Listen to Ross and Burbank weekdays on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM
 Ross+Burbank


Ask Dave and Luke: Are men and women created equal?

July 9, 2012 @ 11:49 am (Updated: 1:13 pm - 7/9/12 )

It's a controversial statement: Men and women are not created equal.

It's the differences between men and women that has a woman, a Marine Corp Captain, writing a (what Dave Ross calls) "first of it's kind" op-ed in which she says "Get over it!"

Currently women can't serve in the infantry unit in the Marines. While there has been some outcry that women should be able to serve in that unit too, Captain Katie Petronio said that outcry hasn't come from within the military.

In fact, she said the demands of her job affected her physical health, in a way that men didn't seem as affected by.

Dave and Luke didn't seem to mind the idea of the military opening up infantry to women, but thought that men and women should go through the same tests to deem them appropriate for the physical tasks of the job.

Dave in Puyallup writes ... About women in combat units- Having a good friend who was a former Military Police (MP) who served in Iraq (they were kicking in doors and performing missions very similar to infantry) she was against the integration of females into combat arms units. Not because she felt they couldn't lift as much, would crumble under the fog of war, or couldn't complete the mission. In her experience it's because the males around her would sacrifice more than normal and would physically keep her down in a fire fight in order to protect the female. In combat you are already going to have guys taking crazy chances in a fight to not just defeat the enemy but keep their buddies from being killed. You introduce a male's drive to protect a female into those situations and even more chances will be taken.

"Well, I guess chivalry isn't dead," said Luke.

More Ross and Burbank

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (8)


  • Add A Comment

  • ron prevost wrote...
    So, just who IS pushing for women to be in combat ?
    July 9, 2012 1:30 pm
    Necessities of war aside - such as the soviet/Russian all woman divisions of WWII, and the occasional stories of women serving as men in our Civil War, I haven't heard of much of a demand either.

    Not that a good lot of women can't fight, and and haven't throughout history, but what's the point? It's not like there is something to be gained in the name of equality by getting your brains strewn across a field. Nor has combat pay ever been worth the extra hazards.

    It's probably not so much that women couldn't do the job. Mentally and physically you don't have to be a superman to die in combat - most wars by their ends prove that far too often.

    Near as I can see, this 'equality' could only be pushed by those who have never seen combat themselves. That should be a requirement before coming up with these ideas. At least to have been to war. Heck - those who have think long and hard about sending our sons - let alone our daughters.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rangerhawk wrote...
    Right versus Duty
    July 9, 2012 5:17 pm
    When all females are required by U.S. law to register with Selective Service and are required to be "selected" equally by that law for all assignments in the event military service becomes compulsory (like health care), then the argument will be over. Until then, there will remain two worlds within the Military.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Country_Dog wrote...
    Let the physical fitness test decide
    July 9, 2012 7:55 pm
    Here's the deal. As a combat soldier, you want to know that the person serving next to you can drag 300 pounds for at least 100 yards in a very short period of time.

    If they cannot do that, you have a big problem because when you are wounded, you can weigh about 300 pounds with your gear. That is when you start to worry about who is working side-by-side with you.

    When you lower the PT standards for women, you better let them serve in a platoon of people weight less than 150 pounds.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleJack wrote...
    Country Dog
    July 9, 2012 9:36 pm
    I can buy the physical fitness argument for a police officer or firefighter, but not for a combat soldier. Think of all the women you know and have EVER known. How many of them can you imagine going into a battle killing and maiming? I can't think of one. Well, maybe my 8th grade gym teacher, but that was 30 years ago. It's not about physical fitness, it's about aggression and the willingness to kill. In that arena, women, thank God, just don't measure up.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Country_Dog wrote...
    Ron Prevost
    July 9, 2012 8:00 pm
    Here's the deal. Nobody is questioning whether or not a female can squeeze the trigger. That's the easy part.

    The more crucial part is what happens when one of your fellow soldiers is down. Let's say a roadside IED goes off and a 220 lb soldier with full rattle goes down. That soldier is a sitting duck for secondary fire and thus you have to drag that person to safety and do so fast.

    And remember that you will be in full battle rattle as well.

    If you know that one of your fellow soldiers had a lower fitness standard, and might not be able to come to your aid, you start to modify your behavior. And when you start to modify your behavior, you don't give your full effort to the mission and that puts everyone in jeopardy.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • schneidballs wrote...
    Equal in value does not mean equal in ability
    July 9, 2012 9:06 pm
    Why can't we get that into our heads? Am I less valuable as a man because I can't have a baby? No, it is an honor and a privileged to give birth and be a mother. Why can't we just be content? I guess that's the plague of covetousness...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    @schneid
    July 10, 2012 11:29 am
    well said.

    I think that women who have demonstrated ability on par with their male counterparts (both physically and emotionally) should be given the chance but there shouldn't be quotas and there sure as heck shouldn't be an agenda driven reduction in standards.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • fartforce1 wrote...
    Women have always been in combat in America, some decorated with honors.
    July 10, 2012 3:52 am
    The war of Independence had women fighting along side men AND a group they called the Molly Pitchers (like Rosey The Riveter ) who not only cooked and did laundry but took up arms and even shot cannons. The civil was had up to 20 women serving as men in some units under a hush hush wink wink conditions. It was not until the last century that it was frowned upon.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }