Navy To Allow Women To Serve On Submarines

[Brian]

Sept 8, 2010 11:17:42 GMT -5 Pax said:

Brian, I disagree with your reasoning and conclusions on this issue, but that won't come as a surprise to you, given our thoroughly detailed opposed positions on it. :-). You obviously feel very strongly about this, and there is nothing I can say that would change your mind -- not that I expected to anyway.

I'm glad you'd be open to at least opening it to a few boats to see what happens. That would meet my requirement to at least try.

Otherwise - I plan, once again, to not post again on this issue... we can agree to disagree.

Thanks for your message, Pax; that goes for everyone else here, too. Although we continue to disagree, I do appreciate the opinions of those here who have contributed to this thread.

If there is one notion I'd like to conclude with here, it is this (and I hope folks will keep this in mind) : I do not gleefully hold the view that I do on this issue. In fact, I get no pleasure from it at all.

That's because while I truly believe coed subs are a BAD idea, there's no escaping the fact that the historical results of such a policy has been to deny women access to the submarine service--wholly on the basis of their gender. Yes, it's unfair. So--believe it or not--I don't like having to hold the view that I do. I wish there was an easy answer. But I've thought about this issue a great deal. In fact, I thought about it quite a bit again during my most recent submarine tour at the Carnegie Science Center.

So again, I'm just like the rest of you in that I too realize how UNFAIR the policy has been towards women. It's just that I also believe that the "equality" issue involved is not what (in the end) should be shaping the policy. The military, by its very nature, must have different considerations when it comes to structuring our armed forces. That means there may need to be times when equality concerns simply have to take a back seat to other considerations. The submarine issue, I believe, is one of the rare instances.

Thanks again, everyone. As Pax said, we can agree to disagree.

[oskar]

Amazing that some consider unfounded opinion to be more compelling than evidence.

[Brian]

The policy is being changed, Oskar. That's a reality. Women are going to serve on submarines.

And believe it or not, I hope I'm WRONG regarding all my reservations about male/female submarine crews.

I don't believe I am, but this is one example where'd I'd "prefer" to be wrong in my arguments.

[MacBeth]

What evidence exists points toward you being wrong on this one, so hopefully that will give you some comfort

[oskar]

Sept 14, 2010 18:01:56 GMT -5 Brian said:

The policy is being changed, Oskar. That's a reality. Women are going to serve on submarines.

And believe it or not, I hope I'm WRONG regarding all my reservations about male/female submarine crews.

I don't believe I am, but this is one example where'd I'd "prefer" to be wrong in my arguments.

I'm simply intrigued that your opinion flies in the face of concrete evidence that integrated crews do work and you have nothing to prove otherwise. I'm stumped by that type of attitude.

[Brian]

Sept 15, 2010 12:32:26 GMT -5 oskar said:

Sept 14, 2010 18:01:56 GMT -5 Brian said:

The policy is being changed, Oskar. That's a reality. Women are going to serve on submarines.

And believe it or not, I hope I'm WRONG regarding all my reservations about male/female submarine crews.

I don't believe I am, but this is one example where'd I'd "prefer" to be wrong in my arguments.

I'm simply intrigued that your opinion flies in the face of concrete evidence that integrated crews do work and you have nothing to prove otherwise. I'm stumped by that type of attitude.

But we have much more evidence that non-integrated crews work well, too. And the examples you mentioned are the isolated exceptions rather than the rule.

[oskar]

Sept 18, 2010 17:35:41 GMT -5 Brian said:

Sept 15, 2010 12:32:26 GMT -5 oskar said:

But we have much more evidence that non-integrated crews work well, too. And the examples you mentioned are the isolated exceptions rather than the rule.

Really?
So where has it not worked?