Women In Combat

[Ali]

I wasn't sure where to put this since it was inspired by Rick Santorum's comments, but I also wanted a more general than political discussion.  If it needs to be moved to Politics, that's fine too.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/02/10/santorum_defends_statement_about_women_in_combat.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest

It is men's emotions, not women's, that Rick Santorum is worried about.

The White House hopeful on Friday attempted to clarify his recent remarks that appeared to suggest he believed that female soldiers should not be allowed closer to the frontlines of battle because they are too emotional to carry out their mission.


"I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved," Santorum said in an interview with CNN on Thursday, responding to a question about a Pentagon plan to ease restrictions on women serving in combat zones.


Some observers, including Washington Post conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin, were quick to point out that Santorum couldn't afford to make such a statement with women making up half the workforce and surpassing men in Bachelor's degrees.

In an interview with NBC's Today show on Friday, Santorum insisted that his original comments were taken out of context and that his concerns centered on what he said was a man's natural instinct to come to the aid of a woman.


"When you have men and women together in combat, I think men have the emotions when you see a woman in harm's way. I think that's something that's natural, that's very much in our culture to be protective," Santorum said.

Click the link to see the origianl interview.

So, what do you think?  Do you think that men would be more emotional seeing the women in their troops in danger or injured, and if you do think that, do you think that is a valid reason to keep women out of combat?  In other words, should the men's potential emotional response dictate what women are allowed to do?

[Davin]

Judging all the war stories I've heard from members of my family and my friends who have served and been in combat, I don't think it matters. My Grandpa rescued several of his buddies, I doubt he would been any more emotional if his buddies were women, I'm pretty sure the end result would be the same (him rescuing his buddies).

As much as politicians don't like it, members of the military are not emotionless machines bent on doing the bidding of their superiors no matter what. Almost all of them develope emotional bonds to the people they're serving with, if that's a problem, then maybe the problem isn't that there would be women, but that no amount of military training will remove all of a person's humanity.

Dunno about my rambling but I'll try to focus for this last bit: people will usually try to protect their friends if they're in harms way, I don't see how it's any different to try to rescue a male friend over rescuing a female friend.

[Ali]

I agree with you Davin.  I think that people in that situation forge very strong bonds regardless of the sex of the people they are serving with.  And the bottom line is that someone else's emotions are kind of their own problem.  That may sound harsh, but it just seems like such a crappy reason to put limits on equality. 

It's interesting, I've had the "Women in Combat" debate a few times, and even some of my most liberal male friends usually eventually come to the same argument:  Poor babies, you can't go out and be on the front lines and be the most likely to die.  To have such problems!  And I get that going out and dying isn't really some great priviledge, but what they don't seem to get is that sort of "I'm going to protect you because I know better than you what is good for you" attitude would be inexscusable towards another man.  Like women are just a bunch of perpetual children that can't make decisions like that for themselves.

[Whitney]

The argument that comes up most often from the anti women on the front lines group is related to hygene.  But I think that's from complete ignorance of how one might go about maintaining some level of hygene even if shower facilities are not available.  And it's not like men don't need to wash down there regularly too.

[Crow]

The argument that comes up most often from the anti women on the front lines group is related to hygene.  But I think that's from complete ignorance of how one might go about maintaining some level of hygene even if shower facilities are not available.  And it's not like men don't need to wash down there regularly too.

I have never really looked at the arguments against women on the front line as I think they have a right to be there if they want to be, but is hygiene really the strongest argument? That either shows how truly ignorant the anti women groups actually are or that they are grasping at straws to create some sort of argument without sounding downright misogynistic. Burn bags are more than adequate to solve the problem of hygiene and have been doing so for a good while.

[Asmodean]

Women are generally at a disadvantage vs. men in in melee combat because usually, men are physically stronger and larger, something for which the women have to compensate with superior skill, and getting there costs time and money. If they want to play with ranged weapons, however... Why not?

[Davin]

Women are generally at a disadvantage vs. men in in melee combat because usually, men are physically stronger and larger, something for which the women have to compensate with superior skill, and getting there costs time and money. If they want to play with ranged weapons, however... Why not?

If they can go through the same basic training, then there really isn't much of a difference.

[Crow]

Women are generally at a disadvantage vs. men in in melee combat because usually, men are physically stronger and larger, something for which the women have to compensate with superior skill, and getting there costs time and money. If they want to play with ranged weapons, however... Why not?

That's crap and you know it.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

It's pretty much time to get rid of all gender distinctions with respect to roles in employment, military service, political office, etc.  Regarding the military, it's clear that there are some women who would be better than most men in this role, even some that would be stronger, better shots, etc. than most men, so they should not be prevented from serving if they want to. It's a new world, in case Mr. Santorum hasn't noticed. 

[Asmodean]

That's crap and you know it.

Say you have a heavy ass club. The stronger you are, the more force you can put into each attack. Also, not being overly encumbered by the weapon means you don't have to make each attack count quite as much.

As an example, I can swing a sledgehammer quite a few times and usually hit what I'm aiming at in the same amount of time my ex would spend lifting the damned thing. We are comparable in terms of hours spent in the gym.

[En_Route]

The argument that comes up most often from the anti women on the front lines group is related to hygene.  But I think that's from complete ignorance of how one might go about maintaining some level of hygene even if shower facilities are not available.  And it's not like men don't need to wash down there regularly too.

If I was a woman (and I think I'd make quite a passable one, given the chance) I'd play the hygiene card; I have no desire to be shot at. Call me a Citizen of the World or a downright coward. There is no cause so noble that it's not worth running away for.

[Crow]

We are comparable in terms of hours spent in the gym.

By any chance when you went to the gym did you focus on weights and your girlfriend at the time focus on cardio?

[Asmodean]

If I was a woman (and I think I'd make quite a passable one, given the chance) I'd play the hygiene card; I have no desire to be shot at. Call me a Citizen of the World or a downright coward. There is no cause so noble that it's not worth running away for.

Like.

If someone wants to do a certain job and is sufficiently qualified (Regardless of pretty much anything except qualification and perhaps criminal record. really) let them. Why someone would want a frontline shoot-and-get-shot job, however, I don't quite get. To each his own, I guess...

To stick to the topic, men and women are not the same. However, as long as no preferential treatment is expeted, they should have equal opportunities. There are not far too many jobs that require a penis or a set of boobs to perform, but that doesn't mean that we can just slap a universal equals sign between them.

By any chance when you went to the gym did you focus on weights and your girlfriend at the time focus on cardio?

Not quite the opposite of that. Both concentrated on cardio and she was generally less lazy around the weights.

She could out-run me, but I could out-tractor her.

[Ali]

Asmo, I agree with you that some men would be more powerful than some women.  My husband and I both spend quite a bit of time at the gym, but I'm pretty sure he would trounce me in a fight.  He's 6'3 and powerfully built and I'm 5'7, and average build for a woman.  I think it's nonsensical to pretend like that's not true.  Having said that though, the way I think they should work is that they should set some physical and emotional and educational requirements for the job, and whoever can meet them, regardless of sex, should be eligible.  So if you require that I be able to carry 100 lbs and run a 6 minute mile, and I can do so, and a man can't, I get the job and he doesn't, no matter how much bigger than me he is.  Surely there are some men that are smaller than others in the army as well.

[Firebird]

Women are generally at a disadvantage vs. men in in melee combat because usually, men are physically stronger and larger, something for which the women have to compensate with superior skill, and getting there costs time and money. If they want to play with ranged weapons, however... Why not?

That's a pretty broad generalization. Yes, maybe in general men are stronger than women. Then again, when I had a personal trainer at my gym, she was female, and I'm pretty sure she was a lot stronger than me based on her physique. If a woman can make it through basic training and wants to serve on the front line, why not? The military's having a hard enough time filling quotas as it is.