Admittedly, that’s some salty language from Martha McSally, a Republican candidate in AZ-8′s special election to replace Gabby Giffords. But I had a chance to talk with Col. McSally (USAF, retired), a couple of days ago and can report that she is by any measure a highly impressive person. After graduating from the Air Force academy near the top of her class in 1988, she took an assignment flying little Cessna T-37 trainers (her other option was cargo planes) because she was determined to wait-out the Air Force’s ban on women as combat pilots. And wait it out she did, becoming one of the seven women handpicked by the brass to trail-blaze after the ban was lifted. She had her choice of the sexy, single-engine F-16 and the powerhouse F-15. But she opted for that ugly old bruiser, the A-10 “Warthog”, then considered the redheaded stepchild of the Air Force arsenal, because she didn’t want to sit at 40,000 feet shooting guided missiles at radar blips. She wanted to be on the front lines, with a big ol’ cannon –
– and a rocket pod or two, protecting troops on the ground.
She went on to fly the A-10 over Kuwait, Iraq, and in 2005, Afghanistan, where she logged 300+ combat hours and became the first woman to command a fighter squadron. She was decorated individually for a sortie in which she provided fire support to American soldiers engaged in a close-quartered battle, even though she had lost her targeting instruments and was flying on what was essentially World War II technology. And her squadron was awarded the Air Force Association’s prestigious Schilling Award, due in part to its record of zero friendly and zero civilian casualties over the course of its deployment.
You get the idea. Anyway, I write all this as prelude to registering a modest disagreement with our editorial today, opposing the further expansion of combat-support roles open to women. I don’t know about women as riflemen, but I do know that McSally was and is reputed to be, as a combat pilot and a commander, not just the equal of her male colleagues, but in many cases their better. It strikes me, in this instance at least, as being a good thing that her talents were available over the skies of Afghanistan.
I have no doubt that exceptional women would also make good riflemen, but that misses the point. The reason for not having women in combat has more to do with what they do to the men around them. Especially the thymotic, testosterone-poisoned kind of men who tend to make up the majority of good soldiers.
Perhaps it's different with pilots. Perhaps not. I suppose it's too late to avoid running the dangerous experiment to find out. But let's accellerate the process, eh?
They didn't coin the phrase, "Swing with the Wing", just because it rhymed. Pilots, and the people who maintain aircraft, aren't grunts for a reason.
Integrating women into ground combat forces, particularly at any level beneath regiment level, is insane. Leaving alone the can they or can't they argument, the corrosion to good order and discipline that it would cause would FAR outweigh any benefit women would lend to ground combat forces.
You put men and women together in forward-deployed, remote operating bases, they'll start making like rabbits, because that's EXACTLY what happens on ship. At a company or platoon level, that would be disastrous. You want to have lover's spats surrounded by high explosives and automatic weapons? Please.
I think the issue is more about lowering standards to allow more women into combat roles, or any other roles that seem to be "dominated" by men in our evil patriarchal culture. Somebody mentioned the other day that from time immemorial that carrying a stretcher used to be defined as a 2 man job, but now is a 4 person job. If all physical requirements are the same, I bet not many would care... I could be wrong.
Shouldn't the focus of the military be about fielding the most potent possible force, not gender-norming and social engineering a more PC force?
I don't find it particularly impressive for a GOP candidate to express her desire to kick a fellow GOP candidate because she disagrees with him. Republicans criticize Democrats for demonizing those they disagree with rather than engaging in fair and reasoned debate. It seems that Ms. McSally favors the Democratic method of dealing with opponents, even if they're in the same party. She can ignore human nature if she wants to, as well as other factors involved in this debate, but that doesn't make them irrelevant. There are fair arguments on both side of this issue and to treat Santorum's argument in such a disrespectful way says more about McSally than it does about him.
Yes, Col. McSally's decoration and awards seem impressive to someone who hasn't been in the military and not seen decorations and awards handed out like candy to women to make the public think they are succeeding, whether or not they are. She may have been a better pilot and commander than her male colleagues, and maybe she wasn't. Just because she was promoted, commanded and won decoration and awards does not mean she deserved it. I would like to hear from those who have served with her and under her. In many cases concerning female military officers, the reality is quite different than the official record, thanks to our old friend, political correctness, which has been rampant in the military since the early 80's at least. I give her credit for flying A-10s in combat, just like every other Air Force pilot who flew A-10s in combat.
The GOP won't need women to vote for our nominee. Rick will make up lost ground by scolding US for our vices. This will gain the approval of scolds everywhere.
If women can't meet the physical requirements of the job, then they shouldn't be allowed to do it. However, in those areas where women can meet the qualifications, if the argument is that they will make male soldiers feel uncomfortable then the men just need to get over it. Seriously, Santorum clearly doesn't think much of men in the armed forces, since he constantly asserts that they will lose their ability to do their job and act professionally if there is a woman or gay person close by.
On a related note, this is the reaction Santorum engenders. Even if people agree with him on 90% of the issues, he is so-strident and off putting in his articulation of the few points of disagreement that he makes those people want to kick him. Not a great quality in a presidential candidate.
Just get over being men? Being protective toward women is one of the features of the male personality that inspires many to serve. You sure you want them to get over that?
Seriously, Santorum clearly doesn't think much of men in the armed forces, since he constantly asserts that they will lose their ability to do their job and act professionally if there is a woman or gay person close by.
Seriously, that is a lame argument. Santorum (along with most of the other GOP candidates) thinks enough of the men who serve that he believes distractions from the mission in order to bow to "diversity" are unfair and counterproductive.
On a related note, this is the reaction Santorum engenders. Even if people agree with him on 90% of the issues, he is so-strident and off putting in his articulation of the few points of disagreement that he makes those people want to kick him
Yeah, that's why almost everyone who has replied here agrees with him on *this* issue.
Just get over being men? Being protective toward women is one of the features of the male personality that inspires many to serve. You sure you want them to get over that?
Don't be dense. I recognize that the impulse to be protective of women may be innate and connected to the reasons that some men choose to serve, but so what? We ask people to be disciplined in how they govern their instincts in all sorts of public situations, it is part of being a functioning adult. And for you to imply that soldiers are incapable of using discretion and learning to treat their coworkers in a respectful professional manner, without extinguishing completely the instinct to be protective of women is ridiculous. As a corollary, look how most men are able to somehow avoid expressing their sexual attraction to women they work with in professional settings, while still maintaining a healthy sexual attraction to women which they express however they please outside of work. For you to suggest that soldiers are somehow uniquely incapable of conditioning themselves to disregard certain instincts in certain contexts in the same adult responsible manner that we as a society require from everyone else is a n insult to soldiers.
"Seriously, that is a lame argument. Santorum (along with most of the other GOP candidates) thinks enough of the men who serve that he believes distractions from the mission in order to bow to "diversity" are unfair and counterproductive."
Really, distractions? You're suggesting that qualified people should be rejected because their presence might be too distracting? That's an insult to the discipline of the men who serve, that they can't be near a woman or gay person without being distracted. You're saying that you think soldiers aren't capable of maintaining the minimum level of professionalism that we expect from people who are employed as greeters at Wal Mart.
"Yeah, that's why almost everyone who has replied here agrees with him on *this* issue."
In an environment where they can cause a distraction and result in a failure of unit cohesion and the death of soldiers - yes I worry about those things. As sociologists have already noted, it can have an effect and it would be nice to know more.
As to women, we already know what will happen, whether it can be bred out of the male soldier is unknown. And if the female rifleman cannot save me because she cannot lift me out of danger I care a hell of alot.
As to fighter pilots, we already know that most women cannot do it at the highest level - not that some cannot do it. We are well aware of the failure of military policy on advancing women pilots who cannot actually meet the requirements.
Whether she really qualified at real quals for fighters it doesn't say - my hat is off to her for her effective service. I appreciate her willingness to protect me and putting herself in harm's way. But I know - as many do - that others are placed ahead of more qualified men to promote social goals. That she fails to recognize this suggests she is then as much at fault as the person she claims to be wrong on the position.
You're making an argument against something I never said. In my original post I wrote that if women can't meet the requirements for the job they shouldn't do it. So there you go, we agree.
Also, you say you don't know if she qualified or not for her job, but that "others" (by which I can only assume meant women) are placed ahead of better qualified men for their positions as pilots, and so because of that she owes an apology. That's completely incoherent. Come up with some specific examples and facts, otherwise please keep your anecdotal "everyone knows it's true" wisdom to yourself.
"You're making an argument against something I never said. In my original post I wrote that if women can't meet the requirements for the job they shouldn't do it. So there you go, we agree."
How about we discuss this in terms of the world as it actually works, instead of this fantasy of "..they can't do the job, they don't get the job". Particularly in the Armed Forces, where gender norming has been going on - and costing lives - since at least 1994. Read about the Navy's attempted coverup of *that* incident - how they retained Hultgreen after 4 serious training mishaps, when they were washing out men after 2.
My first two paragraphs were in direct response to you but I was not taking issue with your statement on physical ability. I was stating my understanding of the physical limitations question. The fact (and I worked very closely with the military in the mid 90s on training issues when many of the physical requirement "norming" was taking place) is all the officers knew it and even showed me some of the before and after regs. So if that is anecdotal - military before and afters - not unlike the 4 men stretcher crews - I guess that is your choice to be blind to reality. The military is not properly guarding the standard of what it takes to do the job.
As to her rating - Foster speaks to her qual at fighter. I am noting the very real activity which other commenters actually provided the link for within this post, about gender norming qual ratings. Would she have qualified at the old standard? Foster doesn't say. What I was then saying is that despite that -she performed well it seems and thank you.
An apology - yes she does. She has committed to physical violence (in the abstract of course) with someone who has a deeply held feeling that he is uncomfortable with women in a combat role, is worried about their impact on unit capability, cohesion, and men's desire to try and "save the lady" to their mission's detriment. He also is worried about a culture where women are warriors. It is a fair concern and open to debate. I have not seen him talk about women pilots - all I have seen is the issue of combat troops. Her response - his opinion means nothing and is worthless. So in true dem lib fashion, she makes him the ogre, when she is the one acting like a jerk. Did Santorum say he was going to knee her somewhere? Or does his talk hurt her whittle fweelings?? I thought she was strong, a woman hear me roar!! (meoww) I am glad she isn't trying to rep my district.
Of course at my age not sure I could stop her from doing it to me! Haha!
But in all seriousness - I am all for lady's trying to do what they want - including trying to knee politicans in the ****. However in true libertarian fashion, as my mom taught my sisters - you hit your brother there he can pretty much do anything short of breaking limbs in his response without punishment - if she wants to be the jerk, she can reap the jerk's reward. That's all I meant. I find most women spouting "equal this" don't want true equality - they want more. Unfortunately she is just one more. Thankfully, they seem to still be in the minority.
“The purpose of the military is to fight and win wars. Personnel policies should be based, first and last, on combat effectiveness. If putting female soldiers on the front line had even a small adverse impact on combat effectiveness, it would outweigh whatever other, political or symbolic benefits might accrue.
“Conservatives — most recently Rick Santorum and Virginia governor Bob McDonnell — have been divided on this issue. We think there is sense in Santorum’s suggestion that, e.g., a soldier faced with the prospect of a female comrade’s death might be driven to act in ways contrary to the best interest of the mission. We also think that the instinct of men to protect women in danger is both natural and moral, and that there would be something perverse about seeking to train it out of our soldiers. “
Alright, the dense comment was uncalled for, I apologize. For some reason discussions on the internet make me far more intemperate in arguments than I am in real life.
Respectfully, I disagree. You are talking about guarding against an eventuality that there is ample evidence that soldiers would be able to overcome. Might there be some disruption at first, possibly, but long term they would probably be able to deal with it. If you care, I spoke to some of your other points in a post below.
It's you who is being dense - and simplistic, and insulting to boot.
It's not a matter of disciplining one's sexual appetites, as you misapprehend.
It's a matter of resisting the drive to protect, a drive supported by biology, socialization, and as the prior commenter noted, self-selection bias in the temperment of men who choose the military. It's a matter of putting such men in circumstances where they must constantly resist that conditioning and watch fellow female soliders walk deliberately into danger while they remain in the rear; to stay on mission or withhold information, while a woman comrade in arms is brutalized as these barbarians prefer (a reminder: External Link)
That's not realistic to ask of most men. It's certainly foolish to ask of young men, and even were it possible to train that protective instinct out of them - is that really what we want to do? To condition hundreds of thousands of men to successfully sublimate that instinct - and then release them back into society a few years later?
Look, you and those making this argument are acting like soldiers are robots, not discerning human beings capable of making complex choices in different contexts. It's not like you flip a switch in these people's heads that makes them tret all women in all circumstances exactly the same in all situations. Are you seriously suggesting that soldiers are so simplistic that they can't suppress the instinct to irrationally protect their fellow women soldiers without forever damaging their ability to discern between women who are soldiers and those who aren't? That's crazy.
Moreover, if someone was torturing or brutalizing your buddy in the field, you already are fighting against innate deeply entrenched instincts to help them. Maybe the situation would be a little worse if it was a woman, but not by much. If we expect soldiers to learn to suppress their instincts for the sake of the mission in that context, there's no reason they can't do it in another.
One last point on this, I didn't say it was a question of suppressing sexual appetites, I used that as a corollary, an example of how another (but different) deeply entrenched instinct gets suppressed on a regular basis.
I have no doubt that exceptional women would also make good riflemen, but that misses the point. The reason for not having women in combat has more to do with what they do to the men around them. Especially the thymotic, testosterone-poisoned kind of men who tend to make up the majority of good soldiers.
Perhaps it's different with pilots. Perhaps not. I suppose it's too late to avoid running the dangerous experiment to find out. But let's accellerate the process, eh?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Perhaps it's different with pilots"
They didn't coin the phrase, "Swing with the Wing", just because it rhymed. Pilots, and the people who maintain aircraft, aren't grunts for a reason.
Integrating women into ground combat forces, particularly at any level beneath regiment level, is insane. Leaving alone the can they or can't they argument, the corrosion to good order and discipline that it would cause would FAR outweigh any benefit women would lend to ground combat forces.
You put men and women together in forward-deployed, remote operating bases, they'll start making like rabbits, because that's EXACTLY what happens on ship. At a company or platoon level, that would be disastrous. You want to have lover's spats surrounded by high explosives and automatic weapons? Please.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the issue is more about lowering standards to allow more women into combat roles, or any other roles that seem to be "dominated" by men in our evil patriarchal culture. Somebody mentioned the other day that from time immemorial that carrying a stretcher used to be defined as a 2 man job, but now is a 4 person job. If all physical requirements are the same, I bet not many would care... I could be wrong.
Shouldn't the focus of the military be about fielding the most potent possible force, not gender-norming and social engineering a more PC force?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe U.S. Army has had Military Police Platoon's headed by females in combat zones, so the preclusion isn't without exceptions.
Nice clip and go Davis Mounthan AFB; where memories were made and F4c's remain ... forever.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't find it particularly impressive for a GOP candidate to express her desire to kick a fellow GOP candidate because she disagrees with him. Republicans criticize Democrats for demonizing those they disagree with rather than engaging in fair and reasoned debate. It seems that Ms. McSally favors the Democratic method of dealing with opponents, even if they're in the same party. She can ignore human nature if she wants to, as well as other factors involved in this debate, but that doesn't make them irrelevant. There are fair arguments on both side of this issue and to treat Santorum's argument in such a disrespectful way says more about McSally than it does about him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"the Democratic method of dealing with opponents"
You haven't been paying much attention lately, have you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, Col. McSally's decoration and awards seem impressive to someone who hasn't been in the military and not seen decorations and awards handed out like candy to women to make the public think they are succeeding, whether or not they are. She may have been a better pilot and commander than her male colleagues, and maybe she wasn't. Just because she was promoted, commanded and won decoration and awards does not mean she deserved it. I would like to hear from those who have served with her and under her. In many cases concerning female military officers, the reality is quite different than the official record, thanks to our old friend, political correctness, which has been rampant in the military since the early 80's at least. I give her credit for flying A-10s in combat, just like every other Air Force pilot who flew A-10s in combat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe GOP won't need women to vote for our nominee. Rick will make up lost ground by scolding US for our vices. This will gain the approval of scolds everywhere.
No worries
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf women can't meet the physical requirements of the job, then they shouldn't be allowed to do it. However, in those areas where women can meet the qualifications, if the argument is that they will make male soldiers feel uncomfortable then the men just need to get over it. Seriously, Santorum clearly doesn't think much of men in the armed forces, since he constantly asserts that they will lose their ability to do their job and act professionally if there is a woman or gay person close by.
On a related note, this is the reaction Santorum engenders. Even if people agree with him on 90% of the issues, he is so-strident and off putting in his articulation of the few points of disagreement that he makes those people want to kick him. Not a great quality in a presidential candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe men just need to get over it.
Just get over being men? Being protective toward women is one of the features of the male personality that inspires many to serve. You sure you want them to get over that?
Seriously, Santorum clearly doesn't think much of men in the armed forces, since he constantly asserts that they will lose their ability to do their job and act professionally if there is a woman or gay person close by.
Seriously, that is a lame argument. Santorum (along with most of the other GOP candidates) thinks enough of the men who serve that he believes distractions from the mission in order to bow to "diversity" are unfair and counterproductive.
On a related note, this is the reaction Santorum engenders. Even if people agree with him on 90% of the issues, he is so-strident and off putting in his articulation of the few points of disagreement that he makes those people want to kick him
Yeah, that's why almost everyone who has replied here agrees with him on *this* issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust get over being men? Being protective toward women is one of the features of the male personality that inspires many to serve. You sure you want them to get over that?
Don't be dense. I recognize that the impulse to be protective of women may be innate and connected to the reasons that some men choose to serve, but so what? We ask people to be disciplined in how they govern their instincts in all sorts of public situations, it is part of being a functioning adult. And for you to imply that soldiers are incapable of using discretion and learning to treat their coworkers in a respectful professional manner, without extinguishing completely the instinct to be protective of women is ridiculous. As a corollary, look how most men are able to somehow avoid expressing their sexual attraction to women they work with in professional settings, while still maintaining a healthy sexual attraction to women which they express however they please outside of work. For you to suggest that soldiers are somehow uniquely incapable of conditioning themselves to disregard certain instincts in certain contexts in the same adult responsible manner that we as a society require from everyone else is a n insult to soldiers.
"Seriously, that is a lame argument. Santorum (along with most of the other GOP candidates) thinks enough of the men who serve that he believes distractions from the mission in order to bow to "diversity" are unfair and counterproductive."
Really, distractions? You're suggesting that qualified people should be rejected because their presence might be too distracting? That's an insult to the discipline of the men who serve, that they can't be near a woman or gay person without being distracted. You're saying that you think soldiers aren't capable of maintaining the minimum level of professionalism that we expect from people who are employed as greeters at Wal Mart.
"Yeah, that's why almost everyone who has replied here agrees with him on *this* issue."
Well then what I wrote doesn't apply to them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn an environment where they can cause a distraction and result in a failure of unit cohesion and the death of soldiers - yes I worry about those things. As sociologists have already noted, it can have an effect and it would be nice to know more.
As to women, we already know what will happen, whether it can be bred out of the male soldier is unknown. And if the female rifleman cannot save me because she cannot lift me out of danger I care a hell of alot.
As to fighter pilots, we already know that most women cannot do it at the highest level - not that some cannot do it. We are well aware of the failure of military policy on advancing women pilots who cannot actually meet the requirements.
Whether she really qualified at real quals for fighters it doesn't say - my hat is off to her for her effective service. I appreciate her willingness to protect me and putting herself in harm's way. But I know - as many do - that others are placed ahead of more qualified men to promote social goals. That she fails to recognize this suggests she is then as much at fault as the person she claims to be wrong on the position.
So where does Santorum kick her?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're making an argument against something I never said. In my original post I wrote that if women can't meet the requirements for the job they shouldn't do it. So there you go, we agree.
Also, you say you don't know if she qualified or not for her job, but that "others" (by which I can only assume meant women) are placed ahead of better qualified men for their positions as pilots, and so because of that she owes an apology. That's completely incoherent. Come up with some specific examples and facts, otherwise please keep your anecdotal "everyone knows it's true" wisdom to yourself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"You're making an argument against something I never said. In my original post I wrote that if women can't meet the requirements for the job they shouldn't do it. So there you go, we agree."
How about we discuss this in terms of the world as it actually works, instead of this fantasy of "..they can't do the job, they don't get the job". Particularly in the Armed Forces, where gender norming has been going on - and costing lives - since at least 1994. Read about the Navy's attempted coverup of *that* incident - how they retained Hultgreen after 4 serious training mishaps, when they were washing out men after 2.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy first two paragraphs were in direct response to you but I was not taking issue with your statement on physical ability. I was stating my understanding of the physical limitations question. The fact (and I worked very closely with the military in the mid 90s on training issues when many of the physical requirement "norming" was taking place) is all the officers knew it and even showed me some of the before and after regs. So if that is anecdotal - military before and afters - not unlike the 4 men stretcher crews - I guess that is your choice to be blind to reality. The military is not properly guarding the standard of what it takes to do the job.
As to her rating - Foster speaks to her qual at fighter. I am noting the very real activity which other commenters actually provided the link for within this post, about gender norming qual ratings. Would she have qualified at the old standard? Foster doesn't say. What I was then saying is that despite that -she performed well it seems and thank you.
An apology - yes she does. She has committed to physical violence (in the abstract of course) with someone who has a deeply held feeling that he is uncomfortable with women in a combat role, is worried about their impact on unit capability, cohesion, and men's desire to try and "save the lady" to their mission's detriment. He also is worried about a culture where women are warriors. It is a fair concern and open to debate. I have not seen him talk about women pilots - all I have seen is the issue of combat troops. Her response - his opinion means nothing and is worthless. So in true dem lib fashion, she makes him the ogre, when she is the one acting like a jerk. Did Santorum say he was going to knee her somewhere? Or does his talk hurt her whittle fweelings?? I thought she was strong, a woman hear me roar!! (meoww) I am glad she isn't trying to rep my district.
Of course at my age not sure I could stop her from doing it to me! Haha!
But in all seriousness - I am all for lady's trying to do what they want - including trying to knee politicans in the ****. However in true libertarian fashion, as my mom taught my sisters - you hit your brother there he can pretty much do anything short of breaking limbs in his response without punishment - if she wants to be the jerk, she can reap the jerk's reward. That's all I meant. I find most women spouting "equal this" don't want true equality - they want more. Unfortunately she is just one more. Thankfully, they seem to still be in the minority.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDon't be dense.
Don’t be absurd.
I agree with the editors on the home page:
“The purpose of the military is to fight and win wars. Personnel policies should be based, first and last, on combat effectiveness. If putting female soldiers on the front line had even a small adverse impact on combat effectiveness, it would outweigh whatever other, political or symbolic benefits might accrue.
“Conservatives — most recently Rick Santorum and Virginia governor Bob McDonnell — have been divided on this issue. We think there is sense in Santorum’s suggestion that, e.g., a soldier faced with the prospect of a female comrade’s death might be driven to act in ways contrary to the best interest of the mission. We also think that the instinct of men to protect women in danger is both natural and moral, and that there would be something perverse about seeking to train it out of our soldiers. “
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlright, the dense comment was uncalled for, I apologize. For some reason discussions on the internet make me far more intemperate in arguments than I am in real life.
Respectfully, I disagree. You are talking about guarding against an eventuality that there is ample evidence that soldiers would be able to overcome. Might there be some disruption at first, possibly, but long term they would probably be able to deal with it. If you care, I spoke to some of your other points in a post below.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's you who is being dense - and simplistic, and insulting to boot.
It's not a matter of disciplining one's sexual appetites, as you misapprehend.
It's a matter of resisting the drive to protect, a drive supported by biology, socialization, and as the prior commenter noted, self-selection bias in the temperment of men who choose the military. It's a matter of putting such men in circumstances where they must constantly resist that conditioning and watch fellow female soliders walk deliberately into danger while they remain in the rear; to stay on mission or withhold information, while a woman comrade in arms is brutalized as these barbarians prefer (a reminder: External Link
)
That's not realistic to ask of most men. It's certainly foolish to ask of young men, and even were it possible to train that protective instinct out of them - is that really what we want to do? To condition hundreds of thousands of men to successfully sublimate that instinct - and then release them back into society a few years later?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLook, you and those making this argument are acting like soldiers are robots, not discerning human beings capable of making complex choices in different contexts. It's not like you flip a switch in these people's heads that makes them tret all women in all circumstances exactly the same in all situations. Are you seriously suggesting that soldiers are so simplistic that they can't suppress the instinct to irrationally protect their fellow women soldiers without forever damaging their ability to discern between women who are soldiers and those who aren't? That's crazy.
Moreover, if someone was torturing or brutalizing your buddy in the field, you already are fighting against innate deeply entrenched instincts to help them. Maybe the situation would be a little worse if it was a woman, but not by much. If we expect soldiers to learn to suppress their instincts for the sake of the mission in that context, there's no reason they can't do it in another.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne last point on this, I didn't say it was a question of suppressing sexual appetites, I used that as a corollary, an example of how another (but different) deeply entrenched instinct gets suppressed on a regular basis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse