Women on US submarines

Before getting to my contentions, I'd like to address a few misconceptions. According to Con, I am portraying him as sexist and accusing him of trying to keep women down. I am doing no such thing. While I believe my opponent's POV is sincere, I disagree that women should be oppressed on the basis of their sex. I am against affirmative action; I don't think individuals should be advanced based on characteristics such as race, gender, etc. Nobody should be given preferential influence because of something they can't control (like sex); similarly I don't think anyone should specifically be HELD BACK for the same reason. As I have explained throughout the debate, I do not think women who do not meet the necessary qualifications to serve on a sub should be permitted to do so. However, if a woman proves to be just as qualified as a man, then it is morally wrong and impractical as well as illegal to hinder an individual from advancing their career based on what sex they happened to be born. That is oppressive. Con begins, "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." Right here Con implies that women are not capable of doing the same job as men. This is contradictory to everything I have been saying throughout the debate thus straw manning my argument. If a woman cannot perform the necessary tasks for a submarine worker then I do not think she should be given the job based on demanding equality. However, if women have the same qualifications, experience and abilities as men then they should be allowed to serve. Therefore saying I have no regard for the ship's success is Con's way of (a) misconstruing my argument and (b) implying that women are too incompetent for the job at hand. I've already explained all of the ways in which women can be just as mentally tough as men and therefore can do just as good of a job. Again, performance and tolerance is subjective. There are undoubtedly some women who can handle this job. Con continues, "If you are concerned with equality, let the military defend against societies that treat you like dogs." This is a blatant red herring that distracts from the real argument at hand. It's also fallacious reasoning; Con says that if we want equality we must accept inequality. Next Con writes that military life is tough and that the problems in the military lie in the fact that it's hard work. Again, I never said otherwise. However just because it's a tough job doesn't mean that we have to accept law-breaking and ignore injustices. Nobody is denying that being a soldier can be rough, but that excuse (especially for this voluntary career) cannot be used to justify rape, sexual harassment or blatant disregard for professionalism. Con writes, "Lewin's equation states that behavior is a function of the environment and the individuals... To fix behavior, you must fix the environment." He then calls me callous for expecting adults entrusted and expected to be respected by civilians to espouse some maturity in their social interaction. All I see here are excuses about why bad behavior is acceptable. This is contradictory to Pro's own assertion. If to fix behavior you must fix the environment, then maybe adding a mix to the environment or external social factors to the environment will help improve conditions. Con continues, "You did not answer my point about women causing low standards in service academies." That's because the source Pro provided to back up the claim that claim does not work (his third source in R2). Until Pro provides a source I can look into, I won't have the opportunity to respond appropriately. Additionally this point is irrelevant to my case. I've already stated several times that women who do not meet the level of education or experience expected of men should not be given any preferential treatment. I never advocated lowering the bar to let women have an equal opportunity; instead I've said (and stand by) the fact that women should not be prohibited to serve on subs on the basis of their sex alone. Therefore when Con says, "Consider that women onboard ships have caused more harm than good" this again has nothing to do with my proposition. Also let it be noted that his assessment of Adm. Bruner is negative simply because the Adm. disagrees with his position. Regarding the tendency to become a "love boat," I don't see how this is relevant. For one thing I know a handful of women involved in the military and they are all lesbians (not asking and not telling, of course). For another, I don't see how one's personal romantic relationships effect the submarine's performance or objectives in the grand scheme of things. Obviously it will be a factor, but romantic relationships should just be discouraged like hazing is discouraged. However as Con knows, hazing is inescapable and thus if the military can't protect their own soldiers I doubt they will be able to prohibit soldiers from engaging in positive activities (like fraternizing among themselves) either. All they can do at that point is put certain restrictions in their contracts. Next, Con regards the government as being above the law in saying that it should be able to use its discretion in whether or not to abide by the law (CRA). In that case, every business owner should be given that same discretion considering "the government" is nothing more than a collective body of fallible individuals. The CRA states that one's sex, race, etc. should not be a factor in employment because one good be just as capable or qualified as another regardless of those factors. That is what I stand by. So far Con's only argument is that allowing women onto the ship is comparable to allowing incompetent people on the ship (which is not what I'm advocating) or trading equality with effectiveness and safety. Just because some people may start up romantic engagements in no way says anything about a soldier's ability to perform their job well. If they fail to complete their objectives, they should be removed. However if they are able to engage in a romantic relationship, or abide by all codes and expectations, then their gender or personal life should be irrelevant. Con's entire argument is based on fallacies (i.e. package deal fallacy, appeal to probability, base rate fallacy, etc.). Con also encourages the is-ought fallacy; something ought to be one way simply because it already is one way. Just because so far men and women may have not been able to properly integrate in the military doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be made to change that circumstance. Before segregation was forced upon people, blacks and whites could not coexist peacefully either BUT that was change due to federal mandates. Psychology isn't objective or definite. Con says the CRA doesn't exist "to advance the INTERESTS OF FEW at the EXPENSE OF MANY, like putting women on subs." It actually exists to ensure that irrelevant factors aren't used as tools for oppression. Con insisting that women are an expense is something that has gone unproven and is based on nothing but assumptions and selective reasoning (ignoring the fact that I think only qualified women should serve onboard). Women can cope with the harsh reality of the military so their lifestyle is irrelevant. Con says that a woman getting particular sleeping quarters on subs will hurt morale. Apparently only the morale of MALES is relevant. What about the morale of female soldiers (and civilians) not being afforded certain opportunities? He says that having women on board does not help the ship any but ignores the reality that it helps JUSTICE. It also assumes that a woman could not be an asset. Whether Con would advocate his sister serving onboard or not is irrelevant. Again, this is a personal choice that should be an option to all of those who are qualified regardless of their genitals.