Dear Ms. Kilmas,
Thank you for your article in the June 17th, 2013 issue of Navy Times entitled “Task force planning for enlisted women on subs”. I am a retired submariner opposed to the assignment of women to submarine crew. I was involved extensively in the controversial discussion leading up to this policy change.
At that time (2010), the Navy set up a task force to support its decision to assign women to submarine crews. It is my opinion, and that of many others, that that task force did nothing but rubber stamp a political decision that came from ‘on high’. The task force (and the Navy as a whole) was made aware of several previous reports that the Navy had commissioned that supported its decision in 1993 NOT to assign women to submarine crews. The task force showed NO SIGNS of having addressed the issues brought up in those reports. The issues raised in those reports are as valid now as they were when they were written (1995 and 2001). The Navy was made aware of many issues and objections to the policy change but went ahead with the policy change regardless.
As a specific example of ‘task force failure’: In your article you wrote “Rousselow called the task force’s May 10 creation the “next step” in executing plans. Navy leaders have been giving this serious thought since at least 2006”. Really? One indicator of just how far behind the Navy is on this issue is the fact that its pregnancy instruction is almost SIX (6) years old (OPNAV INSTRUCTION 6000.1C NAVY GUIDELINES CONCERNING PREGNANCY AND PARENTHOOD dated 14 June 2007, see link below). This instruction requires major revisions to support women submarine crewmembers. It’s now been over three (3) years since the policy change and the instruction has still not been updated! How serious can the Navy really be? Shouldn’t the review and revision of this instruction have been part of the original task force’s mission? I certainly think so.
I bring this up to emphasize just how useless these task forces seem to be. They already have their agendas and facts-be-damn they’re going to make the ordered policy change.
To those that think the decision to bring women officers onboard a successful one, I beg to differ. There has not yet been enough time to make that call. Inevitably the Navy will attempt to cover up any negative issues created by the policy change. To those who would point to Lt. Bittner’s positive comments that ‘everything is just fine’ I would point to a survey I have been conducting that currently has over 600 inputs, all opposed to women on submarine crews including over 70 active duty crewmembers! No doubt the actual number of active duty submarine crewmembers opposed is much higher. But of course they can’t say they are opposed to official Navy policy. The only people that you quote are those that are in agreement with official policy!
I welcome discussing this issue further if you wish.
Very respectfully,
John A. Mason, ETCS(SS/SW) USN Ret.
Comer, GA 30629
(706) ###-####
OPNAV INSTRUCTION 6000.1C NAVY GUIDELINES CONCERNING PREGNANCY AND PARENTHOOD
© 2009-2022 John A. Mason