Yesterday I posted that Gov. Bob McDonnell’s comments on women in combat, though aimed at Sen. Santorum, placed him to the left of President Obama. Jennifer Rubin says “that’s wrong.” But I can’t quite tell from her post just what I’ve gotten wrong.
Am I wrong to suggest that McDonnell’s comments imply support for putting women “in the front lines . . . in combat positions,” to use his words? (An implication his spokesman’s comment sidesteps.) Am I wrong to note that Obama’s Pentagon is allowing women to serve “closer to the front lines than ever before,” but not going quite this far? Or am I wrong to suggest that a more aggressive easing of the rules can be reasonably be described as a more liberal policy? Given that all the organized opposition to easing these rules comes from conservatives and its most enthusiastic supporters are liberals, that would be a hard case to make.
You can think that the easing of these restrictions is a welcome advance for gender equality, as Rubin and Gov. McDonnell appear to believe, or that they are a step back for civilization and sensible military-personnel policy, as I am inclined to think. But I don’t see how you can dispute this point: If McDonnell meant what he said, he should want Obama to go further.
Ramesh - I took McDonnell's comment as suggesting that women had the mental and physical ability and wherewithal to serve on the front lines, not that women should necessarily be permitted to serve in those roles. One could think women are capable, but think that other concerns outweigh that capability, and thus they should not be premitted to serve on the front lines. E.g., (and I think this was Santorum's defense of his statement) men serving on the front lines might not perform as well alongside women because they might feel bound to protect them, impress them, etc. Thus the net strength of the forces could be reduced when you add in the female capability and subtract the lost male capability. If one had this view, they wouldn't be to the left of Obama, because they could believe that it's not worth changing the policy despite the ability of females.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...they are a step back for civilization and sensible military-personnel policy, as I am inclined to think."
Thank you. I heartily agree and appreciate that you are willing to say so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are a lot of myths about women in combat. While most of the troops I served with didn't seem to mind the female officers, since they seemed to consider officers a strange breed anyhow, they did mind the enlisted female soldiers.
Lots of complaints about them, some valid, some misogynistic. But whatever the reason, if a soldier can't pull their weight in a combat environment, they will be the subject of scorn. And, at least the lower level enlisted soldiers, women cannot. So it leaves it to the men to pick up the slack.
And that's what the real argument is about in this discussion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy God. How on earth does anyone regard Rubin as a "conservative"? Do you see the nature of her argument? You want to "stop progress" towards women in combat! You horrible troglodyte! As though the invocation of that word is somehow magical.
"You keep using that word, progress. I do not think it means what you think it means."
This is the natural result of an elite class having no experience of serious physical, manual labor. They don't understand the enormous physical differences between men and women, and the physical liabilities of women in combat situations. They think such things can be overcome with a movie workout montage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJennifer Rubin is the sort of conservative that the Washington Post loves which explains her exalted status among Romney apologists. It is clear her feminism trumps whatever conservatism she has as well as any concern for the operational needs of the armed forces.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNone of the NRO comment thread enforcers who love to expatiate so confidently on this issue have adequately addressed the fact that the Israeli Defense Forces employs both (1) open homosexuals and (2) women in "combat" positions in their infantry units. Please do not respond with some variant of "apples to oranges" argument; the IDF operates under conditions arguably as arduous (if not more so) than the United States Military. The lazy platitudes on "unit cohesion" and intrinsic biological differences melt away when confronted with actual empirical evidence. These objections ultimately prove themselves to be window-dressing -- mere euphemisms for ingrained bigotries. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt verges on too predictable, in fact it's downright pat, that she of all keyboard jockeys would leap on that. I can almost picture her twenty-part series of blog posts in Oct. 1973 cursing out Golda and Moshe for not piling the sand wall higher on the Bar-Lev Line
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe horse is out of the barn on the civilization aspect. If America's Nancy boys are unwilling to enlist in sufficient numbers to fill the ranks, then we should allow women to (openly) serve on the front lines - with some very big caveats though, the biggest being that women in combat arms should be restricted to all-female units. I was in the Army, and the mixing of the sexes is a disaster of monumental proportion in support units; I shudder to think of what it would be like in combat units.
As for the physical strength issue, most women on the whole don't have the physical strength to be light infantry, but I see no reason why they can't crew a tank or operate an artillery piece.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse