Santorum Says, "If Women Are In Combat, Men May Try To Protect Them"
230 replies, posted
I once heard a veteran say
"In war you might say you're fighting for your country, or your rights offically...
But in all honesty you're fighting for your buddy sitting right next to you."
Xenocidebot certainly changed my views on that.
[QUOTE=Numidium;34639998]I know what it is, and there's a reason I didn't mention it. If you think about it more than a second you'd realize that breeding by proxy only makes evolutionary sense for one half of the couple. I thought I would not have to say that in my post, apparently I do. And good job continuing the rating thing.
[editline]10th February 2012[/editline]
And there's another difference between judging a stance or ideology valid and supporting it. I don't say social darwinism is baseless, totally don't think that, but I don't support it.[/QUOTE]
You just demonstrated that you didn't understand it at all.
Breeding by Proxy is a fancy way of saying that a complex of traits can aid its own survival by making its carrier help raise the offspring of other members of a group with the same traits, thus allowing more sucessful childrearing and thus, more sucessfully passing on those traits by rasing more/healthier offspring that can continue the trick themselves
Plus there's other explanations, such as a set of genes that in one sex aid in reproductive success in one way or another and in the other can cause homosexuality. The increased reproductive success in one gender outweighs/ballences the loss in reproductive success in the other, thus the set of genes persists.
Hell, there's a small set of literature dedicated to the subject, although titles don't spring to mind immediately right now.
I have no idea, why aren't women allowed in the army anyway?
[editline]11th February 2012[/editline]
I mean, shouldn't this whole thing be based on merit rather than sex?
[QUOTE=TheCombine;34651755]I have no idea, why aren't women allowed in the army anyway?[/QUOTE]
They are, just not in combat positions in the US military. Although in Afghanistan pretty much every military job comes with a high chance of seeing combat.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;34651277]There is SOME truth to what he's saying, But who's to say since it hasn't been done
There's a way of thinking that you may put yourself or another more critically wounded at risk trying to help a female when her injuries aren't as severe, AND the sight of a female killed and maimed is worse than seeing a male having an adverse affect on mental health even more so than the usual PTSD and casualties
But that's just all theory, really
And, as for training, Women have a handicap, so to speak. They get more time to complete a run, they have to do less Situps, pushups, pullups than men. But as far as I know that's just for Physical requirements, everything else is the same[/QUOTE]
An average woman does have some inherent mentality and physical differences with an average man (you can't deny that generally women are physically slightly weaker than men, and that they don't have the same way to solve problems. Hell, most of the time they don't even have the same problems and issues as men), but I doubt those differences are big enough to actually be significant army-wise, especially on the mentality part. Of course a woman recruit will probably need more training than a male counterpart to equal the same physical state as him (assuming she was weaker in the first place), but to be honest, if a woman willingly joins the army, chances are she already is in an appropriate mentality and very probably in an appropriate physical state, so basically the difference is at a level of minor corporate jack shit importance.
The only con I can see about having women in the field is that there is a higher chance that a female prisoner gets raped compared to a male prisoner.
[QUOTE=newbs;34637429]I fucking hate how all political correctness looks past the obvious implications of evolutionary psychology.
I'm in no way a sexist, but I can see why woman would have priority in a life/death situation as they are a key resource for reproduction in our species. When we are put in a life/death situation we are going to prioritize the woman, because a single man can impregnate multiple woman, thus securing the continuation of our species.
It's just how are fucking minds work when we're in survival mode because we're fucking animals. Fucking lean to deal with it.[/QUOTE]
Everything you said was true, but you got dumbs, how stupid.
[QUOTE=Clementine;34652515]Everything you said was true, but you got dumbs, how stupid.[/QUOTE]
Maybe because one of the key concepts of every civilization ever since prehistory is trying to be more than a "fucking animal" ?
Oh and also because his post is completely irrelevant to what the article is about ?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;34652939]Maybe because one of the key concepts of every civilization ever since prehistory is trying to be more than a "fucking animal" ?
Oh and also because his post is completely irrelevant to what the article is about ?[/QUOTE]
Indeed, but its hard to escape something so subconscious we don't really notice it, there's a lot of things we do that are from before our current time, such as having sympathy for small cute little animals, because they remind us of our young, which we must protect at all costs, especially back then when it was critical a baby survived.
How? The article is literally about how men are probably going to prioritize women above men when in combat positions, and newbs literally addressed why that isn't wrong...
[QUOTE=newbs;34637429]I fucking hate how all political correctness looks past the obvious implications of evolutionary psychology.
I'm in no way a sexist, but I can see why woman would have priority in a life/death situation as they are a key resource for reproduction in our species. When we are put in a life/death situation we are going to prioritize the woman, because a single man can impregnate multiple woman, thus securing the continuation of our species.
It's just how are fucking minds work when we're in survival mode because we're fucking animals. Fucking lean to deal with it.[/QUOTE]
Uh, dude. We aren't exactly hurting for ladies here. We have like, billions of them.
I think it's possible to spare [i]just a few.[/i]
I don't know if I'm saying anything that hasn't been said before in this thread, but in a roundabout way, Santorum touches on an interesting point. Men do feel protective of women because of sociological and evolutionary psychology, and it's likely to be far more psychologically traumatic for male soldiers to see comrades of the opposite sex injured and killed in combat than other men like themselves. None of which constitute a valid reason to bar women from participating in combat roles. The Canadian Forces has been doing it for ages.
i don't like supporting santorum, but what he's saying does make sense, espcially when you look at the old "women and children first" policies that the white star line had
it's probably less evopsych though and more societal norms
[QUOTE=Clementine;34652515]Everything you said was true, but you got dumbs, how stupid.[/QUOTE]
Read the thread and you'll understand why what he said is complete horse shit.
[editline]11th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=archangel125;34654117]I don't know if I'm saying anything that hasn't been said before in this thread, but in a roundabout way, Santorum touches on an interesting point. Men do feel protective of women because of sociological and evolutionary psychology, and it's likely to be far more psychologically traumatic for male soldiers to see comrades of the opposite sex injured and killed in combat than other men like themselves. None of which constitute a valid reason to bar women from participating in combat roles. The Canadian Forces has been doing it for ages.[/QUOTE]
If it was evolutionary then everyone would feel the same way, which they really don't. There is a societal factor, but holding women back isn't going to fix the problem, sexist men should just learn to deal with it.
[QUOTE=Virtanen;34641928]isn't it part of a soldier's job to protect his/her fellow soldiers anyway
I don't see the problem here[/QUOTE]
The problem is it implies women are less than men and need to be protected in a situation where they've been trained just as well
[QUOTE=Clementine;34653043]Indeed, but its hard to escape something so subconscious we don't really notice it, there's a lot of things we do that are from before our current time, such as having sympathy for small cute little animals, because they remind us of our young, which we must protect at all costs, especially back then when it was critical a baby survived.
[/QUOTE]
I hate babies.
*music comes on*
Guess, who's back. Back again. Newbz is back. Tell a friend.
[U]Thread House Keeping:[/U]
[U][B]{admitting the creation of controversy through introspection ~∈ trolling|controversy ∈ posters belief set}
I was posting my sincere opinion and didn't expect such a huge reaction to it. After five pages of people debating and rating spamming me, I reflected on my actions and found the reaction to them humorous.
However, my intent was not to troll.
[/B]Shoutouts:[B][/B][/U]
@Xenocidebot
I read your sources and I only credit articles posted on .org (sometimes) or .gov.
Your last source (.org) implies that my claim has credit. Anyways, I do not have a lot of time to go into citing long and often verbose academic articles. I believe I can make my claim on triggering latent subconscious reactions to my statements and following a strict chain of logic.
[U]Personal Responses:[/U]
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;34653744]Uh, dude. We aren't exactly hurting for ladies here. We have like, billions of them.
I think it's possible to spare [i]just a few.[/i][/QUOTE]
The problem is that humans are terrible at rationalization and inclusion of external variables (such as the rest of the people in the world) when they are in a stressful situation. [I]When you go to war, war is your reailty.[/I] :/ This fact you state, while[B] true[/B], is not taken into account in a life death situation when your in-group is significantly narrowed (i.e. your squad)
[QUOTE=Clementine;34653043]Indeed, but its hard to escape something so subconscious we don't really notice it, there's a lot of things we do that are from before our current time, such as having sympathy for small cute little animals, because they remind us of our young, which we must protect at all costs, especially back then when it was critical a baby survived.
How? The article is literally about how men are probably going to prioritize women above men when in combat positions, and newbs literally addressed why that isn't wrong...[/QUOTE]
This is [I]exactly[/I] what I am saying.
I'm not saying that men or women are better in war. I'm saying that when you mix them in a group you're going to get a reaction because the mixture is heterogeneous by definition.
[QUOTE=joes33431;34649871]Well, the brain developed via evolution, so some of the inner machinations probably developed along with it, considering that psychology is just the exchange of neurological chemicals.
But I'm not a psychologist or a neurologist.
So, really, I'm more like a clown talking about rocket science.[/QUOTE]
You are much too humble.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34650650]Next time you troll, try not making a [I]complete[/I] ass of yourself.[/QUOTE]
What are you trying to accomplish here? Your proposition is false as you assume trolls care about their ego. I'm not a troll, I'm simply commenting on your faulty logic (F->T=F).
[U]Closing Comments
[/U]H20. Two hydrogen, one oxygen. Mix as much H20 together and you still have a homogeneous mixture that is perfectly drinkable. D20 is a comprised of a heavier isotope. Try mixing it in and see how the situation changes. ;)
My point? Two things that have seemingly negligible differences, can lead to a HUGE change in a situation because of their reactions to each other. Neither one is created "unequal", but the end result changes because of their mixture.
It doesn't matter anyway since most women wouldn't last a day in any squared away infantry unit.
[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;34685954]It doesn't matter anyway since most women wouldn't last a day in any squared away infantry unit.[/QUOTE]
Now [I][U][B]this is sexist[/B][/U] [/I] as it is arbitrarily making an assumption about all woman.
I, however, am taking about [I]reactions[/I] between men and woman.
Stop fucking friendly firing at me bros.
Once again America ignores the success of other nations and doesn't at all consider if they can implement what they do.
Well, I'm could be wrong, but they've definately not made the plunge.
[QUOTE=newbz;34686013]Now [I][U][B]this is sexist[/B][/U] [/I] as it is arbitrarily making an assumption about all woman.
I, however, am taking about [I]reactions[/I] between men and woman.
Stop fucking friendly firing at me bros.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with both of you, while he's just a flat out bigot I think that a well trained soldier will react the way his training tells him, not how his hormones tell him.
[QUOTE=newbz;34686013]Now [I][U][B]this is sexist[/B][/U] [/I] as it is arbitrarily making an assumption about all woman.
I, however, am taking about [I]reactions[/I] between men and woman.
Stop fucking friendly firing at me bros.[/QUOTE] And how long have you spent in a U.S. Army Infantry company?
[editline]13th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=newbz;34686013]Now [I][U][B]this is sexist[/B][/U] [/I] as it is arbitrarily making an assumption about all woman.
I, however, am taking about [I]reactions[/I] between men and woman.
Stop fucking friendly firing at me bros.[/QUOTE] And how long have you spent in a U.S. Army Infantry company?
[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;34685954]It doesn't matter anyway since most women wouldn't last a day in any squared away infantry unit.[/QUOTE]
why not
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;34686069]Once again America ignores the success of other nations and doesn't at all consider if they can implement what they do.
Well, I'm could be wrong, but they've definately not made the plunge.[/QUOTE]
Women are permitted in the US military, they just can't control front line armored vehicles or take front line combat positions.
They can, and many are, fighter pilots and soldiers.
It is silly that we still restrict them from such positions, but it is largely just a matter of the US military is very slow to alter policy rather than stupidity.
(They also can't serve on submarines, but that isn't a restriction so much as the lack of an all female submarine crew. Only one sex can serve aboard subs due to the lack of space. This is a common restriction.)
We are slowly edging our way into it at a careful pace. Just recently we opened up a bunch more positions to women:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/us/pentagon-to-loosen-restrictions-on-women-in-combat.html?_r=1&hp[/url]
Still not there, but we are working on it. The US is slow to adopt new policy.
[QUOTE=Juniez;34686149]why not[/QUOTE]
Spend a day in an in infantry company. Unless they can pull some Demi Moore, shit they wont survive the hazing, smoking and personal insults.
[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;34686276]Spend a day in an in infantry company. Unless they can pull some Demi Moore, shit they wont survive the hazing, smoking and personal insults.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever even met a woman in the military? And you are aware I'm sure that tons of other military forces in the world allow women into front-line combat Operations and they're doing just fine.
Studies show that men respond very differently to women when in combat. A woman being killed has more of an impact on morale, and men are more likely to go out of their way to protect women. No, not every person reacts the same way, but it's pretty much hardwired into our brains and it's not something that can be simply ignored, or superseded via training.
It's not a valid reason to outright bar women from service, but it isn't something to be simply ignored and for god's sake it's not sexism. Nothing Newbs said is factually incorrect and a lot of people are leaping to conclusions.
[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;34686327]Have you ever even met a woman in the military?[/QUOTE]
I'm a U.S. Army infantryman. The females I see in my battalion fall apart in the field all the time over the stupidest shit...so yes..id say I've met a woman or two in the military.
[QUOTE=EurofanBMW;34686406]I'm a U.S. Army infantryman. The females I see in my battalion fall apart in the field all the time over the stupidest shit...so yes..id say I've met a woman or two in the military.[/QUOTE]
So because of a few women in your battalion you're generalizing that most women would not be able to last in an infantry unit?
Whether or not what Santorum says is true, I couldn't say. I have, however, heard this argument before. A former Green Beret gave a presentation to my university's ROTC program. One of the cadets asked why women weren't allowed in the army special forces (a combat role), and the presenter answered with this very argument. I have no firm idea, but that argument may be one of the pervading beliefs in the military.
My personal opinion? I don't have one. A conservative might say women shouldn't be allowed in combat roles. A liberal would probably say they should. At the end of the day, the military is trying to accomplish a goal. If introducing women to combat positions really does interfere with that goal then the answer is simple. I haven't seen any data on the subject, so I would say solid tests are needed.
[QUOTE=Homez;34686514]Whether or not what Santorum says is true, I couldn't say. I have, however, heard this argument before. A former Green Beret gave a presentation to my university's ROTC program. One of the cadets asked why women weren't allowed in the army special forces (a combat role), and the presenter answered with this very argument. I have no firm idea, but that argument may be one of the pervading beliefs in the military.
My personal opinion? I don't have one. A conservative might say women shouldn't be allowed in combat roles. A liberal would probably say they should. At the end of the day, the military is trying to accomplish a goal. If introducing women to combat positions really does interfere with that goal then the answer is simple. I haven't seen any data on the subject, so I would say solid tests are needed.[/QUOTE]
But here's the thing, women ARE allowed in the special forces in other countries and they operate perfectly fine in their goals. I fail to see why the US Military should be any different.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.