As people evolve and change, these roles can also adapt and change with the culture of the people. There are basic physical difference between men and women, but socially and mentally, these differences should not effect how we one sex acts or is thought to act one way or another.
However, with this being said, the recent battle over women working on submarines has stirred quite a controversy again over the age old fight between man and woman. Who should decide where the line between equality and too much is drawn And if a woman cannot do the job as well as a man, should she still be allowed to do it simply for the face of equality "The US Navy argues it would cost $300,000 per bunk to permit women to serve on submarines", but yet even simply economics can't stop people from arguing for women onboard subs (Submarine) Defense experts have also quoted the numbers as much as "4 Million Each" to make the repairs needed for the subs( Dougherty).
The fact is simple and clear however when it comes to women working on submarines. Due to the myriad of problems that arise with women onboard a submarine, it is simply not fair to the safety of our nation to admit women aboard submarines, even if it is in the name of "equality".
"Women on subs is a terrible idea. The Navy's highest-ranking admirals are strongly opposed" speaks Phyllis Schlarfly ( Schlafly ). Schlarfly goes on to explain the tight living quarters in the subs, and how life is no walk in the park down there, and room is already cramped. He explains that "The ship alterations necessary to accommodate women on subs would further reduce living standards or, alternatively, make it necessary to remove operational equipment. These millions of dollars would be spent just to please the civilian feminists in the Pentagon, not to improve readiness or morale" (Schlafly). Simply stated, the simply physical limitations of the subs could not withstand the addition of women on board, let alone would it be able to make enough room for them and the ample technology that is needed on board as well. We could have women on our subs, but at the expense of having less well armed submarines and sub-par technology on board. And I don't think that it is a risk we should be willing to take.
Another columnist Michael DiMercurio added his expertise to the matter stating that "After arriving at the Academy, it was clear to see that the women had lower physical standards, which seemed absurd when we were preparing for combat. At an institution where the unofficial motto was, "if the minimum weren't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum," suddenly there was a special exception for girls - a shorter wall on the obstacle course, longer time to run the mile, fewer chinups. It might sound petty, but back then these were the things that defined the difference between passing and being kicked out of the Academy. In 1976, we woke up one morning to find that the women's lower obstacle course wall had been painted hot pink, with a "Woman Power" fist superimposed. The culprits of that "recon raid" were never brought to justice" (DiMercurio).
And while DiMecrurio concludes that he felt women should be allowed in, I believe his tales at the Academy show that women simply do not have the same physical make up that men do, and are thus less prepared for combat intensive situations like submarines. Would we let a sub-par man work our subs Of course we wouldn't, but we would let a women get in at lower standard levels