Man Bites Blog

As part of an ongoing series about women in combat, Kingsley Browne argues that one reason it may be a poor idea to have women in combat is that women’s social motivations are different from those of men. 

Specifically, men are very motivated to not appear cowardly.  They would prefer to run from a fight , but are socialized not to, because cowardly behavior from men would lead them to be considered failures as men.

The same is not true for women.  Women are not called cowardly if they run from battle, and their identity as women is not tied to bravery in battle, so they may be more likely to refuse orders.

Worse, the presence of women may give men cover to have a unit behave cowardly, since they can justify it as protecting the women in the unit.

—-

It seems to me this logic could be equally applied to men and parenting.  If something goes wrong in parenting, say, from something as serious as the child dying from choking to something more trivial as the child going in public in ill-matching clothes, women are socialized to believe they have failed as women.    Men are not subject to the same pressures.

Indeed, this assymmetry in the pressures men and women face in upkeep of homes and rigor in child care as men are expected to take on a greater domestic role gives rise to much tension and frustration in modern society.

Would this be reason to chase men out of domestic responsibilities?  After all, it seems parenting and child care are more vital activities than warmaking.  If asymmetric societal pressures is a reason to keep women out of combat, then why should it not be a reason to keep men out of parenting?

—-

As we learn more about what group differences are innate and which ones are contructed, an important task will be how do we respond to them?

If women are less responsive to the ways in which soldiers have traditionally been motivated, then there are other responses than keeping women out of combat.  Maybe officers need to find new motivational methods.  Maybe soldiers should not be asked to take on semi-suicidal actions.  This makes running an army more difficult, but is it a bad thing that motivating people to go in and kill and risk being killed is difficult?

I dunno, I kind of suspect that Paul Kidwell had this piece half-written before he “hired” his son.  Oh, aren’t I a “tough guy” parent who won’t let his son grow up without learning how the “real world” work.  I think the same lessons could have been better taught on a day to day basis.

But it wouldn’t have made for a very good story.

Last week, an infant died in a car due to a miscommunication between its two parents, both of whom are physicians.

Sylvester Brown had a column in yesterday’s paper that I was at first inclined to dismiss as a silly playing of the race card but has stayed with me.  The point was that the media, law enforcement, and public reaction to stories like this seems to be dependent on the social status of the parents. 

Before I get into that, let me address one passage:

We live in a world where “experts” must tell us to place a teddy bear close by while we’re driving to remind us of a child in the back seat. They suggest we stash our cell phones and wallets next to our toddlers. Unlike our children, I suppose, these are essential items we won’t leave behind.

Wow.  As a parent, the idea that I would need some sort of ribbon around my finger to remind me that I am completely responsible for the well-being of two mostly helpless human beings is just astonishing.  Moving on…

I think our compassion is governed by how much we relate to this statement:

As far as I’m concerned, there is no greater punishment for a parent, any parent, than knowing that your mistake resulted in the death of your own child. I can only imagine the nightmare this Richmond Heights couple and their 5-year-old son will endure after such a monumental loss.

I think we have a much easier time believing that is true for parents whose social status matches our own.  For the redneck couple from out in the woods, or the inner city mom, we have a sneaking suspicion that this isn’t the case.  (I’m not saying this is a good thing).  And since reporters and police officers and prosecutors are from relatively upper social classes, upper class parents get sympathy while lower class parents get the book thrown at them.

Seems like a case of social inequality.

Which reminds me of the discussion (video) Mickey Kaus and Robert Wright were having last week on bloggingheads about whether technology-driven separation is a threat to social equality.  It seems to me It can’t help but be one.

If intead of exchanging pleasantries with the store clerk I’m lost in my MP3 player, it seems like it would be easier for me to categorize her as Other, as the type of person who wouldn’t be too upset if she left her baby in a closed car on a hundred degree day.  Which would lead to the disparate treatment.