Santorum: Women shouldn't be in front-line combat.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:31:32 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  Santorum: Women shouldn't be in front-line combat.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Santorum: Women shouldn't be in front-line combat.  (Read 7438 times)
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 10, 2012, 10:19:46 PM »

Women certainly can serve on the front lines in the military. Only whipped romantics and reactionaries claim otherwise.



Logged
Rules for me, but not for thee
Dabeav
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,785
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.19, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2012, 10:30:15 PM »

http://www.speedytown.com/index.php/2010/03/25/beautiful-military-women-around-the-world/
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2012, 10:31:06 PM »

And let's never forget:

   
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2012, 10:32:27 PM »

Santorum is clearly setting us up to be defeated by the Witch-King of Angmar.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2012, 10:33:36 PM »

Okay, I'm posting...just one more time.

Men do not have an inborn instinct to protect women.  It's cultural, if anything.  And, with the level of brainwashing that occurs in military training, it's something that can easily be dealt with.


Do we really want soldiers trained to not be protective?  That sort of training would be almost certain to cause problems both in action, and when they come home.  As much as some liberals would like to pretend we can shunt the military off into some never-never land where they never have to come into contact with civilians, that ain't the case.  And as much as some conservatives would like to pretend that we can train finely-honed killing machines who can turn off their aggression at the flick of some inner switch, experience has shown that really isn't the case.

That said, I'm not particularly worried about the effects on combat ability if we were to completely gender integrate our military.  For one thing, I don't expect a flood of G.I. Janes in infantry foxholes even if we did.  For another, our current areas of combat operations have so little to do with the concept of front lines, that we can't say that women don't regularly serve in combat now.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2012, 10:36:15 PM »


They left out Libya:


Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 10, 2012, 11:11:23 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

50 percent of combat divisions would have to be women. It would never happen - but there would be significant damage to the combat effectiveness to enforce a dubious doctrine with no basis in reality.

Also - it would mean the end of the US military as a serious fighting force. Men prefer difficult jobs that have a high casulty ratio - why not give men a chance to shine? As a guy I'd be embarrassed to have a woman stick up for me and fight my battles for me even if she had 5 inches and 50 pounds (not difficult), simply because I believe that it's my job to protect her with all I've got.

Why do we have to waste time, energy and money defying what most men and women actually want?
Logged
Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 990
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 10, 2012, 11:16:21 PM »

Twilight Sparkle,

The fact you dismiss certain women who voluntarily stay at home, raise a family, and support their husbands as "brainwashed" is insult to those women who do so. It would be just as insulting were you to call any African American "brainwashed" who was a conservative. Saying so implies that neither groups are intelligent enough to think for themselves, especially in a society in which both groups have had more social, economic, and political opportunity than in any other place or time in history. It is this attitude that all of any group of our society should think or act a certain way by definition of their biological or racial identity is the same thing you accuse those on the right of doing.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 10, 2012, 11:18:07 PM »

It would be silly not to have women in the front lines. You can essentially double your troop strength. Sure, the average strength will go down, but with adequate training, it shouldn't be too much of an issue.

One issue people don't think about when you have just one gender at war are the social consequences to society when all your men go out to war and die.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2012, 12:25:12 AM »

Call me unpatriotic, but I highly doubt this little troll ever served a day in his life.

Sure he did!  And here's photographic proof:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148764.msg3192094#msg3192094

He's third from the left.
Logged
Vote UKIP!
MasterSanders
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 990
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2012, 12:31:20 AM »

Call me unpatriotic, but I highly doubt this little troll ever served a day in his life.

Sure he did!  And here's photographic proof:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148764.msg3192094#msg3192094

He's third from the left.

Low, man, low.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2012, 12:39:51 AM »


I eagerly anticipate Ron Paul's trolling of Santorum in the next debate.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 11, 2012, 12:40:53 AM »

Call me unpatriotic, but I highly doubt this little troll ever served a day in his life.

Sure he did!  And here's photographic proof:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148764.msg3192094#msg3192094

He's third from the left.

Ah, of course!
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2012, 12:41:17 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The US military doctrine is based on combat effectiveness not troop counts. Weakening their primary strength by increasing numbers will weaken their capacity to fight.

This is also why it's preferred to have a volunteer force over that of a draft. Having soldiers that want to fight is much, much better than draftees.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 11, 2012, 12:42:10 AM »

Okay, I'm posting...just one more time.

Men do not have an inborn instinct to protect women.  It's cultural, if anything.  And, with the level of brainwashing that occurs in military training, it's something that can easily be dealt with.


Do we really want soldiers trained to not be protective?  That sort of training would be almost certain to cause problems both in action, and when they come home.  As much as some liberals would like to pretend we can shunt the military off into some never-never land where they never have to come into contact with civilians, that ain't the case.  And as much as some conservatives would like to pretend that we can train finely-honed killing machines who can turn off their aggression at the flick of some inner switch, experience has shown that really isn't the case.

That said, I'm not particularly worried about the effects on combat ability if we were to completely gender integrate our military.  For one thing, I don't expect a flood of G.I. Janes in infantry foxholes even if we did.  For another, our current areas of combat operations have so little to do with the concept of front lines, that we can't say that women don't regularly serve in combat now.

Well said. Protectiveness is the reason for a legitimate military in the first place.  Treating soldiers as blank slates to be reprogrammed into depersonalizing the enemy is a recipe for PTSD and atrocity.
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: February 11, 2012, 12:50:53 AM »
« Edited: February 11, 2012, 12:55:31 AM by Politico »

Maybe I've watched Alien/Aliens one too many times, but I've always suspected AT LEAST SOME women can fight just as well as many men. However, I would obviously bet that, in general, most women would be poor in combat, or at least certainly a higher percentage of women would be poor in combat than the percentage of men. Furthermore, the elite of the elite will always be men for the same reason that most of the overall sports world records are in the male categories, not the female categories. To give another example, I would be really surprised to find out that the Navy SEALs team that took out Bin Laden had a single female on its roster.

That is not to say that I agree with Santorum saying these sort of things. The GOP is going to need to win at least 47% of the female vote to have a chance at beating Obama. Comments like this do not help after the Cain/Gingrich debacles. It appears only Romney actually understands how to win over female voters, not repel them. Team Romney certainly understands how important females are going to be in this election. Why Santorum and Gingrich do not is beyond me...
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: February 11, 2012, 01:46:48 AM »

Okay, I'm posting...just one more time.

Men do not have an inborn instinct to protect women.  It's cultural, if anything.  And, with the level of brainwashing that occurs in military training, it's something that can easily be dealt with.


Do we really want soldiers trained to not be protective?  That sort of training would be almost certain to cause problems both in action, and when they come home.  As much as some liberals would like to pretend we can shunt the military off into some never-never land where they never have to come into contact with civilians, that ain't the case.  And as much as some conservatives would like to pretend that we can train finely-honed killing machines who can turn off their aggression at the flick of some inner switch, experience has shown that really isn't the case.

That said, I'm not particularly worried about the effects on combat ability if we were to completely gender integrate our military.  For one thing, I don't expect a flood of G.I. Janes in infantry foxholes even if we did.  For another, our current areas of combat operations have so little to do with the concept of front lines, that we can't say that women don't regularly serve in combat now.

Well said. Protectiveness is the reason for a legitimate military in the first place.  Treating soldiers as blank slates to be reprogrammed into depersonalizing the enemy is a recipe for PTSD and atrocity.

They just need to be trained to view their comrades as comrades regardless of their sex.

However...

I dislike the whole nature of the military.  It's like this weird void in an otherwise progressive society where it's still 2000 BCE.  I suppose it's fine as long as it's all totally voluntary.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: February 11, 2012, 05:32:01 AM »

While I am no fan of Santorum, it seems to me that in this case he's going to get raked over the coals for a reasonable statement - the military is not yet ready to make a final verdict on the psychological consequences of women serving in combat. It could certainly have effects. I don't think that those effects should be enough to deprive women of the opportunity to serve in front-line combat (I'm more worried about the physical requirements), but it's not a statement that is so far out there that it doesn't deserve to be considered.

Also, the title of this thread is pretty blatantly dishonest and slanderous.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: February 11, 2012, 05:56:05 AM »

To clarify, Santorum didn't say that women are too emotional for combat.  He said that having women in combat would lead to problems because of "emotions", but didn't elaborate.  When asked about it later, he said that the problem was actually men's emotions, and their instinct to protect women:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/10/santorum-explains-opposition-to-women-in-combat/

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Of course, a way around this would be the creation of all-female combat units. Like the Russians and Soviets did during both world wars.
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: February 11, 2012, 12:00:09 PM »

Women are not in combat roles now- from what I gather the DoD is trying to put them in combat support roles- intelligence, comm, medical, etc which would put them closer to actual combat
Santorum is describing something that is VERY true....ther e is a natural instinct to protect women and I cannot imagine the horror of seeing a woman killed in action or wounded in combat...it is somethign that is difficult to describe and might sound sexist but thats not the intention

Santorum is exactlyr ight but should phrase his thoughts better
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2012, 12:06:34 PM »

It's not a "natural instinct."  It's entirely a cultural thing.  It just appears inborn because of the way gender socialization works.  Just like every other aspect of gender.
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: February 11, 2012, 12:11:02 PM »

It's not a "natural instinct."  It's entirely a cultural thing.  It just appears inborn because of the way gender socialization works.  Just like every other aspect of gender.

Regardless- it is there and would be an issue

Aside from that, women are less physically prepared for combat. There is a reason PFTs for women have lower standards...females are simply unable to push the limits of physical strength and stamina of men. Hell any woman serving right now could do far better then most male civilians in a physial contest... but women are unable to reach the required physical level for combat
Logged
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,022
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: February 11, 2012, 12:12:31 PM »

It's not a "natural instinct."  It's entirely a cultural thing.  It just appears inborn because of the way gender socialization works.  Just like every other aspect of gender.

Regardless- it is there and would be an issue

Aside from that, women are less physically prepared for combat. There is a reason PFTs for women have lower standards...females are simply unable to push the limits of physical strength and stamina of men. Hell any woman serving right now could do far better then most male civilians in a physial contest... but women are unable to reach the required physical level for combat


Er...

All women are not weaker than all men.

And it doesn't have to be an issue.  The way military training works, it could be dealt with.
Logged
CLARENCE 2015!
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,927
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: February 11, 2012, 12:20:01 PM »

What I just mentioned- PFT- is the most crucial component of military training. Everyone from the new arrival at Marine Corps REcruit Depot to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has to pass as PFT and those who create the standards for it have set them lower for women because of natural ability

I agree that all women are not weaker then all men...that is what I was trying to say by saying any woman in the military is far more in shape then most civilian men and many men in the military...but combat arms troops (not even special operators but they are of course the extreme) need to excel at the PFT, not to mention the other tests they will undergo- challenge courses and the like
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,254
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: February 11, 2012, 12:20:01 PM »

And...

1) The first part of my comment has nothing to do with the military.

2) I know people who have served in the military.  There's plenty of source material to attest to what I said.

But I'm going to stop there, lest I feed the troll.

BWHWHWHWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!

"I know people"

Wow... Just wow.

I actually served in the military. You have no clue what you are talking about.

And for all your service in the 74th Troll Battalion, I salute you sir.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 14 queries.