Despite outcry, sub venture worth a try

So many sub sailors might be right. Allowing women to serve on submarines might prove to be the worst military decision in history.

But America has the right to know, and women deserve to right to try. That was the entire point of last week's column.

By an unofficial poll of the comments from last week's column, so many readers contended that, because I was never on a submarine, I am not qualified to address the advent of women serving on them. Further, for the same reason, I should not even have an opinion on the matter.

Apparently, from the sub base to the Pentagon, to the White House, only people who have served on submarines should be allowed to partake of the discussion. By that logic, only people who have served in public office should be allowed to vote.

Most of the people who, in varying degrees of politeness, told me to mind my own business, made it clear that they did in fact serve on submarines, or perhaps continue to do so. For those who did, or do, I thank you, seriously and sincerely.

The fact is, however, you, just like me, have never served on a submarine with women. So while you might have more information with which to arrive at an opinion, we are equally ignorant as to the effect of the nuance. Somebody even warned me that my credibility was at stake because I was uninformed about weapons systems and platforms and yada yada yada.

I only wanted to say that women should have the right to serve on submarines. They should also have the right to operate heavy equipment, dig graves and vacuum septic systems.

Here's the thing. This column is a discussion. It is intended to provoke thought and stimulate communication. Based on the comments and my e-mails and telephone messages, too many sailors do not want to do that.

It almost seemed as if a lot of sailors are afraid that through discussion someone might see the logic and fairness of the concept and allow to happen what many sailors dread: They'll have to take down the nudies from the walls, curtail their lascivious discussions and close the door and put down the cover.

Yeah, well, that could happen.

On the other hand, short of unwanted sexual advances and contact, women might learn to cope with some of the macho conduct. Some of them might even enjoy the pinups, or have some of their own choosing ready for hanging. Who knows, they might even decide to exchange profanities rather than complain of them.

And you know what else, fellows? It all might fail. Perhaps the sexual attraction would prove too much. Pregnancy is not a good thing when you're tucked in a watery hideout for six months. I get that. Indeed the privilege of trying co-ed subs might expose overwhelming evidence of its impracticality. It might fail miserably.

And what if it does work? Heck. What if it so happens that because women, on the average, are smaller than men, it is discovered that we could build smaller, yet more spacious, or more functional vessels? What if we learn that female bodies or brains have tolerances and capabilities that we never knew, which could serve the mission in ways we never expected?

Unfortunately, though, the comments leaned toward a tone of arrogance, if not anger, that anyone should dare suggest that men and women could possibly coexist in such close quarters.

Might it cost a lot to find out it was a bad choice? It might. But what's a fair price for freedom and knowledge?

This is the opinion of Chuck Potter.