Women in combat

Santorum says women cannot be in combat because men will naturally protect them to the expense of unit cohesion. This is a rather 19th century idea of manhood. Freepers prefer to concentrate on their own 19th century ideas of womenhood:

xzins repeats the "women get pregnant to get out of combat" canard:

I remember talking to a brigade surgeon (a female) about the behavior of our troops “down range” when we were in Kosovo. She said that the females in that setting intentionally used pregnancy to get sent back home.

It’s not just “ain’t it awful”. That absence left a hole in a unit that then had to be filled in with extra work for everyone else. And that gap can’t be filled if the unit is attacked. That’s one less defender.

ClearCase_guy knows everyone agrees with him about women to be on combat:

I'm guessing that the percentage of Americans who genuinely want women to engage in combat is about 2% -- and they don't vote Republican.

kelly4c laments on all the gender equality these days:

I’m against women serving in combat roles, granted a lot of modern women are very unlady-like in their attitudes and demeanor.
I’m picturing the women of yesteryear, the skirt wearing, demure, Donna Reeds in the bygone eras and could never imagine them on the front lines of war!
Nor can I imagine the man of yesteryear thinking about, let alone suggesting, that women should be in that position. I guess I’m an old soul and born in the wrong generation but I long for the days when the gender lines were pretty firmly in place.

Vigilanteman thinks women getting promotions is a feminazi plot:

There is one, and only one purpose for putting women in combat:

So that they can get some cameo combat experience to enable them to leapfrog over men for military promotions. This will make the feminazis feel good about having more women bossing men around.

Compromised missions and dead sisters, mothers, daughters and girl friends is just too high a price to pay so a few feminazis can have a power trip.