First, he claims to have said “blah” not “Blacks” in a controversial statement.
Now he says he was not backing down on what he said about women in the military but shamelessly waffles like the a**hole that he is…
Raw Story
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum insisted on Friday that when he claimed there were too many “emotions” for women to serve in combat roles, he was talking about men’s feelings, not women’s. (Ed. Note: Pants On Fire!)
Many had taken remarks the candidate made to CNN’s John King on Thursday to mean women were too emotional to fight on the front lines.
“I do have concerns about women in front line combat,” Santorum told King. “I think that could be a very compromising situation people naturally, you know, may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved.”
NBC’s Ann Curry gave Santorum a chance to clarify his remarks the next day.
“I meant exactly what I said,” the former Pennsylvania senator said. “When you have men and women together in combat, I think there’s — men have the emotions when you see a woman in harm’s way. I think it’s something that’s natural, that’s very much in our culture to be protective.”
“Some people might listen to that quote and think you meant you were concerned about women being emotional,” Curry noted.
“Oh, no,” Santorum replied. “No, the issue is — and certainly one that has been talked about for a long, long time — is how men would react to seeing women in harm’s way, potentially being injured or in a vulnerable position, and not being concerned about accomplishing the mission.”
Related articles
- Santorum opposes allowing women to serve in combat (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Santorum Clarifies Remarks on Women in Combat (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Rick Santorum Says Women Aren’t Fit for Combat Because They’re Just So Emotional [Video] (jezebel.com)
- Santorum opposes allowing women to serve in combat (mysanantonio.com)
- Santorum opposes allowing women to serve in combat (sfgate.com)
- Santorum: Women could bring “emotions” to combat (cbsnews.com)
- Barbara Starr On Santorum’s ‘Emotions’ Comments: ‘This Country Could Not Go To War Without Its Military Women’ (mediaite.com)
- Santorum explains opposition to women in combat (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
Reblogged this on Jamar L. Freeze.
He/she that live in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones…
Actually, I’ve heard that line of reasoning before, so I’m willing to accept that explanation.
It’s not that he thinks that women are too emotional to serve in combat; he thinks that men are too emotional to serve in combat positions.
Actually, his whole explanation falls apart if compared to the experiences of people who have actually served in combat. They often get emotional about seeing their comrades in peril — male, female, or otherwise. But the explanation that women can’t handle combat, or that their presence will unuly affect their male fellows, plays well to a crowd of misogynists.
If I may digress, I’m reminded of high school, when a girl in my class began heckling an Army recruiter about women in combat. The recruiter finally sort of snapped at her, “Do you think you can run for an hour with a 100-pound pack on your back?” She answered, “Want to meet me at the track right now? Let’s go!”
She was in the next two Olympic games. She’s a gold-medal-winning swimmer. I have no doubts that she would have humbled the guy if they’d really gone for it.
I have no doubt that he meant women are too emotional. Thanks for posting this, I’m glad Ann Curry didn’t let him get away with that BS.
http://worldlyobsession.wordpress.com/