and study! Otherwise you'll get people conducting the 'study' starting out with attitudes like Admiral Carroll in the article or people who state that "To be honest, there are always going to be the potential for social problems when you put men and women into a confined space..."!