... and
see how to spin the "other emotions" remark about women in combat?
After Rick Santorum said that women should not serve in combat, citing “emotions,” critics were furious, saying he had insulted women by suggesting that they were too emotional to be depended upon in life-and-death situations.
But Mr. Santorum said Friday that he was actually referring to the emotions of men, not women, saying that men might be distracted from their mission by their “natural instinct” to protect women.
Yesterday, you may remember,
WaPo's Jennifer Rubin said he'd get in trouble, and
I said:
I'm guessing that Rubin is worried that he's stuck on some stereotype about women — they're too "emotional" — but I think he's referring to an argument about the way men feel — that is, an urge to protect women that would skew decisionmaking and performance.
ADDED: As Irene points out in the comments,
Santorum made it apparent that he was talking about men's emotions on Friday's "Today" show, which was before my post.
पोस्ट्स
३० टिप्पण्या:
You were right AND they read your blog. Of course.
Santorum has that Palin effect: saying something which fuels uncritical thinking on the part of his opponents.
Women are too emotional.
Chickenlittle for the win.
Anything that can be used/contorted to tar their opponent(s).
That is liberalism MO 101.
Honestly, it never occurred to me to read that quote as referring to the emotions of women. I just assumed he meant that the presence of women would mess with the emotions of men.
It's not the emotions of men but the instincts of men.
Santorum addressed the issue before the NYT "spin" article posted on February 10, 2012 at 6:21pm.
Santorum first began developing this idea when Ann Curry interviewed him during the first half-hour of Friday's (February 10, 2012) "Today Show" on NBC, roughly between 7:00 and 7:25 EST:
"Santorum explained his completely noncontroversial comments: 'Well, no, I – exactly what I said. I think there's – when you have men and women together in combat I think there's – men have emotions when you see a woman in harm's way....the natural inclination to not focus on the mission but to try to be in a position where you might want to protect someone...' In other words, chivalry."
I assumed that he meant that in a mixed-sex group, the mission would become "Protect the Women" rather than whatever the designed mission was.
But I don't really know that Santorum meant it that way.
From what you wrote I thought he was talking about men, too.
Would it be consistent with "true feminism" to be concerned about the stereotyping of women as emotional, or too emotional for combat, but not to be concerned about the stereotyping of men as having a "natural protective instinct" toward women?
But really, does it matter? Wouldn't the truth of those statements be more important than how they are perceived ideologically? I mean if it is true that women are too emotional for combat, should they be allowed in combat? If the presence of women in combat changes the behavior of men, for the worse, what then?
The liberal meme regarding men is the chauvinist/predatory label/stereotype.
Statements by Santorum and others that challenge that meme are treated with suspicion.
Hence the MSM knee-jerk reaction to his statements. Utterly predictable.
The Larry Summers effect:
Point out facts of human nature, and feminists call for your head.
It's "spin" to say the urge to protect women would interfere with battlefield efficiency and almost certainly produce unnecessary fatalities? No, it's common sense.
Women have babies.
Men like math.
Boys like to play war.
Girls like fashion.
Men protect women.
Women protect children.
Criminals are bad people.
Summer is hot, winter is cold.
The Red Queen Left: Off with your head!
As someone pointed out here on a previous thread on this subj, although the Israelies once allowed women in cmbt and cmbt support units, the experience of actual cmbt proved too traumatic for both sexes: the men due to their natural instincts to protect the women, and the women who freaked out in even cmbt "support" units when faced with things like, e.g., cleaning out the blood, seared pieces of flesh, bone and brain matter from battle-damaged tanks. As a result women are no longer posted to even cmbt support units, let alone allowed in direct combat.
But Mr. Santorum said Friday that he was actually referring to the emotions of men, not women, saying that men might be distracted from their mission by their “natural instinct” to protect women.
What BS!? In Muslim countries men put their women in Burkas for a similar reason.
Natural instincts!? I am so outraged that you took this line and are applauding that fool Santorum. Shame!
I would consider our species have evolved to put aside natural instincts (if it is all gender-based) at least where it matters. If you talk to the military, you see how close they are in their respective groups (sorry, don't know the technical term)-- they already protect each other and take care of each other, men among men.
Santorum is a chauvinist who thinks men have to protect women (and of course breed without abortion and contraception).
"Santorum is a chauvinist who thinks men have to protect women (and of course breed without abortion and contraception)."
This!
Liberalism in one lesson.
Doesn't matter whose emotions he meant.
They were going to scream, regardless.
And Althouse is like the old Philadelphia Bulletin, nearly everybody reads it ;)
WV "worid" What the Demos are these days.
Edutcher lost his manners today?
Ha ha You made me laugh heartily!
How many of us pointed out that it was the men he was talking about almost immediately? Quite a few, if memory serves. And memory can serve in ground combat units cuz he's a dude.
As to the topic. Look, it is 2012, and we live in sound bytes. Santorum should have said more or less.
What you can't do is dangle red meat in the lion's den.
Not sure what Penny meant, but I was complimenting Althouse.
@edutcher, I suspect that Penny is old enough to remember the old Philadelphia Bulletin, but she didn't appreciate being reminded of the fact.
That's my take, FWIW.
pm317 said...
You seriously believe that mixed sex combat units are a good thing? Like none of the troopers are going to get emotionally involved with another? That is just marvelous, during a firefight when one lover is desperately trying to protect the other at the risk to the unit.
Again, when women are introduced into a victor unit, the men stop relating to each other as brothers and start competing for the female's attention.
And yes, even as a Marine (0313), I think the screams of a woman in distress would cause me to break ranks.
I would consider our species have evolved to put aside natural instincts (if it is all gender-based) at least where it matters. If you talk to the military, you see how close they are in their respective groups (sorry, don't know the technical term)-- they already protect each other and take care of each other, men among men..
I would like to know the extent of pm317's experience with life-threatening situations as well as his background visa vi the military. It sounds to me like he's read about both in a book or maybe caught a movie or two.
Well, either that or his entire point is sarcasm. I'm willing to grant that possibility.
I would like to know the extent of pm317's experience with life-threatening situations as well as his background visa vi the military
Call of Duty. He plays a female with bunny ears and, in his experience, none of the dudes come to his aide when he whines like a little bitch.
Before anyone talks about females in combat I think it is good to revisit the experience of Major Rhonda Cornum as documented here.
She was captured by the Iraqis in the first Gulf War with two broken arms, a broken knee, and a bullet in her shoulder. Her injuries didn't stop her guard from fondling her breasts and inserting fingers into her vagina and rectum. Cornum shrugged off the assault -- which was her right to do -- but what the Times doesn't include is that the Marine sergeant who was being transported with her started to come to her assistance. That would have gotten him killed, but Cornum had the presence of mind to order him as his superior officer to stand down.
I don't agree with Santorum about a lot of things -- I'm not a social conservative at all -- but I think he's right on this point. Men have historically gone to irrational lengths to protect women who are in harms way. I don't think we should be putting them there.
I think he meant to comment about the emotions of men from the beginning. If he read your blog maybe he realized that at least a few people with good sense heard him correctly.
It's feminists who see everything through their own prism here. It's about reality and reality is that men feel protective of women. Even after all these years of being told they should sometimes feel protective and shouldn't other times. Men keep getting mixed signals from women. The only thing men can be sure of is that they will always be wrong in the minds of feminists. Feminists are so messed up themselves they have only their anger to guide them.
Historically, women were protected by society because they are endowed by the natural order to serve a special function. Only women are capable of bringing forth new life. Their exposure to hostile forces would leave them and their progeny vulnerable to corruption. This is, presumably, the reason for society affording special consideration to women who are raped.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा