When John King of CNN asked Rick Santorum his opinion on women in the military serving on the front lines, Santorum noted: “I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country, and they do so in an amazing and wonderful way, and they’re a great addition and they have been for a long time to the armed services of our country, but I do have concerns about women in front-line combat.”
Really.
“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.”
Ah.
The next day, Santorum noted that he meant men’s emotional issues. “I mean, there’s a lot of issues. That’s just one of them,” he said. “My concern is being in combat in that situation instead of being focused on the mission, they may be more concerned with protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position.”
That’s much better.
I was really warming to Santorum. Maybe it was the sweater vests. Maybe it was his vision of an embattled America where sneering people in the White House refuse to listen to Average Americans, as they have refused to listen to Rick Santorum for so many years. Maybe it was the fact that he’s been able to open his mouth without sticking his foot in it, a rare quality these days.
Until right about now.
Santorum seems like a nice guy — sincere and family-oriented. His face resembles a friendly oval.
But every so often he says something that reminds me of what he believes women should be doing, which, by and large, is — as my colleague Jennifer Rubin pointed out — staying in the home cultivating traditional families. Because that’s where true fulfillment lies. Perish the thought that “professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.”
Silly women. Professional accomplishments are for men. Any notions to the contrary stem from, as Santorum called it in his 2005 book, “It Takes a Family,” “radical feminism’s misogynistic crusade to make working outside the home the only marker of social value and self-respect.”
I’m glad he’s here to tell us these things.
No, social value and self-respect derived outside the home can’t be what women really want. And if there’s a man out there who knows what women really want, it’s Rick Santorum.
I have no objection to stay-at-home moms. I have no objection to working moms. What I do object to is Rick Santorum telling me that he knows what is really best for women — on the front lines or anywhere else. It’s nice that he thinks the women in our armed forces are “amazing and wonderful” and “a great addition.”
They are, whether he thinks so or not.
And that’s the trouble with these family-focused candidates. Someone has to mind the family while the man of the house runs for president. It takes two to make a home, but God had some very specific things to say about who should be doing most of the home work, ever since a little incident with an apple in a garden some unspecified number of years ago. We owe men one.
It’s time, with God’s help, that we repudiated all those awful family-destroying ideas of the 1960s. “The Feminine Mystique” had it backward. That vague, soul-crushing sense of unfulfillment that overcame Betty Friedan no doubt was because she’d ingested some Pine-Sol by accident, or maybe she wasn’t praying enough.
Santorum is here to set us straight. Fulfilled? By working? Please! That’s an illusion, stemming from the combination of radical feminism and all those “other types of emotions.”
If Santorum feels more fulfilled in the home, that’s fine. If Santorum would be excessively emotional on the front lines, that’s fine, too. And if he has some data regarding women on the front lines or, heck, anything other than the vague feeling that maybe “other emotions” are going to be a problem for the women themselves or the men with whom they serve, he should give us that data right now, before I become brusque.
Santorum told King that compromising situations already happen “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 not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”
The best interests of women? He would know.
Alexandra Petri wrote this for The Washington Post.
Santorum needs to rethink which century we’re living in.
Let’s just hope the Republicans remain insane enough to nominate him.
let’s hope so
The problem I see with much of feminism and its current conclusions is that it has been accepted that patriarchy is the system in which women must learn to function and find fulfillment. This is what I reject. True feminism rejects the assumptions of a patriarchal society and attempts to look at society from a matriarchal standpoint.
In a patriarchal society, physical strength and stamina are valued. Feminists would have women compete on an equal basis in the military based on those values and, for the majority of women, this just won’t work. Santorum is being honest about this. I have watched over the past 30 years as the military has opened more to women. I think it is great. But I don’t think women need to fear that they will be found not “manly” enough to be on the front lines. Women will be women, and, in the military, or anywhere else, should feel confident acting as a woman. And honest dialog about what the front lines will look like with women and men serving is imperative. So, instead of the sarcastic rejection and belittling of Santorum’s concerns, let’s be strong, confident women who aren’t afraid to be found “lacking” on the patriarchal scale because we aren’t playing patriarchal ball, we are playing matriarchal ball and it’s a whole new ballgame, sirs.
You wrote, “True feminism rejects the assumptions of a patriarchal society and attempts to look at society from a matriarchal standpoint.” I’m not sure how you arrived at that but “true” feminism is about gender equality, not male subordination.
Gender equality is impossible if the dominant assumptions of society remain patriarchal. Females will always be fighting a battle that cannot be won. Sure, you may get a man and woman working the same job, with all other things being equal, getting the same pay–but you have not given women what they want because you haven’t asked the question of what women want–you have only asked how can we make a woman equal to the man?
It would be wrong to just say that we need to make society matriarchal and subject men to inequality. What we need to do is understand what a matriarchal society would look like, how it would function and then synthesize a society that melds both assumptions into its fabric. Right now, we hardly know what matriarchal assumptions would look like. I’d like to find out and base the struggle for equality on feminine foundations–not masculine.
Please cite your sources.
Right now, the source of my comment is me. It’s my opinion and evaluation of our current society and feminist history.
Rick Santorum, is a women’s nightmare, he wants to take away our right to chose, our right to birth control, he does not believe that women should work outside the home. He also does not think that educating women will help them get out of poverty.
Actually, Bill Clinton is a woman’s nightmare. A man who sexually harasses women, uses them as sex objects, rapes them–now that is a man who has no respect for women. Yet, some would approve of him because he supports abortion and contraception?? I should hope he does–he needs some form of coercion to keep his victims from getting pregnant with his spawn….
Santorum is pro-life out of personal conviction. His life reflects that. His position on birth control is one of faith and personal conviction. I see no evidence that he wants to impose his position on birth control on anyone. As for educating women, Santorum has no issue with educating women. I certainly believe women have much more serious issues to confront than whether or not we can get the government to pay for our birth control. How about jobs, child care, education??
30 odd years ago women wanted to become NYC firemen. The Fem movement was extremely vocal and the barrier was knocked down in the hope of gaining equality. What happened was that when the women candidates took the physical fitness exam they all failed as they were not able to compete with their male counterparts. Not easy to lift 80 pounds of hose up a ladder. The way equality was eventually achieved was by reducing the standard that women had to meet putting public safety at risk.
…..
Santorums money manager calls for women to put an aspirin between their legs for birth control. Lock women in their homes to control them. That is the Santorum view on women. Talk about a backward Chauvinist.
That is a lie. You know what I appreciate about Santorum? He has no problem with women as equals. He respects the barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen woman just as much as he respects female Senators. Every time someone sneers “Oh, he wants them all barefoot and pregnant” they reveal their contempt for women who choose to give birth and raise children in the home. Sure, pay lip service about how if women want to do that, it’s okay–but the truth is you don’t respect women who make that choice (other than perhaps your own mother if she chose to do that) as much as you respect, say, Hillary Clinton.
But Santorum does. If that is anti-woman, then I am all for it.
….
All right it is not a complete lie, a least in Bill Clinton’s universe, but it is not the complete truth. First of all, it was not his “money manager” it was one of his supporters, and one of his bigger financial backers. Second, it was a joke and the guy admits it fell flat–it’s an old joke that those of a certain age might get even if they don’t find it funny. Third, Santorum was clear that this in no way represents his opinion and that he will not be responsible for everything one of his supporters says.
Finally, Santorum has never said he wants to lock women in the home and control them. So, that is a lie. But, I’ll be generous and say it is just a gross misrepresentation based on a political agenda. Satisfied?
….
“Putting an aspirin between their legs for birth control” is a metaphor for abstinence. It is nothing but pure sophistry not to consider abstinence in the realm of birth control. It is allways 100 % effective. Why is it that the left is so humorless?
Santorum and the Republicans prove with their stance on issues like this just how off their rightwing rockers they are. Republicans might want to consider that women make up 52% of the voting bloc.
Funny how the Republicans pivoted to Wedge Issues once the economy showed signs of recovery. It is so easy to see and understand that instead of actually doing something that would befit the welfare of their constituents like focus on jobs, Republicans use our faith and religion to divide us in order to try and save their pathetic butts.