24 February 2010
Subject: Decision to allow women to serve aboard U.S. Navy Submarines
Stance: I am opposed to the decision
Introduction
I served in the United States Navy from 6 May 1977 until 31 October 1994 when I retired as a senior chief petty officer (E-8). I served aboard four (4) FBM (Fleet Ballistic Missile) submarines and two (2) submarine tenders (maintenance and replenishment ships). I also served at a number of submarine related shore stations typical of the normal sea-shore rotation inherent in the navy structure. My rating was as a Strategic Weapons System (SWS) Electronics Technician (ET). I was responsible for inertial navigation systems and associated equipment required to support the SWS and submarine requirements, as well as routine military administrative and managerial responsibilities.
I would like to make it very clear that the opinions I express within this paper are exclusively my own. They are developed from the personal and professional working experience I gained while working in the navy. My opinions do not reflect the opinion of any one besides myself. This includes other naval personnel whether known to me or not. Additionally my opinions continued to develop after I retired from the navy, and indeed they continue to develop.
While I have followed the controversy surrounding discussions as to whether to allow females to serve aboard submarines or not, I have not actively participated in these discussions. The viewpoints I express in this paper are the first time I am making my opinion known on this topic.
Military Background/Credentials
Desiring to serve on-board submarines, I enlisted in a program called the ‘Subfarer Program’. This program guaranteed assignment to submarines after successfully completing submarine-specific requirements. See specific program requirements on page 3-35 (.pdf page 203) of the following document: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/navrecruit.pdf. If a recruit does not meet program requirements through no fault of his own he will be released from the navy with no further obligation. If the recruit fails to meet submarine program requirements due to disciplinary reasons, scholastic reasons, or other reasons under his control, he may be re-assigned to the surface navy for the remaining term of enlistment.
After successfully completing boot camp and Basic Enlisted Submarine School I reported aboard my first submarine in October 1977. Specifically, my career path was as follows:
| Date Reported | Duty Station | Final Rate | Location |
| 23 May 1977 | Boot Camp | SR(SU) | Great Lakes, IL |
| 15 Aug 1977 | Basic Enlisted Submarine School | SN(SU) | Groton, CT |
| 20 Oct 1977 | USS George Bancroft (SSBN 643)(B) | SN(SS) | Charleston, SC |
| 03 Nov 1978 | NAVGMSCOL Dam Neck (‘A’ and ‘C’ schools) | ET3(SS) | Dam Neck, VA |
| 18 Sep 1979 | USS Henry Stimson (SSBN 655)(G) | ET2(SS) | Charleston, SC |
| 06 Dec 1981 | NAVGMSCOL Dam Neck (second ‘C’ school) | ET2(SS) | Dam Neck, VA |
| 30 Apr 1982 | NAVGMSCOL Dam Neck – Instructor Tour | ET1(SS) | Dam Neck, VA |
| 17 May 1985 | USS Lewis & Clark (SSBN 644)(G) | ETC(SS) | Charleston, SC |
| 31 Jan 1986 | USS Henry Clay (SSBN 625)(G) | ETC(SS) | Charleston, SC |
| 29 May 1987 | USS Holland (AS 32) | ETCS(SS/SW) | Charleston, SC |
| 06 Oct 1989 | TRIREFFAC Kings Bay, GA – Ship Superintendent | ETCS(SS/SW) | Kings Bay, GA |
| 02 Oct 1992 | USS Canopus (AS 34) | ETCS(SS/SW) | Kings Bay, GA |
| 23 Apr 1993 | COMSUBGRU 10 | ETCS(SS/SW) | Kings Bay, GA |
| 31 Oct 1994 | Retirement | ETCS(SS/SW) | Kings Bay, GA |
Rationale
General Navy Experience
I have extensive experience working as a crew member aboard submarines and in submarine-related shore duty assignments. My career was exclusively involved within the submarine community. Crews aboard the submarines consisted exclusively of males. This does not mean that women were not allowed on board submarines. Indeed during periods of refit, when the ship was in port, women often worked side-by-side in accomplishing refit requirements. The number of women working to accomplish refit tasks increased as my time in the service increased.
The two (2) surface ships I served aboard consisted of sailors from both the surface and submarine communities. Female sailors made up a substantial portion of the crew aboard both the USS Holland and USS Canopus (approximately 1/3 of the normal complement of 1100 crewmembers). Women were also a significant part of the workforce at Trident Refit Facility (TRIREFFAC Kings Bay) and Commander, Submarine Group 10 (COMSUBGRU 10). Significantly, the main workforce of TRIREFFAC was composed of mainly civilian personnel (both male and female). Civilians and military personnel worked extensively side-by-side to accomplish the navy’s mission.
During my career, especially in the second half, I obtained extensive experience working with females, on administrative and management levels and to a lesser extent a technical level. I worked with females at all levels whether working for me, working as my peers, or as my superiors.
My professional experience and opinion of working with females is almost universally positive. Indeed I often felt that female sailors worked harder than their male counterparts. This was not universal, of course, as there were sub-standard female sailors just as there are sub-standard male sailors.
Despite my overwhelmingly positive experience in working with females in a military environment on a professional basis, there were often difficulties caused by male-female relationships. I often saw instances of inappropriate behavior between male and female enlisted personnel. The inappropriate behavior occurred at all levels within the enlisted chain of command. That is, I saw inappropriate behavior between peers and also between superiors and subordinates. This behavior is universally a detriment to the good military discipline and order necessary for the military to effectively and efficiently accomplish its mission. I cannot comment on the situation within the officer ranks as I was not privy to that sector. I do note that there seems to be more and more instances of fraternization within the services since I retired.
Submarine Specific Experience
In a strategic missile submarine, the submarine will typically go out to sea, submerge, and remain there for extended lengths of time, usually in excess of 70 days. During that time crewmembers have no active outgoing access to the outside world. The only information the crew receives is that which is sent to the ship. The extent of the personal communications a sailor receives is limited to a small number of ‘family grams’. When I served, a crewmember could receive up to ten family grams (consisting of 50 words each) during each patrol. That is, the sailor received a total of 500 words from their loved ones over a course of a 70+ day patrol and they could not respond in any way to their loved ones. This was the only link to their outside personal world. This situation may have changed since my time in the service but I believe it is still basically intact, particularly in the strategic missile submarine force.
I make mention of the limited contact with family members and friends because it is a very difficult, but integral, aspect of submarine duty. Submarine life has proven to be very difficult on family stability and the divorce rate in the submarine navy is very high. Most sailors will state that it is this separation from family as a major factor in their decision to leave the service (this is also true in the surface navy). The addition of females to submarine crews has rightfully concerned current spouses and many have expressed their disagreement with this upcoming policy shift. I understand their concerns.
I do not see this already very difficult situation being improved by bringing females aboard submarines. In fact it can only be detrimental. Hormones do not shut down just because you go out to sea and submerge for many months at a time. Currently these tensions are managed in a variety of ways that have been proven to be effective over the years. Silliness, male-bonding, and what might be considered inappropriate or ‘politically incorrect’ behavior in a civilian environment are all useful techniques that allow a sailor to endure the difficult living conditions and time away from their families and mainstream life. I see many, if not most, of these time-proven techniques coming to an end with the addition of female crew members. Some of the behaviors that men engage in include patting each other on the rear end, close physical contact including hugging, and half way night activities are all tolerated and accepted behaviors that are well know to help alleviate stress and the lack of close family contact that a crewmember loses when they submerge for months at a time. Serving on board a submarine is not a place to be if you are self-conscious or have any doubts about your sexuality.
Some may consider these types of behaviors as ‘hazing’ when in fact they are not. It is true that certain old time traditions have rightfully been thrown overboard. The current policy shift is a different situation however because hormones and natural male-female interactions cannot be ‘thrown overboard’. Indeed they will only become exasperated and frustrated once the hatch is shut and the ship submerges. This is not something that can be legislated against. You may make a rule and put it in the regulations with the best of intentions but humans must still remain human. It would, however, be naive to expect the rule to put an end to what is, in effect, natural behavior. I used to shake my head in wonder that the navy leadership expected, and legislated, that there was to be no fraternization, no sexual relations, nor any other male-female specific interactions within the service. Regardless of the rules, these things happened. I did not agree with the actions of those that chose to disobey official navy policy. I certainly did not condone their actions. However I understood their actions as being a part of human nature.
In the close working environment inherent on a submarine, close physical contact between crewmembers is inevitable and not unexpected. No one can serve aboard a submarine if they have a large ‘personal bubble’. Indeed it is impossible to pass one another in most passageways or working areas without turning sideways to pass one-another. It is almost inevitably that some form of physical contact will occur. There are very few open areas on board a submarine. The contact is expected and therefore accepted because of training, personalities, and other factors. If you have a problem with this type of contact, then you have no place aboard a submarine. In a sense I would relate it to a sport where physical contact is inevitable and even encouraged. Football, basketball, hockey, and other sports inevitably result in physical contact. Aside from the fact that women and men have different physical statures there are other reasons why men and women do not compete together in these sports. It would be strictly taboo for such close and inevitable physical contact to occur in our society.
During times of emergencies the situation becomes even more critical because shipmates are rushing to their casualty or their battle station, some going forward, some going aft, some climbing over one another to relieve a watch station. All of these actions are critical to ensure the safety of the mission, the ship, and the crew. And all of them result in physical contact of one form or another.
I personally do not see a viable solution to what in my opinion is an insolvable problem. There are valid concerns about the closeness of males and females in such a closed working and personal environment for extended lengths of time. Women and men just do not come into such close physical contact for such extended lengths of time in our society. It is not allowed and, perhaps, with good reason. Sexual harassment forms a major factor in the workplace environment whether military or civilian for very good reasons. You cannot close the hatch on a submarine, submerge, and tell the crewmembers ‘don’t act human’. We can have idealistic expectations but we must live in a realistic world.
Want to know what it’s like in a submarine?
For an excellent and comprehensive description of submarines, and life aboard one, the following website is recommended: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navy/l/blsubfaq.htm
Those that have not seen the environment inside a submarine may be wondering exactly what it looks like. There are many videos and photos available online that you can research. Here are a few:
http://www.techlifeweb.com/2010/01/18/my-day-on-a-nuclear-submarine/
http://www.chriscantore.com/2010/01/16/uss-hampton/
The following links are to a four-part news series ‘Special Assignment – Submerged’. This is about as real as you’re going to see it without actually having a clearance. Provided by: http://www.fox61.com/
Introduction – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4z6uUwtpyU
A day in the life – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm52NLcGT7o&feature=channel
Food – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOPeD1N4MbM&feature=channel
Drill – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRWY3GSJxLc&feature=channel
Summary
Despite the fact that civilians run our military, they often do not have the experience to make effective and knowledgeable decisions concerning deckplate-level operations and administration. If they are wise they will depend upon high level military leadership for guidance and include them in the decision making process. Unfortunately there is a drawback to this system. It is my opinion that the officer force is very politically oriented. Indeed the higher one goes in the officer ranks the more important and pervasive the political factors become to their continued advancement and ultimate success. Because of this they can only veer so far from the ‘party’ guidelines the current civilian leadership has established before they endanger their own professional status. The results are a decrease in their effectiveness in advocating for day-to-day routine operations, administration, and management. In fairness to officers, the same situation occurs in the very senior enlisted ranks, but at a much smaller effective level.
I lived through many changes during my time in the service. It is inevitable and I am proud of my flexibility in ‘rolling with the punches’. I am, by nature, a very open individual, a consummate team-player, with an unflagging dedication to the fair treatment of everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, or any other differential category. My performance evaluations are full of affirmations of these traits and my rapid advancement in the navy are proof that I was a valued team-player dedicated to my profession and to the navy. I also believe the mission comes first above and beyond anything. Everything else must be subjugated to ensure the mission is successful.
Note that I have made no mention of the ‘technical’ aspects of this proposed policy shift. That is because I believe that despite whatever amount of space is, or isn’t, available the inevitable human factor will still remain. Please note the issues that I mentioned in my experience on two surface ships. These issues continue on board current surface ships and shore stations where space is generally not as much a critical factor as it is within a submarine. To talk about solving the ‘technical’ problems is to miss the point. While certainly a factor, we can throw money at those problems, move or rebuild berthing spaces, even make larger submarines. All of those things are technically possible. What is not possible is to remove the human nature factor. I believe the main threat to the successful implementation of this policy remains the appropriate ‘control’ of human nature.
I have no doubt there will be some that will call me a dinosaur… a relic from the past. They will pick apart this document line-by-line and will surely find fault in every word. No matter. These are my thoughts and opinions and I have not conjured them out of thin air. Nor have I written them in any malicious manner intent on hurting anyone or any group of people. I am speaking from what I consider to be a very practical aspect.
Regardless of the ultimate decision that is made by both high level military personnel and our civilian leadership with respect to this policy shift or any other shift, they may be assured of my 100% support of that decision. While I cannot speak for my fellow sailors, based upon my experience, they will also support official policy whether they personally agree or disagree with the decision. I believe it is a necessary tenet of our society that the military be under the control of the civilian leadership. The military’s duty is to carry out the orders of our civilian leaders and my experience has shown me that this is a universal viewpoint held by most, if not all, of the shipmates I served with.
I do not choose to debate this issue. The debate has already occurred. I am not trying to change anything or anyone’s mind. Despite the temptation to become engaged in the discussion about this controversial policy change with my fellow shipmates I hesitated because 1) many others were expressing, substantially, what my thoughts were and 2) people had already made their minds up one way or the other on this issue. I judged debate useless in this matter. I place this document in the public domain because a number of friends have asked me to express my opinion on this issue. This is the means I chose to do so.
© 2009-2022 John A. Mason