expandyourbrain

learn stuff, review stuff, just stuff

Women in the Navy: Stereotypes

Warning: Please do not use my work and submit it as your own. Students have been caught plagiarizing from this site, and at least one university knows about this site due to that issue. This blog is not peer-reviewed, and thus is also not acceptable for scholarly research. Feel free to read the articles and papers here, but do your own research for your own schoolwork. Thank you!

Women in the Navy: Stereotypes

            There are many stereotypes in the world, some more harmful than others, and some more concentrated in one group of people than another.  For example, there seem to be more harmful stereotypes about women than there are about men, and more about minorities than about whites.  One place that is full of stereotypes is the Navy.  The stereotypical sailor is a man with a drinking problem, a girl in every port, and a wife back home who sleeps with the neighbor.  Of course, the trouble with stereotypes is that they are not always, or even nearly always, true.  The stereotypes I will explore are not isolated to general Navy stereotypes, but also specific to my field which was a combination of engineering, mechanics, and nuclear physics, all of which are male-dominated.  During my eight years in the Navy, my image and performance were both damaged by the stereotypes that women are poor mechanics, that women flirt or sleep around to get ahead, and that women shirk responsibility by getting pregnant.

The first stereotype is a common one.  Women are not strong enough to turn large valves or wrenches.  Women do not know how to use tools.  Women are not logical enough to be engineers.  There are more excellent male operators than excellent female operators.  Therefore, women are not good nuclear Machinist’s Mates.  There are a number of false premises and fallacies committed in this argument, the first being in the first premise.  The assumption is made that even the strongest female is weaker than the weakest male.  Of course, this is not true.  A male, smaller than me, tried to tell me I did not belong because I could not perform as well, physically, as the amateur bodybuilder on our watchteam.  I pointed out that he could not either, however, there are more aspects to our job than just physical strength, and I excelled in those.  In addition, there are several large valves we were required to turn, but rarely were we required to turn them without help.  One in particular almost always had two or three people turning it for speed, but when I was training for that watch, one of my officers required me to open the valve, by myself, every time, until I qualified.  The next premise is tied to the third.  Both assume that women cannot learn the things that are required for basic mechanical engineering.  When I joined the Navy, I had no idea what the tools of the trade were, let alone how to use them, but directly after boot camp, all mechanics are sent to “A” school where they teach you everything you ever have to know to be a mechanic, starting from the names of wrenches and screwdrivers.  I had the highest grade in my class of thirty with a 3.83 (out of 4.0).  Following that was a school designed to teach the engineering and nuclear side of our jobs, which I graduated in the top ten percent of our class of three hundred, again with a 3.8 average.  The idea that a woman cannot learn what is required is obviously untrue as well.  The last premise is a fallacy based on lopsided numbers.  The best ratio of men to women I ever saw through school and actual shipboard experience was thirty-five to one.  With an even percentage of over achievers and underachievers within each sex, there will still be more males in the upper echelons of ability than females simply because there are so many more men than women in this field.  None of this proves that men are more capable mechanics than women.  However, it was the reigning thought process “in the plant.”  When I got to the ship, many of the men I worked for assumed that I would not be worth training, either because I would not learn or because I would not be onboard long enough to go through the trouble, so they did not train me to do specific jobs as they did for others.  Without the specific training, I did not live up to my full potential as a maintenance person, even as I excelled as an operator.  Due to this stereotyping, I was one-sided as a mechanic rather than well-rounded.

The second stereotype is about female sailors in general. Women flirt to get ahead.  Male sailors are away from their wives and girlfriends for extended periods.  Therefore, female sailors will take advantage of superiors by sleeping around or flirting to get ahead.  This is one of the more obvious stereotypes from my time in the Navy.  At one point, I was the entirety of the divisional rumor mill, and had as many as fifteen men that I was supposedly dating or sleeping with.  Taking the argument apart, we start with the emotional aspect of being in the Navy.  It is hard to argue with, especially since nearly every unmarried woman that came to the ship wound up dating somebody from within the confines of that steel.  However, it does not mean that all women date within their division.  The other side of the argument assumes all women are willing to lower themselves and manipulate others to gain special treatment.  This was another common thought among the men I worked with.  There were several watches that had to be qualified, each one consisting of several “check-outs” followed by an exam and an oral board.  Many of the men I worked for refused to sign check-outs for me, or made them excessively difficult compared to my male counterparts’ check-outs, because they did not want to appear to be favoring a female.  Others tried to give me check-outs for nothing, but those I refused because they had reputations for being the kind of men that expect the women to flirt with them.  In all, I wound up studying more for the operation of the plant than many of the men did, which increased my operational knowledge, even if I was slower to qualify because of that extra knowledge I was required to show.

Finally, the last stereotype about women in the Navy is about the unique ability of women to get pregnant. Women who get pregnant are removed from the ship.  Several women get pregnant before long deployments.  Therefore, women get pregnant to get out of deployment. Some of the men I worked with said that if they were able to get pregnant to get out of an eight-month deployment, they would, but this is another fallacy.  There are many reasons a woman may decide to get pregnant.  I found out I was pregnant only a few weeks before our ship went on deployment, and some of the men in my division called me selfish, claiming that I only got pregnant to get out of the deployment.  The logic of taking on a lifelong responsibility to get out of a six-month responsibility is ludicrous to me, but there are women in the past who have done so, sometimes opting for an abortion after their chance of returning to the ship has passed.  My husband and I had been trying for over a year to get pregnant, and as deployment got near, I considered putting our family-building on hold because of this stereotype.  I did not want to add to any negative stereotype of the women following behind me.  However, there were many reasons, including my family’s medical history, that I wanted to start my family immediately, and I knew I would regret it if the Navy was the reason I could not have children of my own.  In the end, I decided that what my husband and I wanted was more important than what the men on the ship thought, especially since I would never speak to most of them again.

The three largest stereotypes about women in my field, that women are not good mechanics, that women flirt or sleep around to get ahead, and that women get pregnant to shirk responsibility, had an impact on both my image and my professional life.  Most of the time, I chose to actively, and sometimes aggressively, fight against the stereotype, but I had to be careful not to go against what I wanted while doing so.  I may not have been well-rounded as a mechanic, but I was a good operator, and have a beautiful baby girl to show for it all.

References

Ditto, P. (n.d.). How pre-existing beliefs distort logical reasoning [Video file].  Retrieved from Ashford University Intelecom Network database.  (Clip file INT_IO_13K_005)

Kemick, A. (2010, August 12).  Stereotyping has lasting negative impact.  U.S. News and World Report.  Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/08/12/

Mosser, K. (2011).  Logic: An introduction.  Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/

Advertisements

11/02/2011 Posted by | College Papers | , | Leave a comment

Paul Revere

Today, May 10, is the anniversary of the death of Paul Revere.

Paul Revere was born in Boston, December of 1734, as Paul Rivoire, to a French Huguenot immigrant. His father was a goldsmith, and Paul was the second of many children, and the oldest surviving son. Paul was 19 when his father died, leaving the family business to him.

In 1756, Revere volunteered to fight the French at Lake George, NY as a 2nd Lt. in the colonial artillery. In August 1757, Revere married Sarah Orne, with whom he had eight children. After Sarah’s death in 1773, he married Rachel Walker, and had eight more children.

Revere was an accomplished goldsmith and silversmith, and his work was highly praised in his lifetime. He worked as a copper plate engraver and illustrator for books, magazines, business cards, political cartoons, bookplates, song books, and bills of fare for taverns during the pre-Revolution economic depression. He was also a dentist from 1768-1775, but never made George Washington’s teeth.

Revere was a member of the Masonic Lodge of St. Andrew, and gathered intelligence by watching the movements of British soldiers. He was a courier for the Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Massachusetts Committee of Safety, riding to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. He also spread word of the Boston Tea Party to New York and Philadelphia.

At 10 pm, April 18, 1775, Revere was told by Dr. Joseph Warren to ride to Lexington to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams of the British approach.

Two associates rowed him across the Charles River to Charlestown, where he borrowed a horse from his friend, Deacon John Larkin. While there, he verified that the local Sons of Liberty chapter saw his pre-arranged signal of “Two if by sea”, two lanterns hung in the belltower of Christ Church in Boston. The “by sea” indicated that they would row across Charles River to Cambridge, rather than marching across Boston Neck, by land.

Revere then rode north towards Lexington, stopping at each house to warn the countryside. A sentry near the house where Adams and Hancock were told him to stop making so much noise. His reply? “Noise! You’ll have noise enough before long. The regulars are coming out!”

Two other riders, William Dawes and Dr. Samuel Prescott, on the same mission by another route, met up with Revere. They decided to continue to Concord where weapons and supplies were hidden. All three were arrested by a British patrol, Dawes and Prescott escaped quickly, but Revere was held for a bit longer, then released. Revere returned to Lexington in time to see part of the battle on the Lexington Green.

After the Revolution, he expanded his business, opening a small hardware store until 1789. In 1788, he opened a foundry for shipyards, which created the brass fittings for the USS Constitution, along with bolts, spikes, nails, cannons, and bells. One of his largest bells still hangs in Boston’s Kings Chapel.

In 1801, he opened the first American copper rolling mill to end dependence on British copper. The USS Constitution’s hull was sheeted with Revere’s copper, as well as the Massachusetts State House dome in 1803. “Revereware” copper bottomed pots and pans are now made by another company, but started out from Revere Copper and Brass, Inc., a descendant of Revere’s rolling mill.

Revere died of natural causes May 10, 1818, at the age of 83, leaving his well-established copper business to his sons and grandsons. He is buried in Boston’s Granary Burying Ground.

05/10/2011 Posted by | Learning | , , , | Leave a comment

U-110 and the Enigma machine

Today, May 9, marks the anniversary of the capture of the U-110 and its Enigma machine.

German submarines, Unterseeboot or U-boats, were the bane of the North Atlantic during World War II. A U-boat had been responsible for the sinking of the Lusitania during World War I.

U-110 was commissioned November 21, 1940, under Kptlt. Fritz-Julius Lemp, the only commanding officer she would ever know. The boat sank three ships for a total of 10,149 tons, and damaged two more, but what she is most known for happened May 9, 1941.

Along with U-201, the U-110 was attacking an Allied convoy. Lemp spent too long confirming his kill through the periscope, and HMS Aubretia, a convoy escort, spotted it, dropping depth charges. Those first charges were unsuccessful, but the HMS Bulldog and HMS Broadway joined in. Lemp was forced to surface, and the Bulldog set a course to ram the wounded sub. At the last moment, the Bulldog realized a capture might be possible, and tried to shift course, but still managed to clip it. Lemp called Abandon Ship, thinking the secrets would sink with the boat, but while in the water, he realized the boat was not sinking! He attempted to swim back, but was supposedly shot by a British sailor.

This capture was one of the most important  of the war, as inside one sailor found an odd looking typewriter. They had found the Enigma machine and several code books. All the sailors were sworn to secrecy, and the Germans were unaware that the Enigma machine and its code books were captured for some time. Finally, after years of code-breaking and attempted capture attempts, the Allies were able to understand secret U-boat transmissions.

As a bonus tidbit, Ian Fleming, later the author of the James Bond series, actually helped plan some Enigma capture operations.

05/09/2011 Posted by | Learning | , , , , , | Leave a comment