Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Life on board a British nuclear submarine (2012)

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 206 posts

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

#181

Post by anonymous_sorry »

hilbert42 wrote: post #169
anonymous_sorry wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I reckon I'd be under constant stress in case I accidentally said something out of place Uh, unless you're in the habit of saying things like "I want to rape her, her and her, lol", it's really not anything to be stressed about. If you make an innocent mistake, someone may tell you about it and you get to learn something. That's it.

First, I'd never think that let alone would I ever say it. If a woman wasn't mutually interested in having sex then all thoughts would be off. As for rape, I find the notion so abhorrent and disrespectful of the victim that if forced at gunpoint to commit the act it'd still be off because I'd be incapable of an erection. The issues are with both innocent mistakes and of those of which one is not even aware of having…

You responded to a comment about that sort of bullying with a comment along the lines of "Working with women can be a minefield". It felt like a weird juxtaposition to me.

Personally, being falsely accused of rape is not something I've ever spent time worrying about because it's not happened to me, anyone I know, or - to my knowledge - any friends-of-friends.

The odd case is reported in the news from time to time - but who knows why particular stories get picked up by the media [0]. Paying attention to that stuff gives you distorted sense of how likely something is, by providing a bunch of bogus input to the brain's availability heuristic [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog

[1] https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/availability-heuristic

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

#182

Post by deanCommie »

hilbert42 wrote: post #90
deanCommie wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"There are tens, hundreds of thousands of others like you on the internet" I've never mentioned this matter on the internet previously. And I do treat women equally both as colleagues at work and elsewhere and have always done so. The difference comes when someone is aggressive towards me. With a male I'll stand ground and argue back (but not physically), with a female I'll walk away. It's the prudent thing to do.

> With a male I'll stand ground and argue back (but not physically), with a female I'll walk away.

Could we continue digging into this in good faith?

If they're so aggressive that it's unprofessional, then neither men nor women should be doing it to you! You should not rise to their level, remain professional and calm, defend your position intellectually without aggression. Try to settle the dispute, or escalate to management if need be. But after, you can give feedback to either them, to their manager, or to HR to determine how you two can have a similar disagreement in the future without unprofessional aggression.

If it's just a tense disagreement of opinion and involves someone coming off aggressive, but remains professional, then why would you argue differently if it's a man or a woman?

I'm sure there is more nuance to your point, but to me this seems fairly binary: Each of these scenarios is gender-agnostic.

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

#183

Post by rurp »

tpmx wrote: post #27
duxup wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worry that MAD requires the other actors to have accurate information, and act rationally. When an “insane” person makes the call I fear the entire system of deterrence falls apart…

I don't think Putin is insane. If he were we'd all be dead by now. Also: Suicidal people don't go to lengths to murder former threats to make a point, like he did today with the Wagner Group leadership.

He might be sane now, but will he always be? How about each of the next 100 leaders? The terrifying thing is that it only takes one crazy/confused/suicidal leader to obliterate humanity. The risk in any given year is usually low, but everyone knows how small chances compound over time.

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

#184

Post by Floegipoky »

mcpackieh wrote: post #179
Floegipoky wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* "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" Don't you think these behaviors are negatively impacting the careers of these women?

> He doesn't care, and neither do I. It is whether comments are raised to HR, management, or for personal lawsuits. This is potentially career ending Obviously his first priority is his own career. How can you expect it to be any other way? Get real.

Engaging in gender discrimination is probably not the best way to avoid accusations of gender discrimination affecting one's career.

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

#185

Post by rurp »

snowwrestler wrote: post #174
duxup wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if he is. I’m more generally concerned that the system we have now doesn’t cover insanity.

Deterrence works broadly across a population. If a suicidally insane leader ordered a broad first strike nuclear attack, every officer and soldier involved with executing those orders would understand, individually, the retaliation they would create against themselves, their friends, and their families. I’m not saying it’s perfect, and I agree that the world would be way safer if zero nuclear weapons were on standby…

A soldier disobeying a direct order from a Russian dictator has a pretty grim life expectancy. Soldiers generally have a very limited and distorted view of whatever broader situation they are in, and any first strike would likely be couched in a lot of optimism and/or desperation.

An officer saying "You need to launch this missile immediately to save your homeland, and if you don't do it you'll be shot in the head as a traitor", is not a trivial thing to say no to.

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

#186

Post by hilbert42 »

anonymous_sorry wrote: post #181
hilbert42 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, I'd never think that let alone would I ever say it. If a woman wasn't mutually interested in having sex then all thoughts would be off. As for rape, I find the notion so abhorrent and disrespectful of the victim that if forced at gunpoint to commit the act it'd still be off because I'd be incapable of an erection. The issues are with both innocent mistakes and of those of which one is not even aware of having…

You responded to a comment about that sort of bullying with a comment along the lines of "Working with women can be a minefield". It felt like a weird juxtaposition to me. Personally, being falsely accused of rape is not something I've ever spent time worrying about because it's not happened to me, anyone I know, or - to my knowledge - any friends-of-friends. The odd case is reported in the news from time to time - b…

"You responded to a comment about that sort of bullying with a comment along the lines of "Working with women can be a minefield". It felt like a weird juxtaposition to me."

I did not use those words, this is the second post where I have had to correct wrongful assumptions about what I have said. Why is it that everyone nowadays automatically makes the worst assumption about anything that's said? This is a very noticeable and nasty trend of recent decades that wasn't common when I was younger.

If I have to spell the obvious out in detail then I will. First, working in my office alone with three women wasn't the first time I had worked with women, there were others in that organization that I worked with and also in previous employment. Second, I was both friendly and behaved properly and professionally with the women in my office. Not only were they my friends but also my closest allies in the bureaucratic wars with other departments (they were part of my IT help desk team and they always had access to strategic information which they freely offered without pressure or bribes from me. We worked well as a team should.

Moreover, they were on a first name basis with my partner who would phone regularly and they would take great delight in talking to her about me behind my back. Being the only male in the office of course I was bullied but in the nicest sense. I was lucky that they all got along well together and all of them with me. Later, I was promoted and moved office, there I was alone this time with only two women both of whom I also got along well. However, that was over 25 years ago and whilst harassment issues were alive and well back then they were nothing like as acute or as corrosive as they are today—it seems that little else permeates the work environment or work culture to the extent this matter does. It's clear to me these unresolved and difficult submarine harassment matters are testament to the fact.

I have been lucky in that I have had a good professional relationships with all women I've worked with but I cannot say that about all the men.

Given the heightened state of the politics surrounding these issues nowadays I reckon I wouldn't be so lucky next time round even if I were to be even more professional than I have been previously.

Simply, had I need to repeat my time over today then I wouldn't repeat that exposure as a precautionary measure.

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

#187

Post by aerostable_slug »

anonymous_sorry wrote: post #163
zo1 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about raping, wow you have a low opinion of men. It's about the sexual tension, the emotions, jealousy, consensual pairing causing drama, etc. And why is no one asking women if they even want to be in such a spot. I know I'd feel odd if the genders were reversed and it was a very female dominated space that was asking me to be one of the 10% of men quota.

> It's not about raping That was a direct reference to the article linked by the grandparent of my original post, regarding bullying suffered by women serving on UK nuclear subs. Someone responded to that with a comment I read as "yeah, working with women can be a minefield". Sorry if it seemed a bit out of the blue. > It's about the sexual tension, the emotions, jealousy, consensual pairing causing drama, etc. Surel…

> what's the alternative?

Don't have women on submarines. I mean, that's the alternative whether it's palatable (for any number of reasons) or not. And, as someone in favor of having mixed teams in general, it's admittedly difficult for me to imagine the warfighting advantage of a mixed submarine crew.

Anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, reconnaissance, special operations support, land attack, and nuclear deterrence don't seem to have any particular characteristics where the presence of women on the crew would be advantageous. This is in contrast with something like civil affairs or certain types of special operations, where women bring new capabilities to the table. That said, the berthing in new boats is designed around mixed crews so clearly the horse left the barn a while ago, so it's beyond time to figure out how to make it work.

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

#188

Post by fuzzfactor »

sklargh wrote: post #51

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

Even when you're not on duty you're still on a submarine.

This kind of thing doesn't give new meaning to the concept of work-life balance, it removes all meaning completely.

Other careers have an element of this which can be helpful to recognize the degree to which it just comes with the territory.

On the shore side of marine cargoes you often get a client's vessel in port to visit a number of facilities around-the-clock. Keeping up with all the transfers doesn't stop until the ship finally sails, so you can end up working some 36-hour days. Not the kind of job where you get to go home from work every single day.

On the sub they don't get to go home from work (or go anywhere else) every single month.

And then there's the truly more negative aspects than that.

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

#189

Post by dghughes »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #160
dghughes wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Using banter for high-stress situations is quite a British thing. There's a story I was told about British troops during WWII in wet rat ridden trenches, cold and low on rations, having banter to keep morale high - much to the Americans surprise. I've been reading and watching videos on European cultures. Many say in European cultures small talk is not a thing. I know UK is not Europe in that sense but are geographi…

"in European cultures small talk is not a thing" European cultures are quite a broad range, from Sicilian to Finnish and Basque to Serbian. Percentage wise and excluding Russia and Turkey, I'd wager that small talk on average is common in European cultures (so every other country apart from Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, maaybe Netherlands?)

Yes that's why I find it amazing. Such range and diversity of cultures yet any time I read up on any place in Europe it seems that many countries are like the others not big on small talk. I agree it's generalizing and from thin data but who knows it may be true or somewhat accurate.

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

#190

Post by anonymous_sorry »

hilbert42 wrote: post #186
anonymous_sorry wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You responded to a comment about that sort of bullying with a comment along the lines of "Working with women can be a minefield". It felt like a weird juxtaposition to me. Personally, being falsely accused of rape is not something I've ever spent time worrying about because it's not happened to me, anyone I know, or - to my knowledge - any friends-of-friends. The odd case is reported in the news from time to time - b…

"You responded to a comment about that sort of bullying with a comment along the lines of "Working with women can be a minefield". It felt like a weird juxtaposition to me." I did not use those words, this is the second post where I have had to correct wrongful assumptions about what I have said. Why is it that everyone nowadays automatically makes the worst assumption about anything that's said? This is a very notic…

I apologise that I paraphrased your words poorly. I don't doubt you are well-intentioned and act professionally. Which is why I think you would have little to fear. And it's probably worth taking precautions, but not worth getting stressed about.

What I and perhaps others found a little off-putting is that you replied to a story about women being subjected to rape jokes and other bullying with the risks you think the modern "political climate" poses for men.

My point, perhaps irritably expressed, is that I think those risks are overblown. Certainly more so than the risks women face.

Post reply on HN