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
QuoteIt 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?
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Whitney on February 10, 2012, 08:07:08 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Asmodean on February 10, 2012, 08:41:24 PMWomen 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.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 10, 2012, 08:41:24 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Crow on February 10, 2012, 08:48:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Whitney on February 10, 2012, 08:07:08 PM
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.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 10, 2012, 09:58:20 PM
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?
Quote from: En_Route on February 10, 2012, 10:10:22 PM
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.
QuoteBy 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.
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.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 10, 2012, 08:41:24 PM
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.
I'm in the military and I'm an avid student in everything from broad military strategy to squad-level tactics. For one thing, hand-to-hand combat is not nearly as prevalent as it was in WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. We are very team-oriented, and believe in overwhelming our opponents with weapons and tactics. While I'm certain that fewer women would qualify for elite units like the Seals or the Deltas, I'm also certain there are some women out there that could do it, especially since every team has different roles. However, front lines like Army and Marine infantry could certainly employ women in their units with only the same initial pains that come along with any new recruits. It would have to be case-by-case. As long as the woman in question can function at the basic, minimal level necessary, there is no reason to believe they couldn't be an asset. The emotional argument is ridiculous. If anything, women are naturally able to better handle stress than men. One theory a college professor told me about with women living longer than men involves the chemistry in their bodies that react to stress naturally, because of the stress of child-birth. They have an advantage in this area. I also know that women can compartmentalize their emotions for the appropriate times. I would imagine from my studies on the path to my psychology degree that because of their emotional nature, they would be less prone to the psychological difficulties that plague combat veterans with PTSD.
Quote from: Ali on February 10, 2012, 10:59:27 PM
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
Yes, I sort of already made that point. :P
And yes,
Firebird, my generalization was intended to be broad, as emphasized by "generally" here and "usually" there.
I am all for equality. What I am not, however, is one of them hysterical "liberation of *insert the generalized group that "needs" liberating* NOW!!!" types. On an individual basis, everyone should have equal opportunities to learn a skill, get a job, have a family, have a hole in the tooth filled, etc, etc. When looking at a large enough sample, however, it may not hold. Do I, for instane, think that fifteen year olds should have the right to vote? No. However, that's not saying that an individual politically-minded fifteen year old would not make a better informed voter than I would.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 10, 2012, 08:41:24 PM
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?
When I was in the service we had a close combat instructor that no one took seriously when we first met her. She was 1,6m tall and couldn't weigh more then 60kg fully dressed and soaking wet. She asked for three voulenteers who thought themselves badass. Myself, the judo and Ninjutsu student, and two other guys stepped up. And she promptly mopped the floor with us. Didn't even give us the satisfaction of seeing her sweat. :-\
As long as you have the physical and mental abilities neccesary to do your job, it should not matter how the plumbing is wired. I have served with several women and there were not really any problems.
Quote from: Guardian85 on February 12, 2012, 05:49:57 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on February 10, 2012, 08:41:24 PM
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?
When I was in the service we had a close combat instructor that no one took seriously when we first met her. She was 1,6m tall and couldn't weigh more then 60kg fully dressed and soaking wet. She asked for three voulenteers who thought themselves badass. Myself, the judo and Ninjutsu student, and two other guys stepped up. And she promptly mopped the floor with us. Didn't even give us the satisfaction of seeing her sweat. :-\
As long as you have the physical and mental abilities neccesary to do your job, it should not matter how the plumbing is wired. I have served with several women and there were not really any problems.
Yes, applying that bolded line does help... As long as getting to that level does not spend significantly more tax-payer coin than getting an average schmuck there does.
Quote from: RunFromMyLife on February 12, 2012, 07:27:08 PM
Is Santorum's main goal to alienate as many women as possible? If so, he's succeeding admirably. He recently said this: "I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. Rape victims ought to make the best of a bad situation."
:o
Once again, I need a head exploding smilie.
Quote from: Ali on February 10, 2012, 10:59:27 PMHaving 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.
Basic training already exists.
I have a male friend who is 5'6" tall and weighs 125 pounds. I have a woman friend who is 6' tall and although I don't know her weight she's a heck of a lot stronger than my male friend. It's not gender that's the issue. It's ability.
Quote from: Traveler on February 13, 2012, 05:00:12 PM
I have a male friend who is 5'6" tall and weighs 125 pounds. I have a woman friend who is 6' tall and although I don't know her weight she's a heck of a lot stronger than my male friend. It's not gender that's the issue. It's ability.
Exactly. The forces set the required standards and if you pass you're in; bollocks or tits makes no difference.
Tactical knowledge can also make up for whenever there is a difference in physical ability.
I think I remember reading a while ago that though women may not have the sheer physical power that men do, they possess better agility, flexibility and snap decision making skills.
What upsets me is that Santorum can say these kind of stupid things and yet his blinded fan base will never see anything wrong with it.
Quote from: Ali on February 10, 2012, 05:08:51 PM
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
QuoteIt 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?
I feel very strongly that women should be barred from combat. If we can keep women away from combat, we're half way to what should be the objective.
Population recruitment is the primary idea behind the exclusion of women from combat, in my opinion. This concept goes back to the earliest humans. Basically the reasoning is that a population can lose over 90% of its males and still recover within a few generations, while a large loss of females would doom a group. Another valid reason from that perspective is that in the course of a long conflict, with the women fighting how are battlefield loses of either sex going to be replaced.
We don't have that many people in the military, so even if we lost everyone in the military, it wouldn't be a concern.
There are 1,430,985 (http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1009.pdf) currently active people in military service for the U.S., and about 313,024,567 (http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html)Americans. That is about 0.46% of the United States population serving, I don't think we need to worry about this doom, even if we lost all active military.
Quote from: Reprobate on February 15, 2012, 09:21:27 PM
I feel very strongly that women should be barred from combat. If we can keep women away from combat, we're half way to what should be the objective.
Population recruitment is the primary idea behind the exclusion of women from combat, in my opinion. This concept goes back to the earliest humans. Basically the reasoning is that a population can lose over 90% of its males and still recover within a few generations, while a large loss of females would doom a group. Another valid reason from that perspective is that in the course of a long conflict, with the women fighting how are battlefield loses of either sex going to be replaced.
I think this is a good point but given the growth of population and the nature of modern warfare it is probably now redundant. Technological warfare is about destroying fighting capability not simply killing as many of the enemy as possible. The most effective example of this new warfare was the first Gulf War where Schwarzkopf finished the war in 100 hours. There isn't much possibility of completing a repopulation in that sort of time (although you could make a frantic attempt at starting! ;) ). Thus you are better off overwhelming the enemy with all the resources available at your disposal as quickly as possible.
Davin, I'm not proposing that those conditions still apply or that the logic still makes sense, but that well established preconceptions tend to hold on long after their purpose is forgotten or becomes relevant.
EDIT: to Tank, to clarify. The goal should be to keep men out of combat as well. I know people who served in that conflict and others, some publicized some covert, who still have issues more than 20 years later. The people I know who still have PTSD issues were combat troops. My perspective on this could be skewed though, because my own service limited my contacts primarily to combat arms soldiers for the most part.
I also intended to add to my initial post that many other countries have no restrictions on the capacities in which women can serve in the military. Israel, being a prime example, allows women to serve in any military specialty. Were we in a similar situation, I think that we would quickly rethink our policies as well.
Quote from: Reprobate on February 15, 2012, 09:47:18 PMDavin, I'm not proposing that those conditions still apply or that the logic still makes sense, but that well established preconceptions tend to hold on long after their purpose is forgotten or becomes relevant.
Sorry, I'm just trying to reconcile this statement with your previous statement: you're very much against women being in combat for irrational reasons?
Quote from: Davin on February 15, 2012, 09:50:37 PM
Quote from: Reprobate on February 15, 2012, 09:47:18 PMDavin, I'm not proposing that those conditions still apply or that the logic still makes sense, but that well established preconceptions tend to hold on long after their purpose is forgotten or becomes relevant.
Sorry, I'm just trying to reconcile this statement with your previous statement: you're very much against women being in combat for irrational reasons?
Re-read that post, Davin. I said that keeping women out of combat would mean that we are half way to what should be our objective. In other words, we should see the goal as being not to send anyone into combat. I know that's not realistic, but it's not a bad ideal.
Quote from: Reprobate on February 15, 2012, 09:59:16 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 15, 2012, 09:50:37 PM
Quote from: Reprobate on February 15, 2012, 09:47:18 PMDavin, I'm not proposing that those conditions still apply or that the logic still makes sense, but that well established preconceptions tend to hold on long after their purpose is forgotten or becomes relevant.
Sorry, I'm just trying to reconcile this statement with your previous statement: you're very much against women being in combat for irrational reasons?
Re-read that post, Davin. I said that keeping women out of combat would mean that we are half way to what should be our objective. In other words, we should see the goal as being not to send anyone into combat. I know that's not realistic, but it's not a bad ideal.
I've already read it at least ten times to make sure I was not misreading what you wrote, you said:
Quote from: Reprobate on February 15, 2012, 09:21:27 PMI feel very strongly that women should be barred from combat.
Then proceeded to give an irrational justification for such. Were you innaccurate when you stated that or are you now correcting that statement? Maybe you could just restate what your opinion is and why you hold that opinion.
Gavin, that's only half of what I wrote.
I think what reprobate is trying to say is that no one should be in combat. With that, I agree. However, if ANYONE is in combat, I believe women should not be barred from it. Rather than being half the solution, it adds a different problem ... one of women being barred from something that they might want to do, and that's not the way to solve anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.
For me its all or nothing. Allow ALL people who quality to choose whether to serve in combat, or allow NO people to serve in combat. Halvsies doesn't cut it.
Quote from: Traveler on February 15, 2012, 10:42:09 PM
I think what reprobate is trying to say is that no one should be in combat. With that, I agree. However, if ANYONE is in combat, I believe women should not be barred from it. Rather than being half the solution, it adds a different problem ... one of women being barred from something that they might want to do, and that's not the way to solve anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.
For me its all or nothing. Allow ALL people who quality to choose whether to serve in combat, or allow NO people to serve in combat. Halvsies doesn't cut it.
Thanks, Taveler, that is what I intended to say, and thought that I did. I also admitted that I don't think it's a realistic goal, in a later post. Women have served and do serve in combat not only in other countries' military forces, but also in the US military. While they aren't allowed to serve in infantry, armor, or combat engineers, women have seen combat.
Quote from: Traveler on February 15, 2012, 10:42:09 PMI think what reprobate is trying to say is that no one should be in combat.
Aye, I got that, that was not the problem I was having with his statements. I tried to address the problems I was having, but I don't think it will be resolved. I wanted to know why he felt very strongly that women should be barred from combat, whether it was for the irrational justifications provided or something else.
Quote from: TravelerWith that, I agree. However, if ANYONE is in combat, I believe women should not be barred from it. Rather than being half the solution, it adds a different problem ... one of women being barred from something that they might want to do, and that's not the way to solve anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.
For me its all or nothing. Allow ALL people who quality to choose whether to serve in combat, or allow NO people to serve in combat. Halvsies doesn't cut it.
I agree with your sentiments. I see no reason to prevent someone from doing something they are qualified to do.