What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more

Men: too Emotional for Military Professionalism

February 10, 2012, 10:53 PM

When asked by CNN's John King what he thinks about the Pentagon's recent decision to allow female troops to serve nearer the front lines of battle, Rick Santorum replied that this could be a problem because of the natural protective valor of men-folk:

I do have concerns about women in front-line combat. I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat, and I think that's probably not in the interests of men, women, or the mission.

While it may seem at first blush Santorum is saying something here about lady feelings, he was in fact talking about dude feelings. In an interview on the Today show he clarified his earlier comment, saying:

When you have men and women together in combat, I think men have emotions when you see a woman in harm's way. I think it's natural. It's very much in our culture to be protective. That was my concern. I think that's a concern with all of the militaries.

The problem, then, is that men are too emotional. Santorum says both that "it's natural" and "It's very much in our culture" for men to be so protective. If its simply a cultural matter, then there is no reason why the culture of military professionalism cannot override our male soldiers' dangerous, mission-imperiling emotionality. But if it's natural and, as Santorum suggests in his initial response to John King, the instinct for spirited solidarity and camaraderie is inveterate in the male psyche, then perhaps men are by nature generally ill-suited for the cool professionalism required in the modern combat situation and ought to be replaced by the implacable coolness of the modern military woman.

After all, what better symbol of American supremacy and cultural confidence than an indomitable, steel-nerved, all-lady fighting force? Santorum naturally overlooks this enticing possibility, imagining pregnancy and perhaps sandwich-preparation as the natural and thus appropriate role of the twenty-something woman. But that which gives life can take it, too, with neither malice nor regret.

Seriously, though. Men and women both should be barred from military duties they can't perform at the necessary level of competence. If you can do the work, the job ought to be open to you. So good on the Pentagon, which no doubt has looked into the relevant issues of troop psychology and morale rather more deeply than the former junior Senator from Pennsylvania.

It's really is amazing how far we've come in such a short time, equality-wise. Within the span my own lifetime, it was thought that women ought to be barred from the Olympic marathon due to the inherent fragility of the female. Now we've got Haywire and an unreconstructed, full-on patriarchal, old-school Catholic, Republican office-seeker saying maybe women shouldn't go to the front-lines because men are too hopelessly emotional.


Men: too Emotional for Mili...

Newsletter: Share: