Since when was this.

Discussions on other historical eras.
User avatar
Eightball
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 22:37
Location: Oslo, Norway

Since when was this.

Post by Eightball » 23 Aug 2003 15:15

Since when was it considered bad luck to have a woman aboard a submarine? Does it date all the way back to the submariner pioneer times or did it first occur during WW2? And does it have any grounds?

Cheers.

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1241
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 23 Aug 2003 16:19

i've read it was bad luck to have a women on a ship. but nothing about women on submarines. i didn't think there has ever been a women assigned to a submarine crew anyway.( at least no one i've ever heard of)

User avatar
Eightball
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 22:37
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Eightball » 24 Aug 2003 12:23

joel pacheco wrote:i've read it was bad luck to have a women on a ship. but nothing about women on submarines. i didn't think there has ever been a women assigned to a submarine crew anyway.( at least no one i've ever heard of)


Exactly. I've never heard of female crew on submarines either, which is why I asked. Perhaps since it's like that with boats it automaticly made it the same with submarines?

User avatar
Galicia
Member
Posts: 349
Joined: 17 Nov 2002 18:17
Location: USA/UK

Post by Galicia » 28 Aug 2003 04:39

In the British Navy, women aren't allowed on submarines due to privacy matters. Maybe that's why?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7037
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Since when was this.

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 28 Aug 2003 04:54

Eightball wrote:Since when was it considered bad luck to have a woman aboard a submarine? Does it date all the way back to the submariner pioneer times or did it first occur during WW2? And does it have any grounds?

Cheers.
It has been considered "bad luck " to have a woman on a ship for a very long time. I suppose back when sailing ships were around with all male crews , a woman could prove to be a distraction, which could surely get someone killed or possibly a ship sunk. It is the same reason women are not in combat postions in our military today. Although some fools seem hell-bent on changing this.

It may seem strange but look at the "Challenger", first time a woman was on the shuttle, "BOOM", Perhaps if there had not been such a public relations deal about having a woman on board., they may have delayed the launch.

So is it mis-management or O-rings or "bad-luck" that cause the Challenger accident ?

Remember all luck really is a statistical correlation that is "outside" a random distribution and depending on the set of observations,
"LUCK" can be said to exist.

Don't sail on Friday either. :wink:

User avatar
Wulpe
Member
Posts: 492
Joined: 06 Jul 2003 11:50
Location: Austria

Post by Wulpe » 28 Aug 2003 10:38

Norway, Sweden and Australia assign a few women to small submarines, but brief coastal deployments are nowhere near as demanding as U.S. requirements. In an eye-opening Navy Times article titled "Swedish subs serve as model to U.S. fleet," a royal Swedish navy officer showed no concern about lack of privacy on small, 30-person Swedish subs. Men and women change clothes, bunk and shower in the same spaces. "Love relationships" occurring while under way are conducted "professionally," he said, and were treated with wary acceptance.


Of course Europeans in general and especially our friends in the North are more open-minded on male-female issues :P

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1571/ ... html?term=

http://www.sid-ss.net/write/femsub.htm

Xanthro
Member
Posts: 2803
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 00:11
Location: Pasadena, CA

Re: Since when was this.

Post by Xanthro » 28 Aug 2003 17:25

ChristopherPerrien wrote:It may seem strange but look at the "Challenger", first time a woman was on the shuttle, "BOOM", Perhaps if there had not been such a public relations deal about having a woman on board., they may have delayed the launch.

So is it mis-management or O-rings or "bad-luck" that cause the Challenger accident ?

Remember all luck really is a statistical correlation that is "outside" a random distribution and depending on the set of observations,
"LUCK" can be said to exist.

Don't sail on Friday either. :wink:


The first time a women was on the shuttle nothing happened. Sally K. Ride flew on the Challenger in 1983, mission STS-7, she also flew on Challenger again in 1984 on mission STS 41-G.

She wasn't on the Challenger when it exploded, that would make it kind of hard for her to currently be a Professor in San Diego.

Many women flew on the Space Shuttle before the tragic accident.

It would have taken you a few seconds to confirm your information was incorrect.

Xanthro

User avatar
Matt H.
Member
Posts: 554
Joined: 15 Aug 2003 18:34
Location: Keele, Staffs, UK

Post by Matt H. » 28 Aug 2003 17:30

Galicia wrote:In the British Navy, women aren't allowed on submarines due to privacy matters. Maybe that's why?


No, women are not allowed on submarines in the Royal Navy due to the danger that contaminants within may present to the foetus, and therefore, it's mother.

Service in submarines is closed to women because of medical concerns for the safety of the foetus and hence its mother. This restriction is purely medical and does not relate to combat effectiveness. The potential risks to the foetus do not arise from hazardous radiation, but from contaminants in the submarine’s atmosphere.

The Institute of Naval Medicine (INM) reviewed the exclusion in 1999, as did subsequently both the Defence Scientific Advisory Council and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Their outcomes supported the conclusions of the INM report, that the exclusion was justified.


From: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/3165.html

Such exclusions have been reviewed in all navies which utilise nuclear submarines. In every case the exclusion has been found to be justified.

In navies which utilise diesel-electric submarines, women are permitted to serve, because the possibility of the accumulation of harmful contaminants is far lower.

Q. Why are women allowed to serve in Australian, Canadian, Norwegian and Swedish submarines?
These countries submarines are diesel-electric powered and so have to surface regularly to recharge their batteries, during the course of which the atmosphere is refreshed. The UK’s submarine fleet is entirely nuclear powered and thus remains underwater for much longer periods of time, allowing the contaminants to accumulate.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7037
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Since when was this.

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 28 Aug 2003 21:55

The first time a women was on the shuttle nothing happened. Sally K. Ride flew on the Challenger in 1983, mission STS-7, she also flew on Challenger again in 1984 on mission STS 41-G.

She wasn't on the Challenger when it exploded, that would make it kind of hard for her to currently be a Professor in San Diego.

Many women flew on the Space Shuttle before the tragic accident.

It would have taken you a few seconds to confirm your information was incorrect.

Xanthro[/quote]


Excuse me Xan , "first civilian woman", anyway still doesn't change the fact that the Challeenger blew up with a woman on it, sure all ships don't automactically sink when a woman steps on board. But we are are talking about SUPERSTITIONS and there slight basis in facts when you confine your set of observations.


Besides Sally Ride flew on this same ship before , Duh!!! you just confirm the superstition right there , or should I explain what "jinx" means.

It would have taken you a few seconds to confirm (REREAD) your information was incorrect.

The superstiton hold true either way or woman.

No offence Xan I am trying to be light on this issue and have a little fun.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7037
Joined: 26 Dec 2002 00:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Since when was this.

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 28 Aug 2003 21:58

The first time a women was on the shuttle nothing happened. Sally K. Ride flew on the Challenger in 1983, mission STS-7, she also flew on Challenger again in 1984 on mission STS 41-G.

She wasn't on the Challenger when it exploded, that would make it kind of hard for her to currently be a Professor in San Diego.

Many women flew on the Space Shuttle before the tragic accident.

It would have taken you a few seconds to confirm your information was incorrect.

Xanthro[/quote]


Excuse me Xan , "first civilian woman", anyway still doesn't change the fact that the Challenger blew up with a woman on it, sure all ships don't automactically sink when a woman steps on board. But we are are talking about SUPERSTITIONS and there slight basis in facts when you confine your set of observations.


Besides Sally Ride flew on this same ship before , Duh!!! you just confirmed the superstition right there , or should I explain what "jinx" means.

It would have taken you a few seconds to confirm (REREAD) your information was incorrect (correct).
The superstiton hold true either way or woman.

No offence Xanthro I am trying to be light on this issue and have a little fun.
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 30 Aug 2003 16:32, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15177
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 28 Aug 2003 23:15

Wasn't the superstistion about Women being bad luck on ships to do with Mermaids and Sirens of the Sea?

Andy h

User avatar
Eightball
Member
Posts: 669
Joined: 13 Sep 2002 22:37
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Eightball » 29 Aug 2003 20:33

Maybe you're onto something, Andy. If, then it's dating a long way back.

Return to “Other eras”