Chivalry ain't dead
I've been debating whether or not to post regarding women being involved in direct combat roles.
There is s reason that I haven't seen very many people cover, and it could be considered a sexist issue, so I'll apologize in advance for being a pig. Actually I won't, if you don't like it, tough, get over it.
There are certain gender based roles that as a race the two different sexes fill. Men typically don't have strong maternal instincts; it's just a fact of life. Men are typically considered the protectors of the family, yes it's sexist and yes I realize that women can provide for a family just fine. That isn't my point. There are gender roles that our brains are hard wired with, they're the most primal of our urges, like the urge to reproduce. We simply can't change the urges just because it's the politically correct thing to do.
I haven't served in any branch of the military, so I don't have any personal experience to draw from. However I have talked to several people that have served and their opinion is the same as mine; the urge of a man to protect a woman isn't something that can be "un-trained". If nothing men are extremely predictable beasts, we'll often put ourselves in harms way to protect a woman.
For example: In college I was heading home late one night, when I stopped at a stop sign and saw a guy beating the crap out of what I presumed to be his girlfriend. Without any further thought I backed my truck over the curb, into the parking lot and got out. The girl was maybe 5'2" all and 100 pounds soaking wet, he had to be close to double her size and by the time I reached them he was open handedly beating the hell out of this girl.
He hadn't paid any attention to me pulling into the parking lot or approaching them, so I hollered at him and when he turned I laid him out. I hit him harder than I'd ever hit anyone in the twenty some years leading up to that point. When I hit him the skin on my knuckles and the meat on his nose pealed back, yet for some reason I didn't stop. As he hit the ground I was on top of him. I'm not sure what happened after that. See I got in a couple more shots before I was laid out myself.
Apparently the girl who had seconds before been screaming bloody murder didn't care for me evening things up. I'm not quite sure what she hit me with; all I know is she split my cheek and damn near knocked me out. As I was getting up off the ground, she was helping him up and into their car where she drove away.
Now I'm not recounting one of the more humbling, yes getting knocked on your ass by a 100 pound woman is very humbling, moments of my past to speak of my own chivalrous virtues. If I am willing to place myself in such a situation, how are our soldiers going to react when they see a female in harms way?
Are they going to take risks they otherwise wouldn't take? I know had it been two guys in that parking lot I wouldn't have been about to recount the story above.
What happens when it comes to a P.O.W. situation? How are our solders too react when they see one of their female colleagues being beaten or sexually assaulted. Imagine the mental abuse they would suffer knowing they could prevent a woman from being raped if they were to divulge information that may or may not be useful to the enemy.
Call me sexist I don't care, but I do not see how you can expect a soldier who voluntarily signed up to risk his life to protect those back home will be able to treat a woman as just another body on the battle field.
Maybe the problem is certain people have become accustomed to letting women do their dirty work.
Maybe certain people don't mind hiding behind a woman's skirt if it keeps their Ivy League ass out of a fight.
It isn't about competency, it isn't about women being unfit for service and it isn't that some women aren't physically capable of doing the job. There are some physically fit enough to drag a wounded 200 pound marine off the battle field, not many, but some. It's just that a majority of our soldiers haven't been pussified to a point they would idly sit by and watch something bad happen to a woman.
Sorry folks like it or not Chivalry ain't dead and placing women along side men on the battle field is a bad, bad idea.
Send complaints here.
Well written and said, Phin. You make some excellent points.
I tried to ping you on a guest-post I wrote here.
Posted by: Christina at June 2, 2005 10:05 AMWhatever happened to equality?
If (and that's a big "if") women can physically and mentally meet the same physical requirements as their male counterparts, they should be allowed the chance to serve in combat if they so desire.
I know where your coming from--quite literally--but from what I've heard of "bands of brothers" in wars across the centuries, anyone who takes fires with you develops a bond that us mere civilians can't comprehend, and I highly doubt it matters if your pair swings from high upon your chest or down between your stalks, a soldier is a soldier.
In addition, I'd point out that there is no such thing as a front line anymore. If you are in theater, you're a combat soldier.
While I beleive in chivalry as well, it does tend to have its limitations when it encounters reality.
Nice sentiments all the same, and thanks for reminding me of that story; I'd forgotten that one...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 2, 2005 09:58 PMUm, wouldn't you stop anyone from beating another person to death if that is what you could do? If two people were beating on each other maybe the thing to do is call the police.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at June 3, 2005 03:02 AMGood points. When I was in the Army, women were just getting into non-traditional roles back in the 70s. But, DOD didn't really know what to do with them completely. DOD was being forced into the situation.
Two reasons why women in combat situations won't work: 1. Politically here at home it doesn't sell. Have a woman captured and the home folk will freak out. You're not going to see too many politicians signing off on this one, however, there are a few. 2. Putting women in infantry units is a distraction. This is simply a fact of life. If you had an all female infantry unit and dropped a couple males into it, the same would be true.
Other countries have done it, but we've yet to progress that far. Personally, I don't like the idea for traditional reasons, but I do think they would fit in fine in small, highly specialized units like Special Forces and Seal Teams.
I liked your story about the fight you got into. I was an MP in the Army and a domestic dispute was the worst call you could go on; you never knew what was going to happen. We had a joke about it, and it's only a joke: If you are going to break-up a fight between a husband and wife, punch her out first, if not, she'll end up being the one who kicks your ass.
Posted by: THIRDWAVEDAVE at June 4, 2005 01:56 AMPhin I could not agree with you more!!!
Posted by: The Connector at June 5, 2005 01:50 AMWomen should not be fighting war. Nor should men. Especially this trumped up excuse for making a few rich men even richer, while the less fortunate have to sacrifice brothers, husbands, fathers, sisters, wives, mothers and children...none of whom will ever be the same again.
Chivalry should extend to the entire human race, not just between men and women.
Clinton and Gore would have never allowed Americans to be put in harm's way the way the current White House does. And then harm is not just over there. And it is not just a matter of whether or not our soldiers get killed.
All that they see, and do, will have an effect on who they are. And some of it will not be too pretty. The monster is only in its infancy stage.
Only about 35% of Americans still think the war was a good idea. Things cannot be solved overnight, but it helps to at least be on a good path.
We are not on a good path. And things do not necessarily get worse in a mere linear fashion. Things can get exponentially worse.
People are beginning to see what it is like to have the Republicans control everything, and it is not a rosy picture. It is a Hellish picture.
Bring back exuberance!
What good is chivalry when you're dead or killing?
-Anonymoses
Posted by: anonymoses at June 5, 2005 02:16 AMhey Phin,
I agree with you that our brains are basically hard-wired. Yours is obviously hard-wired to represent a heterosexual point of view, whereas mine, is very different. I don't deny the fact that I have both a masculine and a feminine side, that I can be nuturing as well as beat the crap out of anyone who is harming my male or female friends. I don't watch my male or female friends get mistreated and then decide whether they should be able to defend themselves and I can stay out of the situation because of gender. I get involved if it is the right thing to do. Chivalry has nothing to do with gender. One should be equally concerned about defending unarmed brothers in POW situations as they would be for their sisters.
If you believe that this is why gays and lesbians are not allowed in the U.S. military, have a look at the armies of Israel, the Netherlands, France and other countries that have no discrimination on gender or gender roles and see how they work. Men who defend men are no more likely to divulge secrets than men who defend only women.
Don't ask, don't tell is about to get scrapped too, by the way. It is costing the military too much money and it doesn't work. In fact, it is one of the reasons that we have an inadequate number of translators of Farsi to be able to decode the jabber of potential terrorist info from the Middle East. Isn't it sad that we are so insecure of our sexuality that we would make our nation insecure too?
Ron
Posted by: Ron Hudson at June 5, 2005 12:50 PM
