Women On The Battlefield

[4588686]

Basilia is right, FP. There is no scientific data in existence that allows people to make generalisations about the thinking capabilities about men and women in the way that you have just done. There is only a strain of evolutionary psychology that tries hard to pass itself off as science, and which has also come up with such gems as the theory that women naturally like pink because in our primal hunter-gatherer days their eyes needed to be alert for the sight of juicy-looking berries in the forest, while the men went off and turned mammoths into cutlets. It is prejudice masquerading as reason. People sometimes seem to think if you stick a 'science' label on an idea, it's beyond reproach ("It can't be misogyny if it's science") but think about that for a moment - eugenics was used as a scientific means to teach racial prejudice. And it was widely accepted as true. As recently as the early twentieth century, 'science' was still being used to justify mutilating women's genitals on the grounds that removing the clitoris would prevent the oh-so-scientific medical condition nymphomania (a diagnosis that basically translated as 'woman who enjoys sex too much to be a proper lady'). 'Science' has been used to justify all kinds of racist and misogynistic ideas.

 

I agree that evolutionary psychology has been used at times by particular actors for political ends but I don't see how you dismiss the whole field.  Do you have any sources?  

 

As for whether women should be in the front line, I'm not celebrating this event, although I suspect for different reasons than other people here. I don't see how giving women the opportunity to participate in what is essentially a patriarchal killing machine with an inherently sexist culture can be interpreted as an exciting move towards equality and empowerment.

 

Sure.  I'd just point out that the military is much less patriarchal than the Catholic Church.  

Edited February 8, 2013 by Hasan

[Winchester]

Nope, especially on the internet when you just have the bare words of what someone says.  That's like me punching you in the arm, and then gettin mad at you when you get angry because I hurt you.  So what if I meant it in jest? You still have a bruise, and I'm still responsible for it and have an obligation to apologize.

You're comparing someone saying something subsequently twisted by someone else to mean something different to someone committing physical assault.

You wigged out over an observation, misused the word 'misogyny', and now you're blaming original speakers for the twisting of their words.

[Groo the Wanderer]

get the women off the battlefield and back into the kitchen

 

and make me a sammich while in there

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*ducks and covers*

[beatitude]

I agree that evolutionary psychology has been used at times by particular actors for political ends but I don't see how you dismiss the whole field.  Do you have any sources?  

 

I wrote 'a strain of evolutionary psychology'. I don't dismiss the entire field. But there is definitely a sexist pseudo-scientific vein running through it, from which I took the 'pink and berries' example.

 

I disagree on your comparison between Catholicism and the military for multiple reasons, but I have to get to class now, Back later.

[4588686]

I wrote 'a strain of evolutionary psychology'. I don't dismiss the entire field. But there is definitely a sexist pseudo-scientific vein running through it, from which I took the 'pink and berries' example.

 

 

 

I disagree on your comparison between Catholicism and the military for multiple reasons, but I have to get to class now, Back later.

I would honestly like to discuss your purported radical feminism and your Catholic orthodoxy.  You seem like a thoughtful person and I honestly don't see how anyone who describes themselves as a radical feminist could support an institution like the Catholic Church.  I don't mean that snidely.  I would genuinely like to pick your brain sometime. 

 

 

There are a few more female General Officers than female Cardinals.  There is substantial more female involvement in the military leadership structure than in the Catholic Church and the military has advocated killing fewer women for such abominable crimes as wearing men's clothing (as the Church did in medieval times) and done much less to promote the ideas that women brought sin into the world, ought not hold authority over men, ought not speak in Church, and should focus on finding their salvation by remaining in the home and hearing children (as St. Paul does).  I think that furthermore the rampant sexism that seems to exist in large portions of the military is less a function of the institution in itself and more a function of how American attitudes about gender, femininity, and female sexuality are exacerbated in an institution like the military, a culture substantially formed by your Church which has spent the better part of 2,000 years divesting women of authority as a moral issue, taking their cue from St. Paul, and promoting women as a source of carnal temptation whose sexuality must be contained.  

 

Which goes more to my confusion about how you mesh any sort of substantive feminism, much less radical feminism (which seems to usually be accompanied by slogans like "abortion on demand and without apology") with an institution like the Church which is seeped, in both textual sources and long historical practice, in rampant sexism and misogyny   

[Basilisa Marie]

You're comparing someone saying something subsequently twisted by someone else to mean something different to someone committing physical assault.

You wigged out over an observation, misused the word 'misogyny', and now you're blaming original speakers for the twisting of their words.

 

Yes, I am.  

 

I wigged out over an observation because it was offensive.  

 

I did not misuse the word misogyny. 

 

I'm showing FP how his words could be perceived as misogynistic...like he asked me to do. 

[Basilisa Marie]

 

 

Sure.  I'd just point out that the military is much less patriarchal than the Catholic Church.  

 

 

But women are more likely to be assaulted by a fellow soldier than they are by a fellow church member, so it depends on what you you mean by nasty patriarchal influences.  Different =/= better.  

[Anomaly]

 Which goes more to my confusion about how you mesh any sort of substantive feminism, much less radical feminism (which seems to usually be accompanied by slogans like "abortion on demand and without apology") with an institution like the Church which is seeped, in both textual sources and long historical practice, in rampant sexism and misogyny   

 

Oh come on now.  Don't be so extreme.  The Church has been and is sexist, but not misogynist.  Misogyny is hatred of females.  The Church views males and females as different in nature and ability, but equally valuable to God.

 

Nuance.  Steal some.

[Winchester]

Yes, I am.  
 
I wigged out over an observation because it was offensive.  
 
I did not misuse the word misogyny. 
 
I'm showing FP how his words could be perceived as misogynistic...like he asked me to do.

You were offended. It was not objectively offensive. It wasn't insulting, or derisive.

Misogyny is hateful. The statements FP made were not hateful, by any stretch of the imagination. Nor could one interpret his statements as impugning the equal humanity of women. You misused the word.

You're showing FP how someone with an agenda can manipulate the (perhaps uninformed, but certainly not hateful) words of another. It's a good lesson, but you taught it with your first post. The subsequent attempts to justify your outburst are similar lessons. We all know that words can be twisted, but only a few will accept that it's not the fault of the person doing the twisting.

[Winchester]

[Lil Red]

http://www.patheos.com/Catholic/Women-Combat-Nicky-Vale-02-05-2013.html

 

Women in Combat: Ghosts on the Battlefield

The group Combat Veterans for Congress issued the following statement on their website:

There is very big difference in women flying combat missions, providing medical support in combat, in providing MP Guard duty, being involved in convoy duty, being involved in intelligence support, etc., and being in a Combat Infantry Unit for three months on end with improper hygiene facilities, with no breaks, and facing an enemy daily—face to face—in a killing zone.

 

They are right, and they are wrong. There is a difference, but it is all still combat, and the general public is operating under the assumption that our women in uniform have been sheltered from that.

 

Rather than changing reality, lifting the ban may—after permitted exceptions are applied—do nothing more than simply recognize what has already been taking place, but that's worth finally recognizing.

 

It is also worth noting that while women do not serve in the Infantry, they have come much closer to it than people realize, and have therefore dealt with the off-putting hygiene issues. If you've been horrified to read about marines defecating in bags beside fellow soldiers, and if you've wondered how that translates to women dealing with their menstrual cycles while on a mission and in close quarters with men, here's your answer: I used that bag to deal with my cycle in the back of a HMMWV next to the feet of my gunner who happened to be a male. War is war and a team is a team whether you're a man or a woman; get over it. It's already happening.

The physical limitations argument is valid, but not for half the reasons I've heard cited. A female marine who wrote an op-ed entitled "Some advice on women in combat from a female veteran" makes the case that shorter females will need a leg up to scale a ten-foot wall, endangering the lives of the men who can do it all by themselves. I know very few men who could scale a ten-foot wall, unaided, in full battle rattle, and if this marine is being told that's what her male counterparts are doing, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell her.

Service members who have never been attached to a combat unit—or who have never served with women outside the wire—need to realize that passing along hearsay (such as "I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq!") does not help; they are representing themselves to the public as subject matter experts without having lived the experience, compounding the confusion and dishonoring the service of those who have.

The men and women who have been placed in these situations should be allowed to speak for themselves, and their voices should not be overshadowed by a cacophony of marines and soldiers who can only imagine scenarios that their counterparts have already lived through.

Lest my position be misconstrued, I am not making a case for women in the Infantry, but I believe that before any real discussion takes place, people need to know where and how women are serving, in the here-and-now.

=========================

She does address both sides of the argument, and I encourage you to go read the rest of the post (what I quoted is on page 2 out of 3 pages).

[Winchester]

It's nature's warpaint.

[4588686]

Oh come on now.  Don't be so extreme.  The Church has been and is sexist, but not misogynist.  Misogyny is hatred of females.  The Church views males and females as different in nature and ability, but equally valuable to God.

 

 

So does the Taliban.  That is exactly what the Taliban said in their constitution.  'Women are granted a special dignity under Islam.'  Please tell me more about how the Taliban is not misogynistic.  

[4588686]

But women are more likely to be assaulted by a fellow soldier than they are by a fellow church member, so it depends on what you you mean by nasty patriarchal influences.  Different =/= better.  

 

By a fellow Church member?  I doubt that.  I don't know what the rate of sexual assault in Latin America is versus the military but I doubt that the level of sexual assaults in Catholic countries is anything to brag about.  

[Winchester]

Throwing acid in face, now comparable to not ordaining.