Serious people won't pay attention to you if your only objection to women serving in combat if you just say, "No sir, I don't like it!" So people with dated ideas about what women can do are forced to invent objections that look at least superficially rooted in fact, instead of sexism. Closer examination reveals they are dumb.
Wednesday's reports (made official today) that the Pentagon would end the ban provoked a lot of reactions from pundits. I also have friends who served in the infantry in Iraq who joined some truly epic Facebook threads, with reactions ranging from "I'm just worried how many of my brothers might die before this PC policy is found to be flawed" to "I guarantee I can find a stronger more competent woman than [redacted name of less competent soldier] any day." Credit where credit's due: the Army guys had better thought-out worries than the pundits. But the opinions of pundits get more attention than soldiers', so let's look at their concerns.
Women will get hurt in war.
This case was made by Tucker Carlson, founder of The Daily Caller and a man not known to be a reflexive anti-war peacenik."The administration boasts about sending women to the front lines on the same day Democrats push the Violence Against Women Act," Carlson tweeted. "Feminism's latest victory: the right to get your limbs blown off in war. Congratulations," he added. We are surprised that Carlson would imply that it is never right or honorable to sacrifice your life for your country. New York's Jonathan Chait points out that Carlson is holding Obama to a very tough standard: "You know who else was hypocritical about this, by Carlson's definition? Harry Truman. He favored anti-lynching laws to keep black people from getting killed in the South, but he also forced the military to let them get killed in combat."