You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #61: There has been no court case because women are technically not excluded from subs... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
Shipwack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
61. There has been no court case because women are technically not excluded from subs...
Edited on Tue Feb-23-10 07:47 PM by Shipwack
Sea story/scuttlebutt here, take it with a shaker of salt...

I was told once during some equal opportunity training (or something) that when the commission for integrating women into the Navy was in session, the subject of toilet facilities came up. One submariner proposed that a ship could not be integrated unless there were sufficient bathroom facilities for all. Everyone agreed that this was a good metric to use, and it was adopted (among others).

However, even on the largest (SSBN/SSGN) submarines, the amount of toilets,showers, etc don't even meet the minimum habitability standards for even male sailors. Basically, there are 5 or 6 toilets for about 100 men, and 4 showers. Navy requirements require more than that for even "male only" vessels.

So since then, every two years the commission meets to discuss which class of ships gets integrated next, and when the subject of submarines comes up, the representative from the sub community sadly shakes his head and goes "not yet".

True or BS? *shrug* Not sure, to be honest, but it sounds plausible.

(edited to add)As for myself, I have always been in favor of anything that helped my sea/shore rotation, so I'd be ok with this, as long as the officers and chiefs enforced good order and discipline for -all- the crew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Navy will soon let women serve on subs Green_Lantern  Feb-23-10 03:01 PM   #0 
  - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Feb-23-10 03:03 PM   #1 
  - Subs these days are so massive  sharp_stick   Feb-23-10 03:03 PM   #2 
  - They eat less and fit in the racks. nt  Captain Hilts   Feb-23-10 03:05 PM   #4 
  - There are not enough men capable and willing to do so. Supply, meet Demand. nt  Captain Hilts   Feb-23-10 03:04 PM   #3 
  - it'll give a whole new meaning to the term "hot racking"...  dysfunctional press   Feb-23-10 03:07 PM   #5 
  - If they serve on destroyers and frigates why not a sub. n/t  Arctic Dave   Feb-23-10 03:08 PM   #6 
  - uh, because enlisted submariners are a whole other breed ??  704wipes   Feb-23-10 03:26 PM   #15 
     - ??????  Arctic Dave   Feb-23-10 03:32 PM   #17 
     - Submariners are actually enlightened about things the surface fleet is not. For example,  Captain Hilts   Feb-23-10 04:09 PM   #30 
     - So THAT's why the Army is so concerned about gays  JustABozoOnThisBus   Feb-24-10 07:32 AM   #77 
        - They're going to start with occifers, then enlisted. nt  Captain Hilts   Feb-24-10 05:22 PM   #86 
     - Have you ever stepped within a hundred yards of a submarine?  Shipwack   Feb-23-10 07:29 PM   #60 
     - Were you a bubblehead?  flpab   Feb-24-10 06:58 AM   #76 
     - You go, girl! nt  Captain Hilts   Feb-24-10 05:24 PM   #88 
     - Subs have an excellent esprit de corps. nt  Captain Hilts   Feb-24-10 05:23 PM   #87 
  - There's a joke about little men in boats somewhere in there, but I can't figure it out.  GodlessBiker   Feb-23-10 03:13 PM   #7 
  - ....  trusty elf   Feb-23-10 03:35 PM   #18 
  - There is no longer any excuse to exclude women from Selective Service. nt  Romulox   Feb-23-10 03:13 PM   #8 
  - Why hasn't there been a court challenge to this exclusion?  CTyankee   Feb-23-10 03:40 PM   #20 
  - No individual has standing. nt  Romulox   Feb-23-10 03:40 PM   #21 
  - Why is that?  CTyankee   Feb-23-10 03:48 PM   #22 
     - No "actual" harm to a specific person or discrete class of persons...  Romulox   Feb-23-10 04:05 PM   #27 
        - I would think (not being a lawyer) that conscription for men only is akin to restriction on abortion  CTyankee   Feb-23-10 04:27 PM   #34 
           - Basically, no draft means that there is no "live" controversey.  Romulox   Feb-23-10 04:36 PM   #36 
              - I'm guessing that you are right. Otherwise the women's movement would have attacked  CTyankee   Feb-23-10 07:00 PM   #59 
  - There has been no court case because women are technically not excluded from subs...  Shipwack   Feb-23-10 07:43 PM   #61 
  - Women are generally not members of the militia (10 USC 311)  Alias Dictus Tyrant   Feb-23-10 08:09 PM   #65 
  - Especially in the field of medicine as over 50% of those in med school are women. nt  Captain Hilts   Feb-23-10 04:03 PM   #26 
  - "Selective Service" = registration for the draft. All 18 yo males must register. nt  Romulox   Feb-23-10 04:06 PM   #28 
     - ??  Captain Hilts   Feb-23-10 04:07 PM   #29 
     - I suspect you inadvertantly responded to my post #8, which is about the Selective Service program.  Romulox   Feb-23-10 04:10 PM   #31 
        - I know the SS regulations. nt  Captain Hilts   Feb-23-10 04:11 PM   #32 
           - Right, but Selective Service has nothing to do with women in med school...  Romulox   Feb-23-10 04:14 PM   #33 
     - Why the draft was discontinued  classysassy   Feb-23-10 11:49 PM   #75 
  - I've been thinking this for a while myself  XemaSab   Feb-23-10 05:10 PM   #42 
  - I have met many women that I would trust far more to protect my life  me b zola   Feb-24-10 11:06 AM   #81 
  - Excuse me, but they still discriminate against women in the military  me b zola   Feb-23-10 06:22 PM   #54 
     - Nice excuse there. nt  anonymous171   Feb-23-10 07:54 PM   #63 
        - Reverse positions and then tell me what you think? nt  CTyankee   Feb-24-10 07:36 AM   #78 
        - Discrimination is an excuse?  me b zola   Feb-24-10 11:08 AM   #82 
           - The discrimination seems to be against BOTH men and women in this case.  Romulox   Feb-25-10 04:06 PM   #92 
  - Sure!  El Supremo   Feb-23-10 03:14 PM   #9 
  - The Love Uboat.  Craftsman   Feb-23-10 03:20 PM   #10 
  - Was that "serve ON subs" or just "Serve subs.... in the mess"?  AlbertCat   Feb-23-10 03:20 PM   #11 
  - Gee.....the real thing on subs would have been great back in the day  Submariner   Feb-23-10 03:23 PM   #12 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Feb-23-10 03:24 PM   #13 
  - Ah, but dem gays, well... can't have them now can we?  zipplewrath   Feb-23-10 03:25 PM   #14 
  - Something long past due...  hayu_lol   Feb-23-10 03:36 PM   #19 
     - Heads/showers. On a sub you pee by yourself and shower by yourself. No 'gang' facilities. nt  Captain Hilts   Feb-23-10 04:02 PM   #25 
  - That boat was in the movie Operation Petticoat  elifino   Feb-23-10 03:31 PM   #16 
  - Gee, so soon after we got the vote!  LuckyLib   Feb-23-10 03:55 PM   #23 
  - Let waiters serve subs! Piping hot!  RedCloud   Feb-23-10 03:57 PM   #24 
  - That's not a good idea...  MUAD_DIB   Feb-23-10 04:28 PM   #35 
  - My buddy was on a sub about a decade ago where they tried this in a pilot program....  WriteDown   Feb-23-10 04:39 PM   #37 
  - Our military has lost HOW MANY wars in a row? 4 or 5?  Romulox   Feb-23-10 04:43 PM   #38 
  - I'm not worried about losing the wars...  WriteDown   Feb-23-10 04:55 PM   #40 
  - If you buy the fiction that these subs "protect us", then chaos onboard would naturally endanger us  Romulox   Feb-23-10 05:17 PM   #45 
  - I'm just worried about the sailors.  WriteDown   Feb-23-10 05:22 PM   #47 
  - As long as other states have navies and nuclear missiles, the subs remain necessary.  proteus_lives   Feb-23-10 05:40 PM   #50 
  - If we lost the subs...  Bigmack   Feb-23-10 08:06 PM   #64 
     - Subs provide large-scale deterrence capability that's immune to a first strike.  Psephos   Feb-23-10 11:42 PM   #73 
     - 18 subs X 24 missiles each X 5 (at least) MIRV warheads...  Bigmack   Feb-24-10 07:16 PM   #89 
        - Range is ~ 4500 miles.  Psephos   Feb-24-10 08:33 PM   #90 
     - We should lose some of others before the subs.  proteus_lives   Feb-23-10 11:44 PM   #74 
  - China has a very ambitious sub construction program right now. One got  Captain Hilts   Feb-23-10 06:04 PM   #52 
  - Sliding on trays causes chaos?  JustABozoOnThisBus   Feb-24-10 07:42 AM   #79 
  - Just relaying what I heard....  WriteDown   Feb-24-10 09:44 AM   #80 
  - Actually, the guys do that too..  Shipwack   Feb-24-10 08:44 PM   #91 
  - Lost?  proteus_lives   Feb-23-10 05:07 PM   #41 
  - Ummm....Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan = 4 lost wars.  Romulox   Feb-23-10 05:12 PM   #44 
  - Not if you're talking about military objectives.  proteus_lives   Feb-23-10 05:38 PM   #48 
  - We won Korea and probably would have won in Vietnam too  anonymous171   Feb-23-10 07:51 PM   #62 
  - Even Vietnam was lost politically, not by the military.  AlbertCat   Feb-23-10 05:20 PM   #46 
     - Vietnam was lost by South Vietnamese forces.  proteus_lives   Feb-23-10 05:44 PM   #51 
     - We lost... the military lost...  Bigmack   Feb-23-10 08:14 PM   #66 
     - I believe it was von Clausewitz who wrote...  LanternWaste   Feb-24-10 01:54 PM   #83 
     - ALL WARS ARE WON OR LOST POLITICALLY,  happyslug   Feb-23-10 08:59 PM   #67 
        - Good post  daleo   Feb-24-10 03:31 PM   #85 
  - We won the Cold War, actually. The Soviet Union lost. nt  Captain Hilts   Feb-23-10 05:40 PM   #49 
     - Well... maybe they lost first....  Bigmack   Feb-23-10 10:49 PM   #72 
  - Ummm... details? What went "wrong"? n/t  PavePusher   Feb-23-10 06:36 PM   #57 
  - Post 40. nt  WriteDown   Feb-23-10 09:12 PM   #68 
  - What was the precise and relevant difference...  LanternWaste   Feb-24-10 01:58 PM   #84 
  - Cool...  warm regards   Feb-23-10 04:53 PM   #39 
  - Subs are filled with seamen.  tinrobot   Feb-23-10 05:11 PM   #43 
  - And they all have to go down... slap me n/t  24601   Feb-23-10 09:24 PM   #70 
  - The responses in this thread makes me sick  Haole Girl   Feb-23-10 06:07 PM   #53 
  - I know, I was getting ready to post the same thing.  me b zola   Feb-23-10 06:25 PM   #55 
  - Haole Girl: Lotta strange answers here for DU...  hayu_lol   Feb-23-10 06:27 PM   #56 
  - Darn, and I'm too old and crippled to enlist.  Bette Noir   Feb-23-10 06:58 PM   #58 
  - AP needs a fact-checker. The Naval Academy does not have  24601   Feb-23-10 09:23 PM   #69 
  - k&r to the Greatest Page  appal_jack   Feb-23-10 09:44 PM   #71 
 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC