Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

November-15-99

Navy Debates Submarine Duty for Women



The debate over women serving on board the U.S. Navy's submarine's has been revived by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACWS), the Pentagon's advisory committee that recommends policies on issues women face in the armed services. "It's important we examine what is still closed to women," stated Mary Wamsley, chairwoman of DACWS, and deputy chief of police in Commerce City, CO.

Although women were admitted to the Naval Academy in 1976, women are still restricted from serving in 33,000 positions in the Navy, 25,000 of which are submarine positions. Opponents to the gender integration of naval submarines claim the cost of converting submarines to incorporate women. Also opponents of gender integration insist the experience of spending days or weeks submerged in tight quarters with no privacy makes service in submarines too prohibitive for women.

Wamsley dismissed those concerns stating, "It is ludicrous to say the living conditions and psychological conditions have more of an impact on women than on men." As it stands, the Navy has difficulty recruiting men to fill positions on submarines due to the more rigorous intellectual and psychological standards required. By allowing women, who constitute nearly 14 percent of naval personnel, to serve on submarines the pool of recruits would expand measurably.



Media Resources: New York Times - November 15, 1999


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

10/31/2014 Federal Judge Exempts Another Catholic University from Birth Control Coverage - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Ave Maria University, a Catholic university in Florida, does not have to comply with federal rules meant to ensure that covered employees can exercise their right to obtain birth control at no cost. The Affordable Care Act requires all new health insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives - such as the pill, emergency contraceptives, and IUDs - without charging co-pays, deductibles or co-insurance. . . .
 
10/31/2014 Women of Color in Tennessee Are United in Opposition to Amendment 1 - Just days before the general election in Tennessee, a coalition of community leaders, clergy, and advocates led a press conference encouraging women of color to vote no on Amendment 1, a dangerous and far-reaching measure on the state's ballot. SisterReach, a grassroots organization focused on "empowering, organizing, and mobilizing women and girls in the community around their reproductive and sexual health to make informed decisions about themselves," organized the press conference "to call attention to the unique concerns Black and poor communities throughout Shelby County and across the state of Tennessee face on a daily basis" and to emphasize how the upcoming election "could further limit [black women's] reproductive, economic, political, and social autonomy." "We assemble today to impress upon black women and women of color, many of whom are heads of households, to get out and vote," said SisterReacher Founder and CEO Cherisse Scott at the event. SisterReach has been educating voters about the particularly dangerous impact of Amendment 1 on women of color. . . .
 
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1. The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .