tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33818852.post4057269862223969842..comments2023-10-21T23:57:46.155-04:00Comments on Wheat Among Tares: Santorum Word Saladterrihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12399706958844399216noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33818852.post-71525265923546548042012-02-11T20:02:00.540-05:002012-02-11T20:02:00.540-05:00VanceH...Thanks. I'm not sure I deserve the co...VanceH...Thanks. I'm not sure I deserve the compliment , but I'll take it. ;-)<br /><br />DH...I would only ask how often men fail the mission out of camaraderie? Santorum says it happens, yet offers no examples of it happening even in male soldiers. It's not that I don't think it could happen, but I think it's probably rare. <br /><br />Soldiers are highly trained and while they are definitely trained to carry out missions, they are also charged to make good decisions in split seconds and adapt. I just don't know how Santorum can says what he says and what criteria he's using in the case of male soldiers, let alone female soldiers.<br /><br />It seems to me like he's just making stuff up to suit his already pre-determined view.<br /><br />AVI, <br /><br />I don't think that it matters that men and women behave differently around each other. Men and women already work together in the military. What matters is whether they would act differently in a detrimental way in combat situations. Santorum has no basis for saying that other than he feels it must be true.<br /><br />I just go back to thinking about the training that soldiers go through and the nature of how modern combat occurs. It isn't a lot of hand to hand combat. It's precision work and strength is important as far as being able to carry heavy gear and have physical endurance. I believe that there plenty of women who are physically capable of doing that.<br /><br />When it comes to discussions about the physical strength of women in combat, I can't help but wonder if everyone thinks that all male soldiers are big bulky he-men...that there are no lean, lanky soldiers who are physically fit but not as musclebound as others. <br /><br />Soldiers don't come from a factory, all equally strong, smart, and capable.<br /><br />For me it's all about whether a particular woman is a good soldier, or not. If they prove themselves physically and mentally capable as any other soldier, then I see no reason for them not to be in combat.<br /><br />I was going to say that the main problem with women in combat would be the possibility of sexual relationships occurring and women becoming pregnant....but then I guess that''s already a possibility for women currently in the military.<br /><br />I'm not sure what happens to female enlistees who become pregnant, or how the military handles them.terrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12399706958844399216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33818852.post-82682430059700381032012-02-11T18:53:15.932-05:002012-02-11T18:53:15.932-05:00In non-combat situations, men behave differently w...In non-combat situations, men behave differently when women are around (and that flows both ways). What is your evidence that this disappears in combat?<br /><br />There is a combat difficulty that goes unmentioned. It can be worked around, but it is a work-around. Many tasks require skills that women have as good a supply of as men, or better. But some require bursts of physical strength. They just do. In the IDF, they have been extremely clever in keeping people in roles where they can succeed. They have also decided that whatever they lose militarily from their emphasis on collective responsibility at universal preparedness, it is worth it to the society they have designed.<br /><br />But it my not be easily replicated in other countries. I sometimes wonder if both sides of this argument don't lose sight of the fact that we are talking about life and death, not what gender roles we would like to see expressed in the military.<br /><br />As soldiers pretty rapidly fight for their comrades, or the honor of their unit, or the girl back home rather than patriotism - and they always have, as far back as we have records - I am reluctant to dismiss camaraderie as a reason.Assistant Village Idiothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33818852.post-83063369616543138932012-02-11T10:15:58.390-05:002012-02-11T10:15:58.390-05:00Okay, so I watched the video clip, and with the cl...Okay, so I watched the video clip, and with the clarification that he made about his remarks, which you provided in your addendum, his comments make sense. I'm not saying that I agree with him but rather that I now understand what he's saying. I guess he's trying to express that he believes we already have situations where men in combat make poor decisions and compromise the overall mission out of a kinship or, as he calls it, camaraderie that they feel for a fellow soldier (i.e., the put the needs of the one above the needs of the many) and that he fears that type of feeling and situation will only become worse if women are on the front line - due to his feeling that men will feel an even stronger personal connection to a woman and will have a harder time sacrificing the individual needs of a female fellow soldier in battle if it's in the best interests of the overall mission.<br /><br />While I do agree that some of what he fears might occur, I think he's overstating the size and potential impact of the issue and that, as he himself asserts, it's really not a whole lot different than the challenge faced by the personal bond that fellow male soldiers form with one another. <br /><br />Ultimately soldiers, male or female, are trained to work together as a team and fiercely protect one another but also make the hard decision to subjugate the needs of one person to the needs of the larger group when necessary. It's not easy for anyone to do, but it's what soldiers are trained to do, and I'm confident that if women were introduced to front-line combat situations, the fighting force would continue to perform this challenging role to the best of its ability.DHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33818852.post-6751173731005955152012-02-10T23:28:01.304-05:002012-02-10T23:28:01.304-05:00Hi Terri,
Well said! I wish the candidates cou...Hi Terri,<br /> Well said! I wish the candidates could manage to think half as clearly as you do. <br /><br />-- VanceVanceH-https://www.blogger.com/profile/14482908993570281977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33818852.post-80955304342860225302012-02-10T21:55:35.344-05:002012-02-10T21:55:35.344-05:00You should watch the clip. It's actually not ...You should watch the clip. It's actually not that long, but it seemed a little incoherent and non-sequitir-ish to me.terrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12399706958844399216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33818852.post-16805909520901702532012-02-10T16:56:37.684-05:002012-02-10T16:56:37.684-05:00Upfront caveat - I didn't watch the footage of...Upfront caveat - I didn't watch the footage of Santorum's speech. With that said, the belief that women should be kept from combat positions, while ostensibly well-intentioned and "chivalrous", seems antiquated, sexist, and out of touch with reality. Women have worked long and hard to secure equal footing with men - a battle (no pun intended) that continues to this day. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure, and I could be completely wrong, that the research shows that women make excellent combatants and oftentimes exceed their male counterparts on the battlefield.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, there's a very "old fashioned" part of me that would love to keep women from the battlefield -- to assert the classic male, protectionist role -- but we can't do so at the cost of treating women as somehow less-than or subservient.DHnoreply@blogger.com