Women on US submarines

Con says he considers women to be just as competent and tough as men. In that case, his entire argument is based not on a woman's ability to perform her job well, but rather the negative repercussions she will have on the men around her because of the "stress" and temptation she will impose based on her gender alone. This is disgraceful. If a woman is raped, is it her fault for the effect she has on the guy - or is he held accountable for his own actions? Con assumes that the men on subs are not capable of being professional (which is probably difficult). However, it is completely unfair to punish women for this reality on the basis of their gender alone which they cannot change. Specifically holding people down on the basis of things like gender are what we consider tyrannical in most cases, and why we have laws against such terms of employment. Instead of addressing the problems of having women on board, Con wants to reinforce unfair policies. In P1, Con again states that it's unfortunate women cannot serve on subs when they can probably do as good of a job as men. Instead of giving women the opportunity to succeed and maybe positively impact the sub, Con wishes to avoid all change at women's expense. If life on the sub is so stressful and detrimental to the point where it costs 1/3 of the soldiers to quit and/or go insane, then maybe the military needs to reevaluate current policy and make adjustments rather than continuing to implement the same unsuccessful and oppressive policies. Another option would be giving women the opportunity to serve on all-female subs to avoid the "extra stress and temptation." Having certain standards, requirements, etc. is to be expected -- but turning a person away regardless of the qualifications based on negative "what ifs" because of their gender is wrong. In P2 Con notes, "I'm for [women] being on subs if it would not hurt the boat." Similarly, I'm for men being on subs if they won't hurt the boat. It seems Con agrees that qualified women should be accepted on subs. In the case of the sub being affected because men can't handle women aboard, I don't see how it's fair that women are turned away because men can't adjust. The same grave warnings were given regarding women after WWII, but they proved that women can successfully enter a co-ed workforce. In P3 Con says, "Women would not fit in the sub culture that evolved to deal with the stress." Right here we can see Con blatantly pointing out women as being inferior (in terms of handling stress) yet he continues to assert that I am straw manning him. This is a direct quote from Con. Con says that I have offered no alternatives to lowering stress on the subs; clearly that is not my burden in this debate. My concern is to show why women should not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender alone. How people cope with stress on subs should be left for the professionals and those with psychological experience to decide or advocate. Pro also mentions the moral dilemmas of soldiers here; again sappy soldier stories are touching but not really relevant to this debate. I know soldiers like to talk about "how easy civilians have it" and that might be true but again it's kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand. Con says, "Women will not have to serve on the more strenuous boats, nor will they have to bunk with enlisted sailors but will automatically stay in an area designated for more senior officers. This special treatment comes AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS. But Pro says "nobody should be given preferential influence because of [sex]." First, I never said I agreed that women should be kept off of the "more strenuous boats." I have specifically repeated that women should be treated with the same professional expectations of men if they sign up to take part in the same jobs. Second, while I think women having their own sleeping quarters is important (considering the fact that our soldiers tend to be rapists) I understand that Con's fierce defense of seniority is more important - thus I think it would be okay for women to bunk with the men. If they want the same rights then they should be afforded the same privileges. In that case you can throw Con's special treatment argument out the window; I never said that women should be given special sleep treatment (though it would be nice to be on the safe side) -- again I just advocated gender neutral job opportunities. In P5 Con says, "Past history shows that mixing sexes has degraded military units." I've seen proof that this is true about military training, but never actual units. Can you source this, Con? Has this happened on more than one occasion? Has it ever been tried on a sub or in a situation like a sub? By the way I don't ever remember calling this "irrelevant" as Con says I have. Con asks, "Pro, what is irrelevant about a ship that could not go to sea due to rampant sexual harassment?" Again this is nothing but speculation about what COULD happen and not necessarily what will happen. Also, notice how Con suddenly cares about tax dollars in saying they will be wasted as a result of females on subs, but yet does not see a problem in expecting women to pay taxes even though he supports women being prohibited from publicly funded employment opportunities on the basis of their gender. P6 says, "Pro wants to put the dreams of a few above the safety of thousands." Again, notice how Con makes it seem like it will be the end of military life as we know if it we let those feisty women on board. He brings up the dangers of sub workers having sex in the ports; however, that happens and will happen regardless of whether women work on the subs or not. I believe men should be entrusted with the responsibility to remain professional. If they can't handle it then they should not be onboard. Con is in favor of just acknowledging the mistakes of sub workers but not punishing them, apparently. In P7 Con appeals to emotion by talking about how rough it is for married couples that have a husband working on the sub. That's unfortunate, but irrelevant to the argument. It is not the job of ANYONE to ensure that another's marriage succeeds or is made easier. We can't stop co-ed work because some people are cheaters. Marriage is a personal responsibility. Con writes, "We both agree women aren't at fault for causing these issues, but Pro uses this as a convenient excuse to dismiss them when ignoring them could cost lives." No, what I am saying is that if women aren't the cause of the problem - which Con agrees - then it's not fair to punish them specifically. Why aren't the men punished? I agree that the problems Con mentions exist; however, I suggest dealing with those problems when they arise and aiming for prevention though not enacting blatant and unjust (immoral and illegal) discrimination in the process. There has to be a better way to make it so the ship is protected while not infringing upon an American's right to pursue their dream in terms of their career and livelihood. Making special adjustments such as extending the benefit of special sleeping quarters for women is one way to help the situation, though Con notes that any helpful adjustments are not fair because it gives women special privileges (which is funny considering he agreed that women were automatically disadvantaged going into the situation to begin with). Con says that I "fail to acknowledge that Congress forced the Navy to lower standards." I acknowledge this but I am against it. I am not responsible for the navy's previous mistakes but rather explaining why discriminating based on gender is wrong. Con concludes, "It is not a matter of unqualified women causing problems, but ALL women causing these problems." He pigeonholes all women into this group of unqualified troublemakers that should continue to be held down and accepted as just "unfortunate." How un-American.