Women on US submarines

Nice job. Great debate so far. Again, I'm for women's rights and support women. My argument is not that women can't do the job but that they can't be on a sub without causing more harm than good. In fact, if you can put women on the sub and its performance does not drop, then I would support them on subs… my position from the start. For you to think my arguments are based on "keeping women down", "that women are inferior", etc sounds like you are attacking society rather than my points. You have attacked not my arguments, but straw men [1]. You show no concern for the sub's effectiveness. A sub is a $2 BILLION ship designed to deter enemies and safeguard freedoms, not a social experiment. If you are concerned with equality, let the military defend against societies that treat you like dogs. Civilians like to judge the military's flaws. I was honest about my sub's flaws, however, you are wrong to blame "incompetence." The US has not built a civilian reactor in decades due to mistakes made by civilians. However, every year nuclear submarines are built that are operated by high school educated 20 yr olds that operate with less sleep, less pay, and more stress than most civilians can handle. I promise. There has never been a single mistake made by Naval nuclear operators affecting the reactor. The government trusts the Navy to build and operate reactors, not "incompetent" civilians. The problems in the military are not due to incompetence but the external demands placed on it. Most civilians never have the responsibility in their entire life that young enlisted submariners have. Civilians, always quick to judge, cannot do better and from my observations would likely do worse. I have been out for a year and I cannot believe how easy civilian life is. Lewin's equation states that behavior is a function of the environment and the individuals. Individual behavior is set. To fix behavior, you must fix the environment [1]. You are saying something very insulting to me when you say "Too bad, they need to get over it." That is callous and said easily by someone who has never served on a sub. You did not answer my point about women causing low standards in service academies. Also, consider that women onboard ships have caused more harm than good in the surface fleet in terms of readiness [2]. One destroyer next to us was ineffective because it had become a "love boat", a common occurrence in the fleet where many sailors are hooking up and not doing their job. I don't blame women personally for this, but this is what happens. Also, in [2] you can read about the incompetency of your friend Adm. Bruner. Take my personal testimony that just because Navy leaders support women on subs overtly, does not mean that in personal conversations they say the same things. The Navy is under pressure to do this… once again civilians cowardly forcing their agenda on the military without having to experience the pain of the adjustment. -Legal argument How is finding 1 example where EEO would hurt the effectiveness of a sub the same as saying CRA is immoral? That's a stretch! I said government should be allowed, in rare instances, to withhold some freedoms in the military in order to protect it for all of us. The CRA is good for humanity. I do not have the burden of proof to defend a point I never made. I give you credit for not saying something asinine like "you compared the CRA to Nazi Germany", realizing that I used it as an extreme example to show that what is legal can be unethical. Focusing on the letter of the law and not the spirit takes humanity out of it. CRA/EEO was passed to improve quality of life. It was not created to give one group a bigger piece of the pie at the expense of another group, but to make the pie bigger for everyone, on the assumption that we can give some people right without harming those who already had those rights. It was not to advance the INTERESTS OF FEW at the EXPENSE OF MANY, like putting women on subs. Normal society is different than the military. Would you want to be screamed at for not waking up at 0500? Just as military rules were made for the military and not for normal society, the same goes the other way around. That's why the military has its own legal system and is allowed to kill human beings in war. Societal norms should be subject to scrutiny to ensure they won't hurt the military (and cost lives) rather than being forced on the military. -Hazing Congress noticed many people were getting filtered out at training schools and it was costing money. So they lowered the standards. Now they get passed to the boats and the boats are now responsible for weeding them out. Blame Congress (civilians) for this problem, which is now worse and more expensive than the original problem. Report hazing and you're done. Someone who reports hazing will never get the help they need from that point on. It's easy to type in an air conditioned room about how you are not supposed to haze, but incompetent sailors can cost lives. Also, I didn't say it was right, but I recognize it's a tougher call to make than liberals do who have never served. Although it is ingrained, fortunately hazing is rare. Most of the screwing around is for fun and stress relief. Women on subs will block this stress release route, which evolved over decades to deal with the stresses of being in the highest suicide rate group in the military. I know you will mock our ways of stress relief and tell us to grow up, but I don't know if your work gives you suicidal thoughts like mine did for me. -Types of subs women will be on "This has absolutely nothing to do with anything… Is this for real? Too bad." Ignorant and heartless. Easy for you to say. The fact that women will screw up the carefully balanced officer rotation scheme which evolved over the decades because they cannot experience the SSN side means nothing? The fact that women automatically get the "good deal" type of sub without having to compete for it is no big deal? The fact that most of the married guys could go to SSBNs and everyone, including single guys, was happy with it will now change is not a big deal? -Sleeping Quarters Of course I think women should get the 3 man stateroom due to privacy. But it is unfair to the officers who have earned it and have to stay in 9 man. On a sub, where you sleep is based on seniority. It is a privilege someone who sleeps in a nice bed every night can't understand. I do not want women to have the same harshness, but I do not want their special treatment to hurt morale. You are willing to give up a lot in order to turn it into the Make a Wish Foundation. -Women=Useless Again, this is not what I said. I said women will be no better than men, therefore putting women on subs adds nothing that will overcome the problems created. Conclusion You are trying to win your arguments by making me sound like a closed minded pig, but I am not a pig. I have the same compassion and tolerance for others as you. But I am putting my idealism in the context of reality. The Bible forbids priests from molesting children. On paper, then, I should be able to allow my children around priests alone. But I would be unwise to do that because of what happens in reality. In the same way, on paper, putting women on subs seems like a good idea bc they meet the "requirements." But I would be unwise based on what I know to advise my sister to join. I am for women because I am for humanity. I want to see different groups succeed, but not at the expense of others. You are for women because you are for women, and are willing to push others down to get "equality", not realizing women submariners require special treatment, and not recognizing the harm of special treatment to a crew. Sources [1] Wiki [2] http://www.cmrlink.org...