Saw an article in the Times today
Jan. 23rd, 2013 09:19 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyThe Pentagon is set to lift its ban on women in combat positions.
I won't repost it, because that about sums it up. Out of perverseness I went and looked at the comments. Of the negative ones that were gender-based rather than anti-war-based, about two thirds of them are either "women can't fight because men are genetically incapable of not defending women and morale would fall apart after seeing their female comrades hurt or tortured" and "women can't fight because even without women in combat roles the army is rapetastic and lol that will never change".
I want to get those two sorts of commenters in a room and shake it a bit, see what falls out. I also deeply, deeply question the morality of people who think that soldiers will be horribly affected by seeing their female comrades get a hangnail, but won't mind at all when their male comrades are killed, injured, or tortured in general. (That is quite aside from the fact that "it's evolution!" makes little sense. What "evolutionary" benefit is there for men to protect the mothers of other people's children at the costs of their own lives? How would that help pass on their genes? Do people think this shit through before they say it?)
Then there are the people who just blithely state that women are "supposed" to not fight or men are "supposed" to be soldiers, without even pretending to back that up. How they reconcile this with the reality of some women wanting to be acknowledged for combat roles is unclear.
It's pathological, but I kinda want to make my way to the end of the comments, see if any new gems appear. I always do this, and it never helps.
I won't repost it, because that about sums it up. Out of perverseness I went and looked at the comments. Of the negative ones that were gender-based rather than anti-war-based, about two thirds of them are either "women can't fight because men are genetically incapable of not defending women and morale would fall apart after seeing their female comrades hurt or tortured" and "women can't fight because even without women in combat roles the army is rapetastic and lol that will never change".
I want to get those two sorts of commenters in a room and shake it a bit, see what falls out. I also deeply, deeply question the morality of people who think that soldiers will be horribly affected by seeing their female comrades get a hangnail, but won't mind at all when their male comrades are killed, injured, or tortured in general. (That is quite aside from the fact that "it's evolution!" makes little sense. What "evolutionary" benefit is there for men to protect the mothers of other people's children at the costs of their own lives? How would that help pass on their genes? Do people think this shit through before they say it?)
Then there are the people who just blithely state that women are "supposed" to not fight or men are "supposed" to be soldiers, without even pretending to back that up. How they reconcile this with the reality of some women wanting to be acknowledged for combat roles is unclear.
It's pathological, but I kinda want to make my way to the end of the comments, see if any new gems appear. I always do this, and it never helps.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-01-24 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-24 06:42 pm (UTC)"Women who are captured will be raped, and it is awful!"
No argument here, but do they think that women who aren't captured in combat are never raped? Because that doesn't really hold true for civilians or the military. And have they considered that captured men could be raped? Do they THINK, ever?