Women on US submarines

The Navy is making a mistake in allowing women on subs, and the actual plan to effect that policy is relevant in this debate. I agree exclusion on the basis of gender alone is wrong, and I already support all women subs (have for years), but that's not what the Navy is not proposing. It's an inappropriate place for ANY gender mixing, and if subs today were all women, I'd oppose men. Pro and the Navy suggest making few salient changes but instead rely on hope. When the Navy learns how to mix genders, I'll change my mind. Pro asked for proof of degradation of real unit performance: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Ships offer more time off, less sea time, more privacy, and less stress than subs, giving sailors more stress release options and chances for love and sex outside of work. Yet I still WITNESSED a ship that was shut down for investigation for rampant sexual misconduct (also a female officer bragging about timing a pregnancy to miss a deployment). Ships can never expose a fetus to radiation. Someone unknowingly pregnant is an extra risk for medical evacuation. I've been under the polar ice cap, unable to surface to evacuate someone. Navy regs require medical care within 6 hours for women in case they are pregnant, and the 1 medic onboard is not qualified. [4] EEO is not so one can get their dream job at the organization's expense if comparable jobs are available. It is law because if you don't make all companies comply, none will, and there will be some who can't get ANY job at their talent level. An exception for the military in rare, justifiable cases, like today's SUBFOR, is not only wise, but legal: "Congress and the courts, in no less than seven major Supreme Court decisions, have held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to the military profession" [3]. Pro turns my logic to universally unethical statements, such as: I think CRA is immoral, I condone rape under stress, I dislike those solely for disagreeing with me, I consider women inferior, etc. Her mass appeal tactics may sway voters that lack critical thinking skills, but smart voters will notice this. Her case is: (A) Women can do the job, (B) and it is legal and fair to let them. I and the Navy agree with A and am debating B. 1. Special treatment. The chances of getting an SSBN (there are less spots on these than desired) is now decreased for men. Pro says "what if the women are married" when we know few will be. Pro finally admitted that stealing berthing for women from more senior officers was unfair, so now Pro suggests sharing berthing with men. Has Pro ever had to sleep in a bunk bed while a man above or below her was whacking off? At work, does Pro change her underwear in front of men? Of course they should get 3 man, showing the need for special arrangements. Also, it costs millions per person [1] to redesign subs for women. This article is 10 yrs old, so the costs are even higher due to inflation. Building a co-ed sub is a start, but that takes a decade, and these women will be in the fleet next year. 2. Extra work. In port, each officer tours the ship at midnight every 3rd night. The officer is alone except for 3 men monitoring equipment in their zones. The officer encounters them 1 on 1, necessitating an escort. But she will mostly be alone with the escort, so 2 are needed. 3. Things like whacking off in bed that were not wrong without women will now be wrong, giving even less stress release options. Male bonding, identified in a Presidential Commission study as important for unit cohesion [3], will be impacted when as much stress relief as possible is needed since counseling and/or depression medication is prohibited by SUBFOR (the only part of the military that does this). Other behavior that is obviously wrong (lewdness, unprofessionalism, etc), WHICH I NEVER CONDONED, will not go away by more discipline. We had a drunk guy fall off a 3rd floor balcony. Harsh discipline followed. Just 6 wks later, a drunk guy fell off a roof and broke his back. Both were bright kids with good hearts (Pro may disagree) that became depressed from boat life. This culture is deeply ingrained, has complex causes, and won't just stop when they arrive. Why should this not occur BEFORE women are integrated rather than hoping they will be a catalyst? 4. More strain on marriages. The military is a FAMILY commitment, and the Navy acknowledges its responsibility to help families. Pro says the Navy owes families nothing. The crew considers Navy Wives part of the crew. Pro is imposing her own view that marriages is immoral, and is less concerned about threatening them than others are. 5. Pro draws attention from consensual sex, because women can also instigate sex, by mentioning rape, which is obviously bad. Sex in units causes divides, rumors, jealousy, and favoritism (real or perceived) within the unit and within marriages. Most sex will be based on lust, not love, and sailors who had sex will stay on the same crew, undermining discipline. Pro compares the workplace temptations of civilians, who get 3 hrs off for every 1 at work, to subs, which is just the opposite: 1 off for every 3 at work. Sex in port (if not amongst crew) during off hours is fine. Sex WHILE ENTRUSTED TO WATCH A REACTOR is a problem. 3 Mile Island did not have these problems, and they still endangered the surrounding populace. We should make a repeat less likely, not more. Mentioning a culture that is highly crude and lewd being unfit for women is not the same as saying they are inferior. Pro blames the culture on incompetence. We each have our own ways to deal with stress; Like most, I wasn't lewd but did other things. I was denied leave to see a friend 3 weeks before he died of cancer. I was working over 100 hours a week and got 8 days off that summer. A few months later I lost some of my saved leave "because I never used it". I cut corners (paperwork, not safety items) to get a day off. Excuse my incompetence. Pro's no excuse mentality is really an excuse to avoid fixing the Navy while individuals always get blamed for everything. I followed a procedure from a manual as ordered that was written wrongly, causing a very minor mistake. I was punished in a demeaning way, and the procedure was not fixed. One guy had to put his own child for adoption due to lack of time off and his performance briefly dropped (How would you punish him Pro?). A CO did not tell my friend his father died because the CO did not want him to miss sea time. SUBFOR leaves zero options to cope with stress and regularly denies leave requests. Pro trusts this organization to properly integrate women because they will. The Navy says what the public wants to hear, like in [2] where Mabus says they've learned their lessons, but the next paragraph says otherwise. War is evil. It causes suffering and does not advance humanity or fairness. Our military, which is not a public "employment opportunity" but a necessary evil, must work in this unfairness rather than avoid it. It PROVIDES jobs but is not made FOR jobs. You join the military to serve, not be served. You belong where the military needs you. Pro is for the idea that ANY social inequality MUST be fixed in the military REGARDLESS of outcomes, although "Civil society protects individual rights, but the military, which protects civil society, must be governed by different rules." [3]. Still, the military has made commendable efforts to allow women. Women pay taxes for the military, and in return they get lots of job opportunities (subs = 0 .5% of military, hardly oppressive) but most importantly, protection. Pro says I cast women as troublemakers, but I have made a clear case that women would introduce problems that are not their fault but still exist. I enjoy seeing women achieve overdue equality over time. But I refer voters to [1], written by a woman. Thanks for the great debate.. Good luck