Live data from Hacker News

Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

theguardian.com

131–140 of 206 posts

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#131
post #5

This 2012 article mentions that the Royal Navy might have female submariners "next year". It happened in 2014: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/female-submariners-make-h... And here's the next article I found on the subject, from last year, looks like it's not going so well: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.opindia.com/2022/11/women-o...

And 3 years later in 2017 there are drugs and sex problems. > Nine service personnel on a nuclear submarine have been discharged from the Royal Navy after testing positive for drugs. > The revelations come after claims earlier this month of inappropriate sexual relationships among some of those on board HMS Vigilant, one of four Vanguard Class submarines which maintain the UK's nuclear deterrent and is armed with Tri…

People have been having sex on naval ships long before there were women on them ... same goes with doing drugs.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#132
post #97
post #51

A friend of mine once described his submerged time on a submarine as “like prison, but without the possibility of escape.”

I think about that sort of description when people talk about colonizing space, or mars or the moon. Would it even be ethical to bear children on such a colony who, not by choice, would have to live their lives confined to a cramped habitat that would probably feel a lot like living in a submarine?

We'll have Belters soon enough.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#133
post #5

This 2012 article mentions that the Royal Navy might have female submariners "next year". It happened in 2014: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/female-submariners-make-h... And here's the next article I found on the subject, from last year, looks like it's not going so well: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.opindia.com/2022/11/women-o...

Years ago I did a bit of speleology so I'm not afraid of confined spaces but as a male I'd be scared to spend time on a submarine in cramped conditions and in mixed company. I reckon I'd be under constant stress in case I accidentally said something out of place unlike in all-male work environments I've worked in the past where banter and certain types of comment pass without thought. The nature and politics of the t…

Granted, i am no submariner, but i wasted some time of my life in the early 00s in the german army.

We never had any problems with harassment or anything like that... for one, the women i met there were at least twice as tough as the men in the same unit and had an attitude that let you forget really fast they were from another gender. I never understood there could be any form of problem... though, perhaps the infantry just attracts other kinds of women than more "civilised" forms of duty.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#134
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with lizard brain whatsoever. If for some reason I had to take disciplinary action against one of those women and I had good and legitimate reason to do so then I would be at risk of retribution. The chances of me being believed would be negligible. I have always been courteous to coworkers, especially women. Your comment has just validified my point about today's politics. Decades ago no one wou…

>If for some reason I had to take disciplinary action against one of those women and I had good and legitimate reason to do so then I would be at risk of retribution. Tell me you don't have military experience without telling me you don't have military experience. This statement is patently absurd.

[deleted]

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I reckon I'd be under constant stress in case I accidentally said something out of place unlike in all-male work environments I've worked in the past where banter and certain types of comment pass without thought. As a male, I can assure you that the types of comments that you think “pass without thought” isn't considered desirable by all of your fellow male colleagues either. Sure they won't necessarily complaint…

> As a male, I can assure you that the types of comments that you think “pass without thought” isn't considered desirable by all of your fellow male colleagues either. Sure they won't necessarily complaint about it publicly, but they'll still see you in a negative way. You seem to have missed his point. It isn't whether his comments are considered desirable. He doesn't care, and neither do I. It is whether comments a…

> t is whether comments are raised to HR, management, or for personal lawsuits. This is potentially career ending.

In some imaginary world maybe, but in practice we have many people with mountains of documented misbehavior still being in charge, so we definitely don't live in that world. First of all, very few women report even blatant misbehavior like groping, forced kisses or even rape, and then there are even fewer HR department that react properly when such reports are raised. The risk of a misunderstanding ending your career is basically null. The risk of ending a woman's career when she reports misconducts is much, much higher.

> Part of living in a society with free speech is that we sometimes say things which hurt others people's feelings.

Insulting your boss will almost always lead to you being fired, threatening a cop will get you legal troubles. Free speech is not absolute, and was never supposed to be.

> In the office today I am very careful never to be alone in a room with a woman. I don't "banter" with women because I am worried that one of my comments, however harmless in intent, will be perceived poorly.

Then you have a problem when communicating with women, and you should probably spend more time around them to learn. Yes at the beginning this will likely mean that you'd need to weight all your words to avoid saying something inappropriate, but at the end of the day, you'd have learned how to behave

> This means my dynamic with male colleagues is different because I trust they will not attempt to end my career over a misunderstanding.

That's a pretty bad assessment, as men are much more likely to throw you under the bus at the first occasion than women, because rivalries are much more intense between people of the same sex. Being afraid of your women coworker because they could report you is as irrational as being afraid of your neighbors because they could murder your family.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think women brought drugs on submarines?

That‘s not what he said at all. More stress means more temptation to take drugs.

Sigh. For women to be the prominent factor of stress when working in a f*king nuclear submarine, you'd have to have serious communication issues with the opposite gender…

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago I did a bit of speleology so I'm not afraid of confined spaces but as a male I'd be scared to spend time on a submarine in cramped conditions and in mixed company. I reckon I'd be under constant stress in case I accidentally said something out of place unlike in all-male work environments I've worked in the past where banter and certain types of comment pass without thought. The nature and politics of the t…

Thanks for sharing this fascinating take on how you experience the world. Personally, as a man, I have never found the need to worry about any of the issues you highlight when interacting with other genders. I wonder what makes our experiences so different?

It's not an intrinsic worry and I trust myself implicitly to behave well and I always have. The problem is the changed political climate where one has to be constantly aware of what one says or to not touch or bump someone accidentally. This stops people acting naturally, especially in some types of work environments. Same I reckon would go for male schoolteachers, I often wonder how they manage these days when there's a magnifying glass on evey movement they make.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#138
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im skeptical about this take. Wikepedia moderation is left wing and has repeatedly published misinformation.

I imagine you find yourself running into “left wing” stuff a lot right?

They're not wrong. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has been very vocal about its ideological descent into left-wing populism. He's used words like "propaganda." I used to moderate the Men's Rights page. Eventually I was blocked by some senior moderators (who also heavily moderated the Feminism page, incidentally). You can go and review the difference between those pages yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

The Men's Rights page now includes criticism of the movement in the summary section. Note how that is entirely absent in the Feminism page. Over the years they've stripped more and more useful information out of the Men's Rights page. Especially anything which portrays the movement in a positive light. Almost anything without a citation, for example. While this is technically within Wikipedia's rules, this level of scrutiny isn't applied to the Feminism page. Not even close. Take a look at the section for suicide on the Men's Rights page:

> Studies have also found an over-representation of women in attempted or incomplete suicides and men in complete suicides.

I mean, what the fuck? On a page for men's issues like suicide, the person who moderates the Feminism page added stuff about attempted suicide for women. Many other sections contain a similar tone of, "but women also..."

The real cheery on top is the byline at the very top of the article directing people elsewhere with a hyperlink. Because how dare you research a movement which isn't pro-feminist:

> Not to be confused with the pro-feminist Men's liberation movement.

You'll note no similar byline on the Feminism page, directing people to pro men's rights feminist movements.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Over the years I've heard from dozens of people who have experienced similar issues, and have either been blocked, banned, or constructively cut out of moderating the pages they've been passionate about for so many years. ALL of them cite the same reason: ideology. Wikipedia long ago abandoned truth. Ideological compliance is now baked into the complex moderation structure. You would be horrified to learn how much is deleted and suppressed now. Just take a look through the moderation logs of any politically contentious pages for a seriously eye opening experience.

Re: Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

#140
>The watch officer and sonar operators are discussing an important philosophical question: would it be more painful to be struck by a whole tuna or a tin of tuna?

Of course the tin of tuna would hurt more. And, I know this is not the question, but being hit by a can of tuna is more probable haha.

But jokes aside, it seems all the monotony does get to them. And such discussions are necessary to maintain ones sanity. I would be a little conflicted if I had such a job. On one hand, the boring routine is the best case, because it means there are no active threats and thus no war. But then again, I'd be secretly looking forward to a bit of action - something to make me feel alive

Post reply on HN