Women on US submarines

Pro repeatedly reads into what I say. I never called women incompetent. I said women are stronger (not physically but mentally, etc). Pro says my entire argument is based on fallacies when I've provided two important details (SSBNs and berthing) she keeps downplaying. But up until now Pro has not understood my arguments due to her zeal to defend accusations of women being incompetent, even though it was never even said. So I'll lay them out sequentially: 1. It is unfortunate women can't serve on subs when they can probably do as good a job 2. I'm for them being on subs if it would not hurt the boat 3. Women would not fit in the sub culture that evolved to deal with the stress, and would limit this stress release route which is one of the few things the crew has going for them. Pro says the crew should quit being unprofessional, but offers NO ALTERNATIVE to lower stress. Pro says that I condone this behavior when I said clearly I do not agree with it but I do understand it is a complicated subject that civilians should be thankful they don't have to deal with rather than being judgmental to those who serve. I hope Pro appreciates the moral issues veterans had to face while preserving her freedom. 4. Women will not have to serve on the more strenuous boats (SSNs) 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]". 5. Past history shows that mixing sexes has degraded military units. Pro says this is irrelevant. Pro, what is irrelevant about a ship that could not go to sea due to rampant sexual harassment? Wasting taxes is not irrelevant. 6. The SUBFOR priorities are: reactor, boat, mission, and crew IN THAT ORDER. The needs of the crew are less important than the needs of the ship. Unlike a civilian job, a mistake can cost lives. In port, a reactor malfunction can threaten the safety of hundreds of thousands of nearby civilians. Sailors having sex in port while they are supposed to monitor the reactor is serious. It is immoral for the sake of the civilians to risk this when "hope" is the only plan Pro offers to prevent it. Pro wants to put the dreams of a few above the safety of thousands. 7. Submariners spend 75% of their time at work while civilians spend 25% of their time at work. The divorce rate is extremely high. Imagine the stress on the wives when they have to worry about their husbands' 3 new female shipmates, who their husbands see way more than their wives. Some already think their husbands love the boat more than their own family (how untrue! But sub life is hard on families too), and even when they are off it is hard to "leave the boat at the pier" mentally. It is hard enough on the families without adding female crewmembers and the associated temptations, jealousy, and rumors, which will be worse than those caused in a civilian job. I spent 70% of my nights on the ship and only 30% of those in my bed at home. Military marriages promote higher performance and stability, which makes them an asset to the country. These marriages should be protected from further divorces, not threatened. 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. We are not debating the cause of these problems but their existence. Pro says the obvious that only qualified women should serve. This isn't helpful considering SUBFOR has known that for 100 yrs. She fails to acknowledge that Congress forced the Navy to lower standards, limiting the ability to remove poor performers. Regardless, it is not a matter of unqualified women causing problems, but ALL women causing these problems. My opinion of Adm. Bruner is negative SIMPLY bc he disagrees with me? Note that Pro is making things up. His stance does not affect my opinion of him. First the admiral said extra medical testing for women would be unnecessary. Then when pressured he said these tests would occur. When? AFTER women are assigned? Why not BEFORE, if now these tests need to be done? That is incompetence. When Pro says I commit the package deal fallacy, she is mistaken and means to say that I am basing it on past history. Let it be said that Pro acknowledges romantic relationships can happen and she fails to understand its implication on a sub that goes to sea for months. She fails to see that men in their early 20s with the responsibility of operating a nuclear reactor on a ship carrying nuclear weapons in a high stress environment with very little sleep need as few distractions as possible. She suggested personal relations on a cramped sub would not be a problem. Yet I mentioned SUBFOR already has problems with unprofessionalism (she blames incompetence) that need addressing, and she proposes adding more. The women will be officers while the majority of the crew is enlisted, which can lead to fraternization, which is severely punished. She fails to understand that the military should get it right in other environments before committing to locking men and women for months on end in a cramped steel tube. Instead, she has no suggestions on how to prevent problems and instead implies "go ahead, we'll figure it out when we get there". Like Adm Bruner, she fails to realize that prevention is better than curing. "Cannot be used to justify rape"? When did I say rape is justifiable? It's ALWAYS wrong! And if I never said it, why would Pro think I believe it? She quoted statistics that rapes happen frequently in the military, and she supports further integration, this time in an environment much more strenuous than a surface ship where harassment is very common. Pro says they should have restrictions to prevent hooking up. But these restrictions will create extra work in a community that is way beyond overworked, lowering effectiveness. The restrictions are implied.. it's called the UCMJ and jail. Has that stopped all those rapes Pro quoted? Besides, I never brought rape into this and do not think rape will happen. Nor have I heard in my MANY conversations with other sub guys about females onboard that rape will happen. A sub has the privacy of a house party.. enough to hide and have sex but it would be nearly impossible to rape. The furthest you could possibly get from anyone is about 40 feet, with one exception. I didn't say government is above the law, I said the military should be given a legal exception to EEO laws in rare and justifiable cases. You don't deserve to be on a sub because it is your dream. You deserve to be there because you meet the sub's needs. A warship is not responsible for solving societal problems and should be excluded from some societal norms that would hurt performance. As a submariner I understood that I was giving up some of my basic rights by serving in the military. If Pro thinks the military is no different than the civilian world and therefore should not have some allowances for this, then tell me how many human beings her company has had to kill. Thankfully, since leaving the military I am under a different set of rules as a civilian. Why is it so easy for her, then, to impose laws on the military that were written for the civilian world and do not consider unique military situations? Societal norms do not always translate 1 to 1 to the military. Civilians who are that concerned about how the military does things should try it themselves. Wait, they did… with a company called Blackwater that was so unethical the Iraqi government banned them. I devote this debate to the women who serve in our military, a group I admire and want to see succeed. If the Navy wasn't setting these females up for failure, then I'd change my mind. But Pro has not yet changed my mind any.