Women in Combat, in which I stop laughing at assinine statements by the con crowd

Though I shouldn't be, I'm actually stunned that my vitriol (not vile, since vile is not a noun but rather an adjective), posted without any argument or commentary whatsoever (minus the pointing and laughing, which isn't actually commentary), has generated such a response in comments. I didn't expect anything more than a few crickets and maybe one or two people giggling with me over the characterization of all men as unintellectual primitives.

It feels like gauntlet meets ground when I see my post and its comments referenced as if it were an intelligent or logical discussion/debate of this issue. So I feel compelled to lay out some of my objections to Jim's objections and to make a statement regarding the rights of women to serve in the same capacities as men.

Jim's arguments, as he stated in this clip, boil down to two problems:

1. Men cannot separate their (debatable) psychological evolutionary urges from logic. In other words, if a woman is around, they cannot help but infantilize her and ensure that she's safe from all harm. Even if she's carrying a weapon and is much more adept at its use then he is.
2. Men cannot separate their biological evolutionary urge to spread their genes as far and wide as possible, and therefore are incapable of acting professionally when there's a potential womb receptacle for their seed.

To be honest, I find this a very difficult set of objections to debate simply because I do not see evidence of this fact in the civilian world, much less in the military world. I also think it's an unfair generalization to paint all men as Neanderthals when I've known guys who can very much forget that there is a vagina in range when there are other dangers, and the woman attached to the vagina is more than capable of taking care of herself. In addition to this, I tend to think our humanity means that we've evolved beyond the point of acting in strict accordance with our animal natures. One can argue for adherence to traditional gender roles and still acknowledge that our psychological and spiritual selves have the ability to override animal instinct. After all, do we not move in this world without urinating on our houses, holding physical contests to see who can out-muscle the CEO for his position as alpha guy, and indiscriminately killing someone who threatens our position, property, or mate? There might be urges, but our logical, higher-functioning minds bring on the kibosh.

Other objections I've heard elsewhere that sound as ridiculous are:

• Newt Gingrich telling a classroom full of college students that women can't serve on the front lines because they get infections.
• They might be tortured, and they can't handle that. So...who has the babies here? Who can do so without any drugs and be just fine?
  
• They might be raped. If you're a woman, that's an everyday fact. Rape happens to civilians and women serving in the military, even when they're not in combat. To say that a combat situation makes a woman more susceptible to rape than when she's walking in her grocery store parking lot at night is illogical.

One thing that angers me about the discussion is the double standards. Why aren't we concerned about men who might be raped on the front lines? That happens. So maybe men shouldn't serve in combat roles. Men might be tortured, too, and given how 75% of the men I know react to the everyday cold, I'm concerned about their ability to withstand that pain. Maybe they shouldn't be in combat roles! Dudes get infections, too. I know this because I've seen Gold Bond Medicated Ointment commercials my whole life. Dudes get infections on their feet, scrotum, and gods know where else!

Another double standard: What if a woman is captured and beaten and shown on the teevee, and all of a suddenly everyone will be shocked and spazzed about OMG a woman was beaten! First, I think we spaz anytime we see someone, regardless of gender, who's been captured by the enemy and treated so abominably. Second, why is a woman's life or well-being so much more valuable than a man's? That's not okay.

My arguments for a woman's right to take a combat role boil down to one essential truth: some of them want to. If a potential service member doesn't want to see combat, s/he shouldn't sign up. If someone goes Navy, s/he should expect to spend time on a ship, and that ship might find itself engaged with the enemy. Ships are dangerous even when they're not dealing with a combat environment. If someone goes Army, s/he should expect to spend time in a combat zone in general, and with the right rate, s/he might even expect to spend time in combat specifically. If none of this appeals, maybe they ought to think long and hard about what it means to be in the military. If they're too scared or the job just seems unappealing, there's no reason push their hesitations on those who are more than willing -- and more than capable -- to do the job.

Why should the rules change? Because they're outdated, and they discriminate. Women are already serving in combat, but their job descriptions mean that service isn't recognized. They're punished within the military environment when they've been in more danger than some of their fellow soldiers, but those who never saw armed conflict get promotions women are denied anyway.

As for Jim's argument that women would be a distraction, I have a hard time believing that those bulky camouflage uniforms and the armor that goes over them will reveal enough feminine cues to distract anyone but the worst kind of horn-dog. I suppose it could happen; but if someone's willing to endanger their cohorts to sniff out a woman they can drag by the hair back to their man-cave, they shouldn't be serving in the first place. They're a danger in general if they can't keep their minds on the task at hand.

There's no call to infantilize women, to hold their physical beings in higher regard than a man's, or to make broad assumptions about their abilities when there are quite a few exceptions to every generalization I've heard. To do any of these invalidates the arguments.