Can chivalry be allowed to thrive in the modern military?
Annie Scudder, Editor at TrèsSugar, reports what Rick Santorum believes about women in combat: that men on the front lines will be too focused on the women to do their job.
Ask GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum why women shouldn’t be allowed to serve in combat roles, and he will give you various reasons. First off, a man’s emotions. Santorum believes men will try to save their fellow female soldiers, explaining this weekend: “instead of focused on the mission, they may be more concerned about protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position.” In addition to chivalry, Rick says “You throw on top of that just simply physical strength and capabilities,” and women simply can’t handle the job. Fortunately, the military, which recently opened 14,000 combat jobs up to women including tank mechanic and front-line intelligence, doesn’t completely agree with Rick, and experts say “sexist” attitudes are responsible for a policy against trained female soldiers serving in combat positions.
Booze, Bras, and Husbands: What Women Want, According to Vintage Advertising
Sociologist Ryan Kelty, who specializes in studying the military, tells LiveScience that the old-fashioned belief that women must be protected is not a good enough reason to exclude women who want to and are capable of serving their country. In other words, chivalry is not a legitimate basis to deny a woman employment, especially when there is no evidence that professional and highly trained male and female soldiers are incapable of carrying out their missions. Kelty explains the military should employ gender-neutral, objective requirements. For example, a soldier should be able to carry 100 pounds for eight hours, regardless of gender.
There may be back and forth, but the truth is that women already serve in these combat roles. In Iraq and Afghanistan, 144 women have lost their lives, 60 of them in combat, while 865 have been wounded. And countries including Canada, Israel, and Australia already allow women in close-combat roles. Despite the slow evolution of American rules on women serving, it can be said that the US military doesn’t have the most retro policy. In China, women recruits must display a talent like singing or dancing and Russia holds a Miss Russian Army beauty pageant.
More TrèsSugar Links:
Santorum vs. Romney: How They Compare on Women’s Issues
11 Quotes From Rick Santorum That Are Worrisome For Women
Then and Now: Mitt Romney’s Positions on Reproductive Rights
10 Relationship Dos and Don’ts From “Friends With Kids”
—Photo: Getty
Hello, my name is Alazhe and i am a student at Grant Union High School here in Sacramento.
I am composing a research report on Sexism and i was hoping you could help me with some information.
I was particularly interested in learning why boys have more rights then girls and if you could direct me to some resoucres on that, or even allow me to interview you…..Thank you for your time . if you have anything else that might help me , i would really appreciate it. You can email me at [email protected] Thanks again.
The good news is, this does not really matter. War is becoming a computer game, played by people in air-conditioned rooms 30 miles North of Denver. Remote-controlled combat operations are the new reality. Nobody is going to know the gender of the sooters in the “arcade shooting gallery.” What will matter is the gender of the people getting shot at. Notice the amazing amount of press around the “blue bra girl”, who was beaten (along with dozens of men) in Egypt. Here is what Clinton had to say about it: “.. systematic degradation of Egyptian women [which] dishonors the revolution,… Read more »
I don’t like the title “11 Rick Santorum quotes that are worrisome for women,” because it somehow implies those are not worrisome for men. They most certainly are, as they should be.
Okay if we have all the women in combat and in military, can we get rid of domestic violence laws? If women are strong enough to fight al qaeda, then they can fend off their husbands boyfriends. Also, no need to assume that the male is the aggressor in a domestic dispute. Or is male violence against women ok only when women are paid? Just food for thought. In reality, out of the world of PC, it really makes more sense to have the average pubescent teen male in combat than a woman. Last I checked the military was about… Read more »
Yes, Alice, soldiers and civilians are exactly the same thing, so the existence of state-sanctioned professional fighters means what civilian violence is all perfectly OK. (rolling eyes) Come on, that argument doesn’t even TRY to be sane.
“Also, no need to assume that the male is the aggressor in a domestic dispute.”
Actually, that’s right. There IS no reason to assume that the male is always the aggressor in domestic disputes.
The age of men protecting women is over, Alice. It ended when equality and feminism won popular acceptance–perhaps you heard about it?
won popular acceptance–perhaps you heard about it?
Well, not with me. I dont quite get the feminist thing esp 3rd wave (I think that’s what it’s called). *shrug*
Yes, Alice it makes more sense to have the average pubescent teen male in combat rather than women, because women’s lives and health are more valuable than that of men’s, particularly that of of young men. Do you believe this? Do you believe that a woman’s life and her health is more valuable than a man’s? Keep in mind it’s a package deal, you don’t get to claim that that men’s and women’s lives and health are of equal value if you agree that it is men and not women who are the appropriate objects to placed in a situation… Read more »
Yeah Typhon I’m aware of the sexual abuse of the male detainees too, but adding female detainees into that mix would take a brutal inhuman situation and exponentially magnify the level of psychological torture. They’d be using the torture of the female detainess as an added means to break down the solidarity that forms among POWs in that scenario. Its cultural to them and they’d use our cultural norms of defending the child bearing half of the country against us. Generally, I’m all for equality of opportunity, I just question if this particular situation passes the whole risk/benefit analysis. I… Read more »
Which is exactly why it needs to happen. American has gotten too comfortable with seeing disposable men shipped home in body bags… what would happen if it started happening to women in large numbers too? Women, the gender we’re supposed to “protect” and “shelter.” Just imagine. Maybe we’d become just a tiny bit less eager to ship soldiers all around the freakin’ world to “protect and police” everybody else’s problems, hmm? And if we grew indifferent to the sacrifice and loss of women as readily as we have with men, then at least we’d be a step closer to true… Read more »
Precisely, men and women will attain equality when we can count the bodies, when we can see who has all their fingers and who doesn’t, when we can determine who stays at home and who returns home in a bag, and not find any difference between the sexes. That is the ugly truth the supporters of Patriarchy Theory do not want us to acknowledge, because it falsifies their theory.
Oh, yeah. First question that should have been asked; what are the quals these so-called experts actually can claim?
typon’s wrong about the having soldiers in order to catch bullets. But it sounds world-weary and wise. Nuts. The draft was for all men from age eighteen and up. Since the Civil War, only about half the age cohort has actually been acceptable–now down to closer to a third–so the idea that registering for the draft qualifies one for combat is nuts. IMO, if the women didn’t get to keep their hair, there wouldn’t be as many enlisting. Rick. Ref physical standards. We already don’t have those for branches not in the Combat Arms. What makes you think the feminists… Read more »
I just had a discussion a few days ago with an active AF duty female officer on this topic (I’m retired). My only reservation, provided females meet physical standards, is what will happen when an American female soldier is captures. I shudder to think what a blond haired, blue eyed, female POW captured by a middle eastern or African warlord would get done to her. The term rape culture that gets so casually tossed about on this site would take on a whole new meaning in that environment. We can sit around and play PC cultural awareness games all day… Read more »
“I shudder to think what a blond haired, blue eyed, female POW captured by a middle eastern or African warlord would get done to her.”
Have you ever lived in the Middle East? Her blond-haired, blue eyed male POW will be raped along side her, if not preferentially due to the history of subjugating captured male soldiers through rape in that region (I’m not kidding.)
Not to mention…how often is rape used in war as a means to actually sate sexual desire, as opposed to simply being about power.
Yes, such a woman will be at considerable risk. That’s what the job title “soldier” means.
This brings up another issue. If combat is opened up to women it would have to be conditional. Otherwise “selective” selective service would be dead on arrival. You couldn’t justify it in its current single sex form. At least the way I understand it. Someone with a better legal sense or mind feel free to weigh in here.
Female privilege? I’m still learning hair…I mean here.
Is there a reason why these women got to keep their hair?
That pisses me off too. If the military is all about shaping these people so that they behave like one unit, and thus the uniform appearance…then the women should have the same friggin hair cuts.
Pursuit ace. The draft included men, who were presumed to be able to participate in combat. Drafting women doesn’t bulk them up to combat-fit. So it costs women who can’t manage combat and it costs men who depend on them. Or we can insist on strict requirements–which feminists would deplore–or gender norm. But war isn’t gender-normed. If you want to stick to reality, you’re probably a patriarchal misogynist or something. Look. My knees aren’t what they used to be, nor is my wind. I just got a lens implant. If the average woman were to attack me hand to hand,… Read more »
Dude, in a lot of the combat in WW2 all the soldiers were there for was to die.
Last time I checked a woman can catch a bullet as well as any man.
Keep in mind the object is not to catch bullets.
Sometimes it is.
Thanks, Richard, I think I get it. My point was if one believes in women in combat, then one believes in equality of the process. That process begins with registering for selective service at 18. That’s the potential combat pool. Every male is required to register. They’re not screened in advance to determine who would be fit for combat. Anyone supporting women in combat should be supporting registration for both sexes. Otherwise you’re admitting that most women couldn’t get it done. Or you’re admitting that you really aren’t looking for equality.
This is ridiculous. Let’s stick to reality please. The previous comments have addressed this issue. Yeah, I wish I was 6’5″ and 250, but I’m not. Only a small percentage of women can handle combat. Deal with it. If you are actually serious about trying to get women in combat then you can start by changing the selective service system to include all women when they turn 18. That pool of bodies was created for people who can be placed in combat. Otherwise in the immortal words of Willem Dafoe, “You’re not for real”. (See if you can come up… Read more »
Why not make separate women only units to fight in the front line??? In my opinion any person excluding technical and medical teams, who cannot take part in the close quarter combat (hand-to-hand fight) should have no place in army.
Bzzzt! Wrong. Santorum is wrong. The IDF quit using women after the ’48 war in their combat arms. Various rumors. Couldn’t manage the physical requirements. Swapped sex for getting the guys to carry their kit. Whatever, the IDF, which can’t afford mistakes, doesn’t use women in combat arms. The problem is physical strength. Canada tried and tried to get enough women qualified for the Infantry without gender-norming the requirements. Eventually managed thirty-six, not enough to justify more complex accomodations. WRT women getting killed. That’s not why we have soldiers. We have soldiers to kill other people. Hell, any number of… Read more »
Those of you decrying women not being equal to men in battle, I say put it to the test. Throw a regiment/brigade/division of women into the battlefield and see how they do. That’s the only real test that matters.
Try to imagine a situation where the US was in a war for its very survival and it looked like things could go either way. I know this is not how we like to think; but try. Now try to imagine the US military going out of its way to REPLACE fit young men in combat roles with young females who had on average much less bone and muscle strength. If that does not seem like insanity to you, then you must be secretly routing for the other side. The USSR used lots of young women in WW2 but that… Read more »
Dear U.S. Government,
Kindly remove the binary gender system from your military. It’s only getting in the way.
Yours truly,
Concerned Citizens
IA. Everyone should be able life and run with a 200 lb man on their backs. Lets not look at whether they are male or female, same standard for everyone.
So, the danger is that soldiers, sailors, marines, etc. might try too hard to save each other from danger, and that’s why women can’t be in combat? This seems to assume that men always put the mission first and don’t bother too much with saving each other, but they’ll act differently with female comrades. That seems to fly in the face of the Marine idea of leaving no man behind. They could have retreated from the Chosin Reservoir in 1950 much faster and more successfully if they had left their fallen comrades behind. Somehow I don’t see a lot of… Read more »
This seems to assume that men always put the mission first and don’t bother too much with saving each other, but they’ll act differently with female comrades. Or at least an implication that men will risk their lives for each other but will only do so to a certain extent so as not to endanger the mission (perhaps not so much that they don’t bother too much but that they will only go so far) but will endanger the mission for a woman. Somehow I don’t see a lot of criticism there for taking too much interest in saving each… Read more »
One could still make a distinction today about “combat roles” and “non-combat roles,” but that distinction breaks down pretty easily when you’re stationed overseas in places where there are no front lines. The mortars, rockets, car bombs, and IED’s certainly don’t make a distinction between combat and non-combat roles. A landmine turns you into a pink mist whether the mist is XX or XY. Flying a helicopter anywhere is dangerous, whether the pilot is male or female. The truth is that there are already women serving in de facto combat roles. Why else are they trained to carry and use… Read more »
Are the currently physical fitness exams equal? In the 12 years I spent in the military they were never even close. Women were allowed to do easier pushups and their running time requirements were lower. That was in the USAF, and in a non combat job so I don’t know what the standard was for combat jobs. The explanation for the disparity was that the test was to ensure people were healthy, not to determine combat capability. Even so, I think the requirements should be the same. Here’s your equality….
US Marine pft req. minimums. Male: 3 pull-ups, 50 crunches, 28 min 3 mile. Female: 15 esc flexed arm hang, 50 crunches, 31 min 3 mile.
Yep. I volunteer at a USO, and the female soldiers who come in aren’t even fit. I hear them talking about how they dont really have to do anything as far as physical, esp ones in the Air Force. I’m way, way more fit than the average female soldier.
It always amazes me when people trott out the sexism tag to explain why women can’t do this or do that BUT then completely ignore it when it comes to spending health care dollars or fighting violence against women. When acts like the VAWA (in the US) are created which specifically treats violence against women as a higher priority. VAWA is completely unnecessary because they (the US) already had laws that covered every single act of violence against women. As a former military person I can tell you without question that women were favoured in many ways when it came… Read more »
Other experts say that sexism keeps Men in Military Combat Roles
Amen.
Equality comes with negatives as well as positives. Let ’em get shot.
Santorum believes men will try to save their fellow female soldiers, explaining this weekend: “instead of focused on the mission, they may be more concerned about protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position.” And that’s the fault of people who had no problem with this brand of “chivalry” when it benefited them. From the men that wanted to gain favor from women by treating them like they are of higher priority because of them gender and to the women that thought they were of a higher priority because of their gender. In… Read more »