General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSantorum lived up to his Google Santorum name today. IT is clear he does not understand women
did you know women shouldn't fight in combat because at times they might be ruled by their emotions instead of the mission?
WTF
surrealAmerican
(11,360 posts)Of coarse, it's just as true of men. I guess no humans ought to serve in combat. I'm okay with that. Thank you, frothy mix.
demtenjeep
(31,997 posts)Rick Santorum raised some eyebrows by saying women should not be in combat because of the "the types of emotions involved." Now, Santorum says, he is also concerned about "physical strength and capability" of women in combat situations.
First, on those "emotions," Santorum says he was not talking about the emotions of women.
"I was talking about men's emotional issues; not women," Santorum told ABC News. "I mean, there's a lot of issues. That's just one of them."
http://gma.yahoo.com/rick-santorum-meant-mens-emotional-issues-154221352--abc-news.html
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Posted in GD by ProSense:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002296150
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)That is clearly what he was trying to say the first time around. Not that women are too emotional.
Be fair to the man, there's nothing to loose by doing so.
You don't have to distort his stated views for them to be horrible. He was pretty clear in saying that women are weak, and men would be distracted from the military mission by having to take care of them. And consistent in doing so.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in communications when he said that.
I don't think he is going to be elected under any circumstances.
Ohio Joe
(21,754 posts)He wants them to be completely controled by men.
he is disgusting
WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)I say 'attributed' because I just looked up his Twitter account, and this tweet isn't there. Funny nonetheless...
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)Right after I returned from Vietnam I was St. Clair, Missouri where my parents lived. I was sitting in a little cafe about a block from the house they rented. It was 1968. I began a conversation with a WWII vet who was a sniper in that war. We were talking military shop talk since I had just gotten back from RVN.
He began telling me about his experiences. He had had some contact with women soldiers. As I remember they may have been Israelis. He told me that the worse thing that could ever happen is to get captured by female combat soldiers. He said they would do to prisoners particularly men things that no other human being could imagine. He said they were particularly vicious fighters when properly arm armed and trained. What he told me made it clear why you do not really "tick" off a women. Even Shakespeare talked about "a woman scorned".
He implied they had no trouble doing things to a certain part of a man's body if you really made them angry. Remember that gal who?
demtenjeep
(31,997 posts)They advised us to never get inbetween two girls fighting
The Genealogist
(4,723 posts)the worst fight I remember from school (k-12, that is) was between two girls. I think it was 11th or 12th graders. There was one big chunk of hair, I remember that quite plainly. The other kids were talking about that skirmish for some time there after.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)It was used decades ago as to why women shouldn't even work. Oh, that old PMS "insanity" claims.
provis99
(13,062 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)They were organized in World War I of mainly war widows and fought in the trenches against the German army on the Eastern front, sometimes shaming male units through their superior courage. They were assigned to defend the Winter Palace during the revolution.
i