The media vetting process on Rick Santorum is kicking into high gear this week, and his comments on women serving in combat are the latest to come under scrutiny:
Mr. Santorum had faced a brief storm of criticism after saying on Thursday in a CNN interview that to put more women in combat roles “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.”
He managed to quell some of the criticism – if not all – by saying later that he was referring to the emotional reactions of male soldiers. “Men have emotions when you see a woman in harm’s way,” he told NBC News on Friday, adding that “the natural inclination” is “to not focus on the mission but to try to be in a position where you might want to protect someone.”
The “controversy” over the remark is overblown. Not only is Santorum making a fairly standard argument against women in combat, it’s also one that’s made by women who have actually served in the U.S. military. That said, this line of reasoning has always seemed a little weak. Emotions will always play a role in combat; many times the men fighting alongside each other are close friends. Doesn’t this add an element of emotion that could impact the mission? And yet members of the military still manage to carry on and get the job done.
There’s also a shade of condescension in the idea that women shouldn’t serve in combat roles because men have a “natural inclination” to protect them. After all, what types of women seek out or qualify for combat roles? These aren’t delicate flowers. They need the size and physical strength necessary for the position.
Which brings us to the central problem of women in military combat: there are few who actually have the requisite strength. It’s not an argument that’s politically correct for politicians to make – in fact, women in combat is probably a subject Santorum should strive to avoid altogether – but it’s an objective fact that plays much more of a role than male emotions do.
I've seen you though, and without a doubt your size/strength are good enough! The enemy would be very very afraid to see you on the battlefield.
Strength, yes, but let's be honest Alana: Men have traditionally been attracted to combat because of the martial virtues: honor, toughness and yes, manliness. Having women in combat, even if they are just as strong as men, erodes the sense that the army is the preserve the the toughest, most manly of men. And while we are being honest, having openly gay men also erodes the manliness of the army. Eventually, it will be a weaker unit, not because of physically weaker women (though as you know, they probably will drop standards of strength to allow more women to pass), but because it will no longer be the same psychologically.
Honestly Santorium missed the point and so has so many of those who defend him. In today's WARS women who are not technically allowed into combat, serve in support positions. These support positions are in the middle of combat situations, however, they are denied combat pay. If you are in a war situation, even as support personnel, getting shot at and could be killed, your status should be changed and you should be entitled to the same pay as the male members of your division. You are not necessarily part of the "infantry" but you are one of those who have to supply the infantry on the bases in the war zone, provide technical services on the infantry base in the war zone, live with the infantry in the war zone and are possibly in the military hospitals that take care of the infantry in the middle of the war zone you are in combat with the infantry..seriously get a grip and look at the reality of the situation. n nWomen don't have the strength, emotions, etc to serve in combat..guys need to get over themselves..Having given birth twice, try it and then tell me how women are too dainty to serve in combat. Wimps.
Santorum would be the weakest general election candidate in American history. He would lose 95% of the women's vote, 90% of independents, it would be a monumental Obama landslide. Most sensible Americans regard him as a loathsome pervert who'd set off a Nuclear Armageddon to serve his AntiChrist belief system.