Women on US submarines

Con begins by citing 5 links that he claims depict proof of degradation of real unit performance. None of his sources say or prove that; he simply cited articles that agree with his position. Obviously citing a source that simply upholds your opinion doesn't mean you've actually proven anything. I asked if Con had proof that women significantly degrade co-ed units, and even more specifically if there was proof that this would happen on a sub. The links merely argue that women shouldn't be allowed on subs, that they won't be able to keep up, etc. To quote his USA Today article, the gender specifications are there for practical reasons - not bias. However, I've already negated those "practical issues" and I will once again in this final round. Con continues by saying that ships are easier to serve on than subs, yet co-ed ships were shut down due to rampant sexual misconduct. As such, women shouldn't even be allowed to try and serve on subs. I negate. First, Con admits that subs are far different than ships meaning there is no way to guarantee that the same behavior will carry over. Second, this can be at least hindered by harsh penalties for violations. Third, because women being allowed onboard has garnered so much preparation and media attention, people may behave differently. Fourth, not all people are the same; some are more professional. I could go on and on. A basic analogy is considering the legalization of alcohol. There have been TONS of alcohol mishaps: drunk driving accidents, bar fights, etc. Yet alcohol isn't BANNED on the basis of being alcohol alone. Instead it's permitted - as people have the RIGHT to consume it - and instead any negative individual situation is dealt with and punished accordingly. Con mentions health risks regarding pregnancy; I've already said that pregnancy should be forbidden (and there ARE ways to protect yourself) -- any woman who gets pregnant does so at her own risk. Con saying IF a woman gets pregnant that their MIGHT be health problems is just a way to increase the possible negative "what if" scenarios in a desperate attempt to build his case. Well WHAT IF a man got a rampant STD on board and the sub doctor was "not qualified" to deal with the problems? When it comes to health, there is no way to protect or prepare yourself against any and everything. Con is grasping at straws. Once again Con implies that I am being manipulative. He says I claimed that he finds the CRA immoral, that he thinks rape in stressful situations is permissible, etc. Here he strawmans my arguments as I have never said these things. Instead, I asked him to explain why he believes the CRA is not relevant, and I pointed out that he would rather uphold seniorority in terms of sleeping quarters rather than extend the offer for women to sleep privately so as to avoid rape (a blatant problem in the military). Pro HAS said that the seniorority system in terms of sleeping quarters is more important than giving someone preferential treatment for something on the basis of their gender alone in R4 -- so clearly you can see that I'm not altering what he says. However, in the last round Con said that "of course" women should get their own sleeping quarters. I maintain that whether they do or not is irrelevant (I think they SHOULD GET the space, but if they don't, c'est la vie). As I will continue to state, women know what they're getting themselves into when they sign up for this kind of thing. Con mentions masturbating men on the bunk beneath you... haha yes I have actually experienced that to answer your question... but regardless, my point remains that while life on the sub will be difficult (and perhaps gross), that many women can handle it - and Con agrees - so these minor issues about the things Con finds "icky" are kind of irrelevant considering many women do not get rattled by these things. And again, there's no guarantee that men will behave in these exact same ways. In his next point, Con points out that requiring women to have female escorts will be more work for the crew. Once again, I have been advocating EQUAL TREATMENT (at the very least) - not necessarily the Navy's proposed plan. I agree the plans are good (i.e. escorts for 1-man situations) but I never argued for it. Instead the only thing I have been arguing is discriminating on the basis of gender ALONE. Con continues, "Why should this [better behavior] not occur BEFORE women are integrated rather than hoping they will be a catalyst?" I agree. If more preparation needs to occur, than so be it. That doesn't mean that women need to forever be banned though on the basis of their sex. According to the navy, this has been "in the works" for awhile and they think they're prepared. If they're not, the women will soon find out. In P4, Con says that I believe marriage is immoral which is a BLATANT STRAW MAN as I have never said such thing. Instead all I said was that Con only intends to care about the marriage and families of married men, whereas the women who join may be married too (we have a married military woman on this site) or have a partner of some kind. It's unfair to assume that because one is female or not legally married that they do not want or deserve the same opportunities to serve in places that is less strenuous on their own personal life or relationships. Con concludes his 5 points by noting that sex on subs will be a huge issue, and one could have sex while they are supposed to me monitoring a reactor causing a safety hazard. Couldn't the same be said about masturbating? Again, Con seems focused on blaming the women here for the men's misconduct or at least ONLY the women as if misconduct isn't rampant even without women. Con admits all throughout this debate that it is, so basically he's operating only under the assumption that having women on board will make it worse. And who knows - maybe that's the case (in terms of conduct). However, this is STILL not a justifiable reason to disallow women on the basis of gender alone. WOMEN SHOULD NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE **MEN** MAY USE POOR JUDGMENT AND CONDUCT AROUND THEM - and already do. As I said, this is akin to blaming a woman for her own rape. Her existence may have excited the man causing him to do unsafe things - things that would have never happened had she not been there - but we can't oppress women (and it IS oppression by the standard that there is no way out of it) because of possible negative consequences. In his conclusion, Con says that war is an unfair place and the military must also exist unfairly as a way to sustain it. His sources note the inability to handle combat/stress; I've already combatted this by saying only able and competent women should be allowed to serve. He mentioned pregnancy and health risks; again that's a negative "what if" scenario. I've responded in regard to the sleeping arrangements. In the end, what does Con's ENTIRE argument come down to? Sexual misconduct, and preferential treatment on behalf of enlisted married men. It's funny how he thinks preferential treatrment based on gender is wrong, but based on a personal relationship commitment (which some women - most in the military are lesbians - cannot even LEGALLY MAKE i.e. more oppression) is acceptable. This is hypocrisy. Con's whole case is based on possible negative "what ifs" and oppressing women for men's mistakes. He prides his case on practicality, but the most practical thing to do is assume that mishaps will happen no matter what - and you should prepare for them and handle them - but overall the MOST QUALIFIED should serve, or the ones likely to be the best for the job OVERALL should serve, with the key factor here being REGARDLESS of their sex. There are going to be issues no matter what (as Con explained) and there's been no proof that allowing women would be more trouble - just speculation.