Do men really fall apart when a female soldier gets killed?
“I’ve read slews of stuff and I’ve never heard that one,” Laurence says. “Certainly some men have been raised that you treat women as second class citizens and they need to be protected. I think if you hear your male soldier buddy scream it affects you just as much.”
She theorizes that one reason military men could be hesitant to allow women in combat is that they’d rather not let women witness their emotional breakdown. “In the military in general, you are taught you subdue and control your emotions,” she says. When you see your friends killed next to you, “you have to sublimate those emotions to go on.”
But no one has perfect emotional regulation, and when it fails, it could ruin the illusion of manliness in war. “My own gut feeling–I think men are a little afraid to have women in combat because they will display their vulnerability,” Laurence says.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
No, they send rescue missions for female truck drivers who get captured risking many men to save one woman.
sharrukin on January 29, 2013 at 8:45 PM
Well, if it was Hillary….
Warner Todd Huston on January 29, 2013 at 8:46 PM
A shrink who has never been in the military. Well that settles that the debate is closed. I’m convinced. ////
warren on January 29, 2013 at 8:52 PM
Men hold revolving doors for you, don’t they?
Ronnie on January 29, 2013 at 8:54 PM
Being expected to perform at the same level after getting to do more work.Feelings and vulnerability.
rogerb on January 29, 2013 at 8:54 PM
Maybe that b!tch should try reading the Israeli hearing reports on why they removed women from infantry combat roles in 1952.
SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 8:57 PM
I feel dumber having read that.
“There is no evidence.” “There is no evidence.”
Did you do a scientific study and find no linkage, or do you just have no data?
frankj on January 29, 2013 at 8:58 PM
Another expert on the military who doesn’t know squat about the military. Bet she read a lot of books about it though.
fogw on January 29, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Certainly some men have been raised that you treat women
as second class citizensas precious andthey need to be protected.and their life is more important than my own.I had to fix that.
F15Mech on January 29, 2013 at 9:01 PM
Most man are emotionally withered at the sight of a crying woman. A greviously injured one, even more so I suppose. I guess that might be ‘trained out’ to some extent.
Reminds of the old truism; A man is right until the woman cries, then she is instantly right.
RavingLunatic on January 29, 2013 at 9:02 PM
Certainly America didn’t go in to overdrive for Jessica Lynch and Surely her being a woman had nothing to do with the rescue operation.
Kaptain Amerika on January 29, 2013 at 9:09 PM
I bet she watched her Xena dvds back to back and thats why she knows women will have no problem with close quater combat. I love hearing from these people who have never done a force march with full combat loads, never carried a rifle, never even worn a uniform but they just feel women should be in the infantry. It’s only “fair”.
When one of them can do this with a full combat load get back to me.
http://www.bataanmarch.com/
warren on January 29, 2013 at 9:11 PM
The way it’s phrased and exaggerated makes it pure straw. It might as well be “Do men really drop dead when a nearby woman dies?”
Pull out the stops, chuckles. Party on the ruins. You should know that even if you make everything a demilitarized zone for a while, the bottom line is that you need us, and we don’t. need. you.
Please consider opposing allowing women in close combat. This will come around again.
Please consider opposing allowing women in close combat. This will come around again.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/27/some-advice-on-women-in-combat-from-a-female-veteran/
Button? Pamphlet?
First born son? He’s strong and his teeth are great.
Axe on January 29, 2013 at 9:12 PM
I think an honest discussion about how will women soldiers take a leak in a rolling Hum Vee full of male soldiers, and how will women soldiers in full combat gear change a tampon on patrol?
locomotivebreath1901 on January 29, 2013 at 9:21 PM
Good way to make policy—on feelings. My feelings are for you to fo.
And just for your lack of information, men don’t want to seem vulnerable or effed up to other men or women.
Probably different in your drum circle professor.
arnold ziffel on January 29, 2013 at 9:28 PM
I don’t know about other male soldiers, but I do know about my own experiences. I’ve been Army infantry for 9 years. I’ve seen a few brothers die. I knew a medic that was a female. We were close, but no more than the male Soldiers in my unit. The female I knew was killed in Iraq in October of 2007. I wasn’t out with her, so I did not actually witness her death. However, her death has had more of an emotional impact on me than the guys I was with. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t think about her.
Female Soldiers are tough. There’s no doubt about that. They’ve seen combat, but they do not belong in the infantry. I won’t go over my own reasons, because, honestly, I’m kind of tired of doing it now. But I do believe male Soldiers will react differently to an injured female than a male. Mission accomplishment and security is the first priority. Aiding the wounded can only be achieved after that takes place. I have no doubt that I would have a hard time leaving a female to bleed out while the bullets are still flying.
mfrantom on January 29, 2013 at 9:39 PM
What an idiot. Men are essentially disposable in terms of the continuation of society since one man can impregnate thousands of women and keep society going. Women, on the other hand, are the bottleneck of reproduction, as one woman can only have one child per year. All societies are dependent on their women to insure the continuation of that society while the men are of secondary importance in that respect – a far distant secondary. This is how Nature organized things and it is not open to debate. For this reason, men and women have very different roles in society – well, they do in any society that wants to continue to exist, though leftists are generally nihilists who don’t put much of a premium on the future existence of their societies – or even of humankind, in general.
In any study of population, the only really important factor is the number of women since that is determinative of the possibility of that society to continue and to grow. This is how things are and this is a simple, obvious fact that cultures have been built around (save leftist culture which is nihilistic and suicidal). This is also why men and women approach sex with totally different perspectives and feelings, as only women can become pregnant. Another simple, obvious fact that the left spends half of its time denying and ignoring.
Leftists hate Nature and reality.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 29, 2013 at 9:39 PM
I would hate that men would be so cold as to not be affected by the death of a woman in front of him.
wildcat72 on January 29, 2013 at 9:47 PM
Not only that but men can impregnate women from puberty to death in most cases. Women have a window of puberty to about age 45 in which to produce children, and it starts getting exponentially harder to do after age 30.
Their PRIME fertile years happen to correspond to the prime SERVICE years for combat, 18-35. Any civilization that sends their women of that age out to die is one that won’t survive.
wildcat72 on January 29, 2013 at 9:49 PM
Obama is less man than Hillary.
wildcat72 on January 29, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Thanks for adding those very important aspects to complete the picture of reality that the left works so hard to deny.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 29, 2013 at 9:58 PM
It would require . . .
I just agree.
Axe on January 29, 2013 at 10:04 PM
Women exist to perpetuate the species. That is their fundamental role. That is why females exist.
And their window to do it is only a couple decades.
wildcat72 on January 29, 2013 at 10:21 PM
1. The source “scientist” who says women have no effect… is a woman. Biased much?
2. While I might not think that the idea that wounded woman crushes morale is a very powerful argument, it certainly looks like one when compared to this:
What a load of garbage.
3. As a general rule, women should not be in combat because they are inferior soldiers. Even though some might be good at it, if you look at actual merit women would only be like 5% of the force, (the USMC only has like 5% and they do not hold women to anywhere near the same standards of physical fitness as the men) so there aren’t enough capable women to justify the logical burden of making segregated bathrooms, showers, etc, or of dealing with the disciplinary problems of sexual assaults or even the loss of discipline inherent in consensual sexual relationships.
In other words, while some women are capable, the numbers are too few to be worth the hassle. In a “total war” scenario like world war 2, women were still kept away from combat. The fact is that you will always need a lot more people behind the front lines in support roles than you can ever field at the front. You need a lot of people to support logistics and to make the equipment, let alone to keep the economy in shape to maintain a flow of men and material to the fighting areas. There would never be a glut of women with no jobs and nothing to do.
kaltes on January 29, 2013 at 10:29 PM
Even with the military bending over backwards to encourage women to join and letting women advance when they arent as capable as men, women are still only a small fraction of the troops.
It is only 7% for the USMC (the only branch which actually takes female fitness in combat somewhat seriously since all Marines are expected to be capable of combat). Army is 13.5%, Navy is 17%, Air Force is 19%. These women are overwhelmingly in support roles, though, far from any combat. Allowing women into combat will only shift a small minority of these women. In addition to fitness issues, most women dont WANT to be in combat roles.
Upper body strength is very important in combat. You need to be able to move quickly while carrying a lot of weight. Even though women can develop strong legs, their arm and chest muscles simply can’t compete with men, on average. Unfortunately unless you are running away, you need your upper body strength a lot in order to carry the firepower you need.
kaltes on January 29, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Women have their strength and endurance in their lower body because they are made for childbearing.
This is why (because they enter puberty earlier) they have a TEMPORARY advantage over boys at age 11-12 or so, because their lower body develops rapidly at that time (because God is making them ready to be able to have children). Boys develop a couple years later, and as you point out, it’s in the upper body.
I think one of the biggest crimes of the PC police is insisting that girls play sports with boys at that age (ie: little league baseball) which leads girls at that age to believe that they can, indeed, compete with and even be better than boys in sports, which isn’t true.
I’m not at all against girls playing sports, indeed, it’s a GOOD thing for them to do. But they should compete only against girls.
wildcat72 on January 29, 2013 at 11:06 PM
This isn’t about the fairness of putting women in combat, or not. They know it isn’t right. This is another way of attacking the military.
trigon on January 30, 2013 at 6:20 AM
Hear that. Men don’t want the naturally stronger more durable women in combat with them because it would reveal their true weakness.Her Hamster is on steroids.
DFCtomm on January 30, 2013 at 7:07 AM