CNN Anchor Tricks Opponent Of Women In Combat To Endorse Racial Segregation

[DonViejo]

By Aviva Shen on Jan 25, 2013 at 11:05 am

Conservatives are outraged over Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s decision to lift the ban on women in combat, which opens up more than 200,000 frontline positions to women. Opponents of the move have called it “humiliating” and dangerous to unit cohesion. On CNN’s Starting Point, host Soledad O’Brien caught one such critic off guard by anonymously quoting a similar argument made during integration of African Americans into the military.
Professor Kingsley Browne, author of “Co-Ed Combat,” argued that the military’s physical standards would have to be lowered to accommodate women because there is “very little overlap in physical capacity between men and women.” O’Brien asked him if he agreed with a 1941 quote blasting military integration from Colonel Eugene Householder without revealing its context:

O’BRIEN: I’m going to read a little bit from this colonel who said this: ‘The army is not a sociological laboratory; to be effective it must be organized and trained according to the principles which will ensure success…Experiments are a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat.’

BROWNE: I think that that’s true. I don’t think it’s true with respect to ultimate defeat of the United States in a war. I think what’s likely to occur though is the defeat of the United States in small battles, which means people are going to die.

O’BRIEN: That was from a guy in 1941. And that argument was about not allowing black people in the military. That was his exact argument of why blacks should not be allowed in the military, because it’s a danger to efficiency and discipline and morale and will result in ultimate defeat.

-snip-

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/25/1495681/cnn-anchor-tricks-opponent-of-women-in-combat-to-endorse-racial-segregation/

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Apparently ...

the good Professor Browne does teach history ... well, we can hope that he doesn't.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. Same words were used against gays in the military.

and against women as police, as fire fighters, or anywhere near the workforce rights up till late 1960's.


damned neanderthrals trying to drag us backward into the caves of no enlightenment.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

2. This morning Scarborough

was going on about women not being physically equal to the task... "If I'm out on patrol with a woman who weighs 130 lbs and I'm injured, how is she going to drag all 6'4", 230 lbs of me to safety. But I could put her over my shoulder and carry her out." Sure you could Joey...sure you could. Guess he's never heard of adrenaline...amongst other things.

[TwilightGardener]

3. The women will have to meet the same physical requirements as the men they're serving with--

I doubt very many could, myself, but the scenario he describes won't happen.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

6. Exactly...

However, do not sell women short...women have evolved to carry heavy loads, long distances...a man's muscles are more conducive to short, less sustainable, bursts...

[TwilightGardener]

10. I think if they train for the physical standards, some could do it.

Plenty of female bodybuilders out there, for example.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

12. She could certainly do it as well as any male who

weighed the same...not all soldiers are the size of Scarborough.

[damonm]

4. She's more likely to finish off your sexist ass, Joe...

[Sekhmets Daughter]

8. LOL. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. I'm mystified by this: a lot of 19 and 20 year old guys weigh in at 150 maybe

These people talk as if every single combat infantry guy in history was some kind of NFL linebacker. If my uncle weighed more than more than 145 when he was combat infantry in Vietnam, I speak eight dialects of Mandarin. I mean, truly. These arguments are getting more and more bizarre.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

9. Yep...My brother weighed 132 lbs

soaking wet, when he was in Nam.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. To be fair

He was probably soaking wet a lot in Vietnam.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

13. That's for sure!

[Mike Daniels]

14. I don't know...Joe could be the exception to the rule of "leave no man behind"

even if another male soldier happened to be on patrol with him.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

15. Good one!

[Demo_Chris]

16. Can we leave fantasy and magical thinking to the GOP please?

The military doesn't have an official seperate physical fitness standards for combat versus non-combat soldiers, they have one standard for men, and another significantly easier standard for women. Below is a link to the test currently used.

http://www.apft-standards.com/files/14ch.pdf

We have these physical standards for a reason. Women are not men. Nor does this test even begin to represent the incredible physical demands that combat infantry soldiers must sometimes overcome to complete their missions or even survive. Now maybe none of this matters to you, but let's at least stay grounded in reality when we discuss these kinds of things.

[Qutzupalotl]

17. That's a shitty tactic.

And I say this as someone who agrees with her point. When you take a vague, out-of-context quote and get someone to agree with it, then come back with, "Know who said that? Hitler!" — that's shitty.

[Demo_Chris]

19. Particularly considering that there is nothing there to disagree with

[NewJeffCT]

20. True - it's a favorite tactic of Hannity, O'Reilly and the Fox types

While Soledad has been great on a lot of issues recently, this sort of tactic is beneath her.

[Lesmoderesstupides]

18. Typically the men that choose Combat Arms like to hunt, shoot guns, camp, hike

Typically the men that choose Combat Arms like to hunt, shoot guns, camp, hike, and those sorts of things outdoors things.

The women that will also want be in Combat Arms will be the same time of person.