Women on Subs
In early October of 2009, the Navy officially announced the intention, spearheaded by Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, to review their policy of excluding women from serving on submarines. Social reactions to this announcement ranged from the statement that female “wannabe’s [sic]” should, “back the hell off [and] leave the men to do men’s work,” to the inclusive, “Hey, they want to go and are qualified, so be it!!! Good luck” (Bynum). Just as social opinion has been mixed, so too has political and military opinion. It is through examining the arguments being made against the repeal of Navy policy prohibiting women from serving on submarines that one can see how entrenched paternalism and the military’s refusal to accept the reality of queer service members excludes women from service positions that would otherwise be open to them.
While the United States Naval Service has made some strides in gender and queer inclusivity1, it is hardly one of the trailblazers for equal opportunity. Currently, only two U.S. Navy service communities are off-limits to women-- the Navy SEALs and submarine communities. Out of the forty-two countries that boast submarine capability, “Sweden, Spain, Norway, Canada and Australia allow women to serve on them” (Auster). Arguments made by those who oppose female integration on submarines attempt to invalidate the positive examples and experiences of those gender-integrated submarines by claiming that costal deployments- which the above listed countries primarily engage in- are shorter than the tours American submarines are required to complete, which they then claim is the only reason gender-integration has worked for those countries (Donnelly). The U.S. Navy abides by the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy passed by Congress in 1993, which prevents recruiters from inquiring about the sexual orientation of potential military men and women and forbids investigation into the sexual orientation of service members in the absence of compelling evidence of homosexual behavior. Great Britain, Holland, Denmark, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, and Israel have no restrictions on sexual orientation in their militaries; additionally, there are several other countries that allow homosexuals to serve, but exclude openly homosexual service members from certain positions2. According to several studies assessing the affect of the inclusion of homosexuals within the Canadian military3, “CF4 officials [...] have noticed no changes in behavior among their troops. They say they know to date of no [...] fights or violent incidents, [...] no problems with recruitment, and no diminution of cohesion, morale, or organizational effectiveness” (Members). The gender and queer exclusionary practices of other countries are germane because knowledge of where other militaries are set in regard to each minority can be used as a mental foil when considering the legitimacy of arguments against gender-inclusion aboard submarines.
The most frequently cited rationales for excluding women from submarine service are submarine size and the cost of retrofitting. Submarines are tight-quarters: “Submariners sleep nine to a bunk room. There are four showers and seven toilets for [...] 140 enlisted men. [...] And that’s on the roomiest submarines” (Bynum). First of all, the queer community is represented within the U.S. military, which is a fact that seems to be conveniently forgotten when discussing the ‘issue’ of co-ed berthing (i.e., sleeping arrangements). Since the Navy does not exclude homosexuals from submarine service- so long as they keep their orientation hidden-, the assumption must be that there are gay men currently sleeping next to their brothers-in-arms- straight and gay- aboard U.S. submarines. Considering this, it is strange that it suddenly becomes an issue when you have an ambiguously sexually-oriented woman sleeping next to an ambiguously sexually-oriented man. The assumption seems to be that men and women will be unable to control themselves from forming both sexual and romantic entanglement if women are allowed on submarines. Contrasting this attitude of inevitability with the military’s expectation that queer service members sublimate their sexual attraction reinforces the patriarchal, ‘boys will be boys’ mindset that forgives sexual misconduct when it flows from a male to a female, but that penalizes it with dismissal when it flows from a male to another male. As evidenced with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the military believes that sexual attraction does not have to be acted upon. Why, then, are we not crediting the men and women who may serve together on submarines in the near future with equal self-restraint? Submarines and ships have strict anti-fraternization policies; “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” can be seen as a severe anti-fraternization policy. The argument that romantic and sexual relationships will become unavoidable if women are permitted on submarines must be rejected because it is based on the mindset that women are temptresses who bring on sexual desires from men, regardless of their respective levels of professionalism, and that men are barbarians where women are concerned and can not be expected to control themselves. Tacit acceptance of this mindset is partly responsible for it’s reinforcement and continuation, which would lead to conditions that highlight the differences between men and women and increase the potency of the atmosphere of sexism. Instead of operating off the assumption that everyone is heterosexual and only men who like other men have the responsibility to remain professional and not hassle their shipmates, the Navy might rather choose to consider the fact that the people they are discussing are not slaves to their passion, but rather professional men and women who can handle proximity without being driven to distraction. As retired Navy Captain Mike McKinnon says, “Grown adults and professionally minded people can deal with those issues” (Bynum). As a side-note, due to the cramped quarters and lack of privacy aboard submarines, sexual fraternization is highly unlikely aboard submarines, which is not the case aboard the already integrated surface ships. Therefore, there is virtually no chance of sexual activity among any service members once deployed unless, as one message board poster puts it, the pair slides into a missile tube. Berthing aside, opponents of women joining men on submarines also claim that submarines will need to be retrofitted to include two washrooms instead of the traditional one. This is unnecessary. Those serving on submarines already use the washrooms in coordinated shifts. It would not be unduly difficult to schedule some of the blocks as exclusively female. It is evident that we live in a heterosexual paradigm when looking even at the ‘necessity’ of separate shower time for men and women. It implies that all women are potential objects for a male’s lust- which would be unmanageable for the poor, stricken male- whereas women finding other women attractive or men finding other men attractive is waved off as negligible and as the personal problem of the aroused service person. There seems to be an atmosphere of forgiveness for men who make things uncomfortable for their female ship mates that does not exist for males who make other males uncomfortable. Clearly, it is seen as understandable not to practice restraint when you are a heterosexual male. There appears to be a sense of the heterosexual man’s entitlement to his aroused passions, and an equally strange sense that it is not his responsibility. The argument focusing on berthing propriety and washroom refitting is easily managed by not allowing the heterosexual cultural norm to color reality, and by having a modicum of faith in the self-restraint, propriety, and professionalism of United States military personnel. Or, an exclusively female crew could be commissioned, which would avoid all of these ‘complications’.
Another argument against integration being treated as legitimate by the press is that the wives of the men on submarines would be uncomfortable with their men living in such close quarters with other women. As one Navy woman says, “The line needs to be drawn somewhere. When it comes to relationships, trust is always an issue. I trust my spouse 100%, but I will never trust another woman” (Bynum). That this group’s ‘trust issues’ are being given enough weight so as to be seen as a legitimate reason service women should not be allowed to serve on submarines reveals that socially there still seems to be more of a belief- or at least a toleration of the belief- that the family needs to be preserved at the expense of women’s freedoms. No one should be denied an employment opportunity because a potential coworker’s wife might have an issue. The only way to make this argument quasi-legitimate is to point out that wives being against their husbands serving on submarines might lead to lower recruitment, though that would make room for the newly-admitted women, so the problem solves itself. Others argue that because Navy women have lower retention rates than males, that lower male recruitment will leave the Navy understaffed in experienced positions years from now. The actual retention until retirement statistics- for the military at large- are 64% for males and 45% for females (United). Interestingly, the same report indicates that one of the top two reasons women leave the military before retirement is that they are concerned about limited job opportunities. Therefore, using women’s lower retention rates to justify their exclusion from submarines is illogical, as it is the exclusion that is inclining them to leave military service. As the only two logical ways to argue the point that what the wives think should matter at all- as a matter of Navy policy- are easily disproved, one is left with the realization that the only reason it is socially relevant is because we are so used to women being forced to sacrifice for the good of family. Therefore, the marriages of each, individual service member should remain his or her private business and not be used to deny other service members opportunities within the fields they are qualified.
Perhaps the most provocative issue regarding women on submarines is the problem of discovering females to be pregnant while aboard. First of all, the potential to become pregnant accidentally is reserved for those women who have sex with men. This argument operates within the assumption that all Navy women are at risk for having sex with men within two weeks before deployment, which is untrue as lesbian women are members of the armed forces. However, because this fact is ignored, all women- however impossible pregnancy may be for them, personally- are discriminated against. One of the reasons it is such an issue that service women in submarines may realize they are pregnant is that submarines must often travel in treacherous waters where coming up to drop women off could reveal it’s position or put it in physical danger- for instance coming up around polar ice. And it is imperative that pregnant women be able to leave submarines, because the recycled air on the submarines- while safe for adults to breathe- contains carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels that, “cause birth defects in unborn children” (Bedard). Pregnancy testing has advanced to the point where a blood test can detect pregnancy as early as seven to twelve days after conception. Sexual fraternization aboard submarines is prohibited. As it is sensible to determine policy with the assumption that service women and men will not be breaking regulations aboard cramped submarines to make children in mind, then it becomes a simple matter to restrict those women who are scheduled to deploy on a submarine to base two weeks before they leave and test for pregnancy at the end of those two weeks. Submarine assignments are voluntary; it would be quite simple to institute a policy that requires female service members to abstain from sex beginning two weeks before their deployment, and only willing women would have to tolerate the restriction. This policy would be discriminatory, but not being pregnant is a bona fide occupational qualification for submarine duty6, and it is better to open the positions to those women who choose to make the sacrifice rather than deny women the choice entirely. This way, women who are pregnant would never be deployed. But no such solution has been suggested. The argument centers, instead, on how terrible it would be if fetuses were subjected to the toxins. Instead of attempting to set up safeguards to ensure women with fetuses in their stomachs are never deployed in the first place, it is instead argued that the risk to potential fetuses is too great to allow women to serve on submarines at all. Clearly the overzealous concern for the health and well-being of fetuses- and their mothers as an afterthought- is seen as more important than doing what is best to ensure women are not unfairly denied job opportunities. This is indicative of a social mindset that sees the female place as doing what is best for her family before ever thinking of herself. The fact is, there are many women in today’s Navy- just as there are many women in the U.S. today- who never wish to have children, are unable to have children, or who are lesbians and are not at risk for unexpected pregnancies. It is an over-the-top safety measure to deny all women the right to serve on a submarine when there are ways to keep pregnant women from ever deploying, and when barring women is attached to such a pernicious ‘family-first, women-later’ mindset.
The three most common arguments against female-inclusion on submarines are retrofitting costs and propriety issues, the protestation of male submariner’s wives, and complications that could come with pregnancy aboard a submarine. All three of these arguments are rooted in patriarchal assumptions, and often operating under heterosexual ‘norms’ that deny the reality of today’s Navy. When clearing these biases from one’s mind, it becomes clear that none of these arguments hold up under scrutiny, and therefore one must conclude that qualified Navy women should be equally entitled to duties aboard submarines, so long as the individual women are capable of meeting the physical requirements.
While the United States Naval Service has made some strides in gender and queer inclusivity1, it is hardly one of the trailblazers for equal opportunity. Currently, only two U.S. Navy service communities are off-limits to women-- the Navy SEALs and submarine communities. Out of the forty-two countries that boast submarine capability, “Sweden, Spain, Norway, Canada and Australia allow women to serve on them” (Auster). Arguments made by those who oppose female integration on submarines attempt to invalidate the positive examples and experiences of those gender-integrated submarines by claiming that costal deployments- which the above listed countries primarily engage in- are shorter than the tours American submarines are required to complete, which they then claim is the only reason gender-integration has worked for those countries (Donnelly). The U.S. Navy abides by the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy passed by Congress in 1993, which prevents recruiters from inquiring about the sexual orientation of potential military men and women and forbids investigation into the sexual orientation of service members in the absence of compelling evidence of homosexual behavior. Great Britain, Holland, Denmark, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, and Israel have no restrictions on sexual orientation in their militaries; additionally, there are several other countries that allow homosexuals to serve, but exclude openly homosexual service members from certain positions2. According to several studies assessing the affect of the inclusion of homosexuals within the Canadian military3, “CF4 officials [...] have noticed no changes in behavior among their troops. They say they know to date of no [...] fights or violent incidents, [...] no problems with recruitment, and no diminution of cohesion, morale, or organizational effectiveness” (Members). The gender and queer exclusionary practices of other countries are germane because knowledge of where other militaries are set in regard to each minority can be used as a mental foil when considering the legitimacy of arguments against gender-inclusion aboard submarines.
The most frequently cited rationales for excluding women from submarine service are submarine size and the cost of retrofitting. Submarines are tight-quarters: “Submariners sleep nine to a bunk room. There are four showers and seven toilets for [...] 140 enlisted men. [...] And that’s on the roomiest submarines” (Bynum). First of all, the queer community is represented within the U.S. military, which is a fact that seems to be conveniently forgotten when discussing the ‘issue’ of co-ed berthing (i.e., sleeping arrangements). Since the Navy does not exclude homosexuals from submarine service- so long as they keep their orientation hidden-, the assumption must be that there are gay men currently sleeping next to their brothers-in-arms- straight and gay- aboard U.S. submarines. Considering this, it is strange that it suddenly becomes an issue when you have an ambiguously sexually-oriented woman sleeping next to an ambiguously sexually-oriented man. The assumption seems to be that men and women will be unable to control themselves from forming both sexual and romantic entanglement if women are allowed on submarines. Contrasting this attitude of inevitability with the military’s expectation that queer service members sublimate their sexual attraction reinforces the patriarchal, ‘boys will be boys’ mindset that forgives sexual misconduct when it flows from a male to a female, but that penalizes it with dismissal when it flows from a male to another male. As evidenced with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the military believes that sexual attraction does not have to be acted upon. Why, then, are we not crediting the men and women who may serve together on submarines in the near future with equal self-restraint? Submarines and ships have strict anti-fraternization policies; “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” can be seen as a severe anti-fraternization policy. The argument that romantic and sexual relationships will become unavoidable if women are permitted on submarines must be rejected because it is based on the mindset that women are temptresses who bring on sexual desires from men, regardless of their respective levels of professionalism, and that men are barbarians where women are concerned and can not be expected to control themselves. Tacit acceptance of this mindset is partly responsible for it’s reinforcement and continuation, which would lead to conditions that highlight the differences between men and women and increase the potency of the atmosphere of sexism. Instead of operating off the assumption that everyone is heterosexual and only men who like other men have the responsibility to remain professional and not hassle their shipmates, the Navy might rather choose to consider the fact that the people they are discussing are not slaves to their passion, but rather professional men and women who can handle proximity without being driven to distraction. As retired Navy Captain Mike McKinnon says, “Grown adults and professionally minded people can deal with those issues” (Bynum). As a side-note, due to the cramped quarters and lack of privacy aboard submarines, sexual fraternization is highly unlikely aboard submarines, which is not the case aboard the already integrated surface ships. Therefore, there is virtually no chance of sexual activity among any service members once deployed unless, as one message board poster puts it, the pair slides into a missile tube. Berthing aside, opponents of women joining men on submarines also claim that submarines will need to be retrofitted to include two washrooms instead of the traditional one. This is unnecessary. Those serving on submarines already use the washrooms in coordinated shifts. It would not be unduly difficult to schedule some of the blocks as exclusively female. It is evident that we live in a heterosexual paradigm when looking even at the ‘necessity’ of separate shower time for men and women. It implies that all women are potential objects for a male’s lust- which would be unmanageable for the poor, stricken male- whereas women finding other women attractive or men finding other men attractive is waved off as negligible and as the personal problem of the aroused service person. There seems to be an atmosphere of forgiveness for men who make things uncomfortable for their female ship mates that does not exist for males who make other males uncomfortable. Clearly, it is seen as understandable not to practice restraint when you are a heterosexual male. There appears to be a sense of the heterosexual man’s entitlement to his aroused passions, and an equally strange sense that it is not his responsibility. The argument focusing on berthing propriety and washroom refitting is easily managed by not allowing the heterosexual cultural norm to color reality, and by having a modicum of faith in the self-restraint, propriety, and professionalism of United States military personnel. Or, an exclusively female crew could be commissioned, which would avoid all of these ‘complications’.
Another argument against integration being treated as legitimate by the press is that the wives of the men on submarines would be uncomfortable with their men living in such close quarters with other women. As one Navy woman says, “The line needs to be drawn somewhere. When it comes to relationships, trust is always an issue. I trust my spouse 100%, but I will never trust another woman” (Bynum). That this group’s ‘trust issues’ are being given enough weight so as to be seen as a legitimate reason service women should not be allowed to serve on submarines reveals that socially there still seems to be more of a belief- or at least a toleration of the belief- that the family needs to be preserved at the expense of women’s freedoms. No one should be denied an employment opportunity because a potential coworker’s wife might have an issue. The only way to make this argument quasi-legitimate is to point out that wives being against their husbands serving on submarines might lead to lower recruitment, though that would make room for the newly-admitted women, so the problem solves itself. Others argue that because Navy women have lower retention rates than males, that lower male recruitment will leave the Navy understaffed in experienced positions years from now. The actual retention until retirement statistics- for the military at large- are 64% for males and 45% for females (United). Interestingly, the same report indicates that one of the top two reasons women leave the military before retirement is that they are concerned about limited job opportunities. Therefore, using women’s lower retention rates to justify their exclusion from submarines is illogical, as it is the exclusion that is inclining them to leave military service. As the only two logical ways to argue the point that what the wives think should matter at all- as a matter of Navy policy- are easily disproved, one is left with the realization that the only reason it is socially relevant is because we are so used to women being forced to sacrifice for the good of family. Therefore, the marriages of each, individual service member should remain his or her private business and not be used to deny other service members opportunities within the fields they are qualified.
Perhaps the most provocative issue regarding women on submarines is the problem of discovering females to be pregnant while aboard. First of all, the potential to become pregnant accidentally is reserved for those women who have sex with men. This argument operates within the assumption that all Navy women are at risk for having sex with men within two weeks before deployment, which is untrue as lesbian women are members of the armed forces. However, because this fact is ignored, all women- however impossible pregnancy may be for them, personally- are discriminated against. One of the reasons it is such an issue that service women in submarines may realize they are pregnant is that submarines must often travel in treacherous waters where coming up to drop women off could reveal it’s position or put it in physical danger- for instance coming up around polar ice. And it is imperative that pregnant women be able to leave submarines, because the recycled air on the submarines- while safe for adults to breathe- contains carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels that, “cause birth defects in unborn children” (Bedard). Pregnancy testing has advanced to the point where a blood test can detect pregnancy as early as seven to twelve days after conception. Sexual fraternization aboard submarines is prohibited. As it is sensible to determine policy with the assumption that service women and men will not be breaking regulations aboard cramped submarines to make children in mind, then it becomes a simple matter to restrict those women who are scheduled to deploy on a submarine to base two weeks before they leave and test for pregnancy at the end of those two weeks. Submarine assignments are voluntary; it would be quite simple to institute a policy that requires female service members to abstain from sex beginning two weeks before their deployment, and only willing women would have to tolerate the restriction. This policy would be discriminatory, but not being pregnant is a bona fide occupational qualification for submarine duty6, and it is better to open the positions to those women who choose to make the sacrifice rather than deny women the choice entirely. This way, women who are pregnant would never be deployed. But no such solution has been suggested. The argument centers, instead, on how terrible it would be if fetuses were subjected to the toxins. Instead of attempting to set up safeguards to ensure women with fetuses in their stomachs are never deployed in the first place, it is instead argued that the risk to potential fetuses is too great to allow women to serve on submarines at all. Clearly the overzealous concern for the health and well-being of fetuses- and their mothers as an afterthought- is seen as more important than doing what is best to ensure women are not unfairly denied job opportunities. This is indicative of a social mindset that sees the female place as doing what is best for her family before ever thinking of herself. The fact is, there are many women in today’s Navy- just as there are many women in the U.S. today- who never wish to have children, are unable to have children, or who are lesbians and are not at risk for unexpected pregnancies. It is an over-the-top safety measure to deny all women the right to serve on a submarine when there are ways to keep pregnant women from ever deploying, and when barring women is attached to such a pernicious ‘family-first, women-later’ mindset.
The three most common arguments against female-inclusion on submarines are retrofitting costs and propriety issues, the protestation of male submariner’s wives, and complications that could come with pregnancy aboard a submarine. All three of these arguments are rooted in patriarchal assumptions, and often operating under heterosexual ‘norms’ that deny the reality of today’s Navy. When clearing these biases from one’s mind, it becomes clear that none of these arguments hold up under scrutiny, and therefore one must conclude that qualified Navy women should be equally entitled to duties aboard submarines, so long as the individual women are capable of meeting the physical requirements.