Not a member? Sign up now
Santorum clarifies "emotions" remark regarding women in combat
By Jeff MillsFebruary 11th, 2012, 9:00 pmComments (13)
Following the Defense Department's announcement on Thursday that it would be opening thousands of combat-related positions to female troops, including tank mechanics, medics, and intelligence officers on the front lines, CNN's John King asked Rick Santorum for his reaction. Santorum responded:
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 cameraderie 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 best interest of men, women, or the mission.
It sounded like Santorum had once again put his foot in his mouth, suggesting that women were not equipped to serve as front-line soldiers because of their "emotions."
But on Friday, following an outcry from critics, the GOP hopeful clarified (or backpedaled) his remarks, saying that he was actually referring to the emotions of men, not women, explaining that men's "natural instinct" to protect women could serve as a distraction from their mission. Appearing on the Today show, Santorum said:
When you have men and women together in combat, I think men have the emotions when you see a woman in harm's way. I think that's something that's natural, that's very much in our culture to be protective.
Santorum also told CNN that:
If you're out there, for example, in a group, or just with two people, and some people, because of women, have, as you know with respect to physical capabilities, they don't have the same requirements that men do in the military, and may be in a position where someone is injured, has to be brought back.
Santorum tried to bolster his argument by alluding to the Israeli Army, which also restricts women from combat, saying "We have to look at mission-effectiveness and the safety of those who are deployed." (Unsurprisingly, he also made it clear that he has a problem with the Israeli Army allowing openly gay soldiers to serve.)
Whether Santorum's original comments were misinterpreted, or whether he's just doing some necessary political troubleshooting, his clarification does save his skin, to an extent. When debating whether women should be front-line combat soldiers, certain biological, and rational, arguments are beyond dispute. But even when explaining what he "really" meant, Santorum comes off sounding like a bit of a condescending douche, as if men are victims of their own chivalry, with poor helpless women screwing up the mission. (As a side note, an ABC/Washington Post poll last March found that seventy-three percent of Americans supported allowing women in the military to serve in close-combat ground units.)
Tags
Rick Santorum
Commentarium (13 Comments)
These are such old arguments. Didn't he see GI Jane?
I thought that it was clear in his original statements that he was talking about the men's emotions. It's interesting the one of the related links under "Want more?" is the UK basically saying the same thing Santorum is. I don't really think there is much to support his views, though, and coming from him it just sounds like more "get back to the kitchen" kind of thinking.
No "argument" is "beyond dispute;" that doesn't even make sense. Certainly the arguments he's making here (women are just going to be helpless injury beacons that men will waste all their time defending) is not at all beyond dispute.
I was referring to biological arguments such as the fact that men, as a whole, are physically stronger than women. That was one of the points that Santorum was talking about. That's beyond dispute. Although, I would hasten to add, there are obviously some women who are stronger than some men, just as some men are stronger than other men, and so on. Other biological issues come into play, which one can't dispute. They exist. What can be argued, and should, is whether these indisputable biological differences should serve as an impediment to women engaging in front-line combat. S mentioned G.I. Jane, which is ironic considering the condition Demi Moore is in these days, who, although a fictitious character, can still be invoked as a useful starting point for such an argument. The Pentagon's recent rules changes allow many more women to serve in battalions, and they're also developing gender-neutral physical standards for certain tasks that will open more assignments, so their thinking on the issue is clearly evolving.
"Men are generally stronger than women" is a fact. What you use that fact for is your argument.
Exactly. Whether you say certain arguments shouldn't even be argued, or whether you say certain arguments can't be disproven, the meaning is clear. Semantic games are beside the point.
As long as you are defending your argument here, can you say what relevance an opinion poll has on whether women should serve in combat? Surely, public opinion on what will make for a combat ready force is a source that should be discounted for lack of expertise.
The meaning is "not clear" as you say. The last refuge of the amateur logician is to dismiss the discussion as "semantic games". Say what you mean and mean what you say Don't hide behind poor defenses such as crying "splitting hairs" when it is important to be clear on meaning, especially when one uses gross generalizations such as "beyond dispute".
At least I'm not a scoundrel, right? I'm not sure which meaning not being clear you're referring to at this point, but I was referring to my clarification in a previous comment that basic biological differences are beyond dispute. I think that's pretty clear, whether I say that "argument" is beyond dispute, or whether I say that "fact" is beyond dispute. At this point, maybe it's not so clear anymore, and maybe it never was, but I knew it was getting into ironic territory, considering this was originally about Santorum's ambiguous verbiage. Saying "semantic games" or "splitting hairs" is beside the point is due to the fact that a petty quibble with wording is a distraction from the idea being conveyed, which is that inherent biolological gender distinctions are beyond dispute. Technically, perhaps, nothing is actually beyond dispute, but if you get too involved in Wittgensteinian niceties and linguistic masturbation, you start to forget that this is a pop-culture website, and maybe doesn't belong here. Again, it wasn't a cop-out to dismiss nope's valid point as a semantical game, I just think it's more interesting to discuss whether women should be firing weapons alongside men in battle, as opposed to going over grammar and syntax with a fine-tooth comb. That's for the editors. I certainly do appreciate Nerve's intelligent and alert readers though. Btw, if any of you guys are single, you should check out Nerve Dating, it's actually a lot of fun.
You make a good point NN, the Pentagon definitely should not be making decisions based on a random sampling of public opinion. I agree with you there. Keep in mind, I didn't take a stance one way or the other in the article on whether women should be allowed to be front-line RPG fodder. I was just talking about Santorum's ostensible condescension. Mentioning the poll results might make it appear as if I was trying to support a position, but I just thought it was interesting that almost three-quarters of the country, if you extrapolate it, are in favor of women being given an equal opportunity to have a greater chance of being a casualty. That surely has to do with people thinking in terms of equality, and not, as you point out, a deeply-thought-out expert opinion. No one has really given their opinion on the crux of the story here, other than S in a roundabout way, which is whether women should indeed be fighting next to men in every aspect of war. I would be interested in hearing anyone's take on it.
Thank you for coming back and defending yourself. You make a very good point regarding that the topic is "women in combat missions" not "Jeff Mills and the Lack of Clarity".
Should women serve in combat missions? I suppose the question is one of pragmatics, rather than emotions. Combat-ready individuals must carry a certain amount of weight and perform particular actions while carrying that weight. However, they must also be able to show a expertise in a wide variety of skills that aren't related to brute strength. I fail to see why women should not be given the opportunity to train for combat situations. At that point, it is up to the military hierarchy to decide on an individual basis if such an individual is ready for combat - as they do currently. Now, the obvious retort to that previous statement is whether or not the hierarchy will be able to dispel gender bias and allow for a fair market or meritocracy. I'm not sure what will change the military's mindset, but allowing females into combat situations as planned is a start.
Also, please don't insult us by saying such quibbling over verbiage is masturbation. If everybody in the media took the time to examine their language in a systematic and logical manner, we would have less opportunities to quibble. It's essential that people express themselves properly. It's a panopticon of language that we have created.
Thanks for weighing in mmm, this is where we should have been from the get-go. There's nothing wrong with quibbling over verbiage, but if you notice, I wrote "too involved" in "linguistic masturbation," because we were drifting from the point, like a Real Time panel. I guess we're on parole from the language prison for now. (See what I did there?)
WTF does Ricky the sissy bitch know about combat? Look I am holding a gun so I can say something about combat? Shut the f%$k up for christ's sakes. Comment on something you know a little about, like bad styling.