Secretary of Defense (finally) lifts ban on women in frontline combat

Monkey · Jan 23, 2013

merry_and_silver said:
If you want to throw your weight around as moderator and ban me because I don't celebrate women now being allowed to kill people like that, so be it. I won't be angry. I understand how people react when they are called on inconsistencies in their thought. Again, I've been on this planet for quite some time.

Happily, it doesn't work that way here. You won't ever get banned for disagreeing... only for asshattery in one of its many forms.

Unless the mods know something I don't, I'm sure you're safe.

(For now. *eeeveeel cackle*)

Missesdash said:
All that said, I do think the second class nature of women in the military contributes to the really horrible rape culture.

That's an interesting angle. Hadn't thought of it before.

missesdash · Jan 23, 2013

Monkey said:
That's an interesting angle. Hadn't thought of it before.

I thought I was paraphrasing you, but apparently it was Monsieur Garfinkle. I mean I agree, but he said it first, so credit where due and so on

RichardGarfinkle · Jan 23, 2013

merry_and_silver said:
The point I made wasn't about rape. Read it again.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how you can separate the two. According to your logic, I should celebrate the "social good" of female guards being allowed to serve in Nazi death camps, without actually considering what they were doing.

Many of the female guards in Nazi death camps were not only taking jobs that were traditionally male, but they were recruited from lower classes in German society, meaning that they advanced upwards economically. I guess that's a double social good, right? Here's one of them, Irma Reese.

I think I stated my case as politely and straightforward as I could. Many people support what the U.S. military does. So be it. They have every right to support the U.S. military, and I don't take issue with them, inasmuch as I have a different opinion. I have been a U.S. citizen more than fifty years, and of the many wars fought in my lifetime, none were fought for purposes of defense, all were fought as interventions in foreign countries that had not attacked us. Even disregarding the atrocities that the military commits, the U.S. military was responsible for several hundred thousand deaths in Iraq as part of normal operations, in a war based on false justifications. I don't celebrate that, I don't celebrate the people who did that, I don't think it is good for the world, and I don't have doubts or misgivings about what I think.

If you want to throw your weight around as moderator and ban me because I don't celebrate women now being allowed to kill people like that, so be it. I won't be angry. I understand how people react when they are called on inconsistencies in their thought. Again, I've been on this planet for quite some time.

I'm not a P&CE moderator. I post here as a member offering my opinions just like everyone else. I assure you that I am disagreed with as much as anyone else.

As to the substance of your post. I objected to you Godwinning the thread, because such comparisons almost always distract from the topic.

And yes, I do think it is necessary to separte the social evil of discrimination and the question of whether or not the military itself is a good or an evil.

If the military itself is a social ill then it should be removed or changed. But its evil qualiities are not improved by saying it's bad therefore women should be kept away from it. That compounds the evils by perpetuating a paternalistic attitude.

Problems need to be dealt with as they are. Tangling them up with tangential issues rarely does any good and often serves as a distraction from the crux of the issue.

merry_and_silver · Jan 23, 2013

RichardGarfinkle said:
And yes, I do think it is necessary to separte the social evil of discrimination and the question of whether or not the military itself is a good or an evil.

If the military itself is a social ill then it should be removed or changed. But its evil qualiities are not improved by saying it's bad therefore women should be kept away from it. That compounds the evils by perpetuating a paternalistic attitude.

Problems need to be dealt with as they are. Tangling them up with tangential issues rarely does any good and often serves as a distraction from the crux of the issue.

You may be right.

Look, I'm not against women being able to advance farther in their careers in the military than they could before. I'm not against equality in any way. However, I have a different opinion about not considering what the actual job is that women are being allowed to do. To coin a phrase, the devil is in the details.

Male priests threw virgins into volcanoes two thousand years ago in some societies. I'm getting the impression that if I were a member of one of those societies, and all of a sudden females were allowed to become priests and throw virgins into volcanoes too, my only option would be to clap politely and yell, "You go, girl!" I wouldn't be allowed to think, "What the hell is anybody doing throwing virgins in volcanoes in the first place?"

I have strong feelings about our current world political model of nearly two hundred nations, nuclear bombs pointed at each other everywhere you look, and celebration of war. What's the end game? Do we keep this up for another hundred years, two hundred, a thousand? I have my doubts. Therefore, my orientation is to look towards other ways of organizing society. Just as people don't throw virgins into volcanoes anymore, and at one time the entire weight of society was behind such a custom, I believe that changes can and will be made to our current society. I understand that people are proud of serving their country, that they do so at great risk, that in many cases they are young people just trying to do the right thing. I understand that, and I respect them. If anyone has a sister, mother, female cousin in the military, I respect that person and wish them well. But I would rather see less celebration of the military's role in society, and more thought about where we could better direct our resources and the talents of our citizens, male and female. The discussion is weighted quite heavily in one direction at the moment.

Ken · Jan 23, 2013

... women in Israel can serve in that capacity. Probably elsewhere too. So why not here? The US is progressive in many, many ways; but in others, downright backwards. One less way, now. Cool.

Zoombie · Jan 23, 2013

I'd argue that a pretty good way to keep our society from becoming the kind of society that HAS death camps would be to not oppress women.

Remember, the Nazis were pretty fucking awful in terms of all sorts of human rights, including the rights of women. But if we, as a society, can have women in all sorts of "traditionally male" careers...well, we'd be that much better inoculated against tyranny.

Fuck, a major problem in the United States is the social conservative war on reproductive rights and women rights.

I would love to see a decorated combat soldier - and a woman - shove her boot up one of these grasping, old white dude's asses. Metaphorically, of course.

Opty · Jan 23, 2013

I'd like to see it literally.

ladyleeona · Jan 23, 2013

Opty said:
I'd like to see it literally.

Seconded.

merry_and_silver · Jan 23, 2013

Zoombie said:
But if we, as a society, can have women in all sorts of "traditionally male" careers...well, we'd be that much better inoculated against tyranny.

I think you're right, but I'm not certain you're right.

I've been involved with liberal causes for years, and taken part in direct actions at the Nevada Test Site, among other places. I've had to listen to long explanations from my fellow peace activists of the problems inherent in the male point of view, not that anybody was talking directly to me or any of my fellow suffering male peace activists in the room, mind you. And what wonderful things would happen when women were in charge! The female point of view would soften everything. We would interpret laws in terms of principles of least harm.

Is women in combat really moving in that direction? I was a little disappointed in Margaret Thatcher too. I didn't see the soft female side in her. Oh, that's right. We have the recent example of women in power in the C.I.A. Now women get to be in the room when some poor guy is being tortured. Does all of this match up to the paradigm-changing promises made to me, over tempeh burgers and herbal tea, of the increased influence of women in society?

Not that I'm surprised, or bothered. I have long suspected that women were not that different from men, at all. That is a core belief of mine. So, more power to my sisters, but use it wisely. You can always choose not to shoot people, too.

Zoombie · Jan 23, 2013

Margaret Thatcher's problem, as far as I can tell, wasn't that she was "unfeminine."

I thought it was that she was pure evil. But I think a British AWer could answer this better.

kuwisdelu · Jan 23, 2013

merry_and_silver said:
I've been involved with liberal causes for years, and taken part in direct actions at the Nevada Test Site, among other places. I've had to listen to long explanations from my fellow peace activists of the problems inherent in the male point of view, not that anybody was talking directly to me or any of my fellow suffering male peace activists in the room, mind you. And what wonderful things would happen when women were in charge! The female point of view would soften everything. We would interpret laws in terms of principles of least harm.

Is women in combat really moving in that direction? I was a little disappointed in Margaret Thatcher too. I didn't see the soft female side in her. Oh, that's right. We have the recent example of women in power in the C.I.A. Now women get to be in the room when some poor guy is being tortured. Does all of this match up to the paradigm-changing promises made to me, over tempeh burgers and herbal tea, of the increased influence of women in society?

Not that I'm surprised, or bothered. I have long suspected that women were not that different from men, at all. That is a core belief of mine. So, more power to my sisters, but use it wisely. You can always choose not to shoot people, too.

Uhh, there's a difference between saying "women are superior" and "women are human and should therefore be treated equally."

Zoombie · Jan 23, 2013

That too.

Williebee · Jan 23, 2013

merry_and_silver said:
Look, I'm not against women being able to advance farther in their careers in the military than they could before. I'm not against equality in any way. However, I have a different opinion about not considering what the actual job is that women are being allowed to do. To coin a phrase, the devil is in the details.

Male priests threw virgins into volcanoes two thousand years ago in some societies. I'm getting the impression that if I were a member of one of those societies, and all of a sudden females were allowed to become priests and throw virgins into volcanoes too, my only option would be to clap politely and yell, "You go, girl!" I wouldn't be allowed to think, "What the hell is anybody doing throwing virgins in volcanoes in the first place?"

.

I'm thinking that first paragraph doesn't say quite what you want it to. As it stands, not separating the job from the sex performing it? That's some unfortunate sexism.

The second paragraph? Well, if we were in one of those societies, it might be relevant. But it isn't, no more than the Godwin was.

Back on topic, what this decision should accomplish is to help acknowledge the shared danger that our service people share.

merry_and_silver · Jan 23, 2013

kuwisdelu said:
Uhh, there's a difference between saying "women are superior" and "women are human and should therefore be treated equally."

Good point, so women shooting people in combat, and torturing people for the C.I.A., makes them more "human" and "equal".

Real life is messy. You can't slice through it with memorized principles, like, "Everybody should be able to have a gun if they want," or "Women should be allowed to do any job, if it exists, without questioning whether or not the job should even exist in the first place," or "Democracy is always good."

If you try to apply those principles without thought, people will call you on it. Or if they don't call you on it, and just shut up because you keep repeating your principle, they're not convinced.

Unfortunately, language and principles like the above are inadequate to describe all of the situations that life confronts us with. It would be easier if that weren't the case. Somebody would just give you a book of the "right" principles, maybe somebody like Hillary Clinton could have slipped it to you at a party if you had known her in college, then you read the book, and just cite Principle X-9-A when the situation is appropriate. But it doesn't work like that, and thought that is not based on, well, thought, but a principle that is supposed to work on everything, is pretty easy to spot, on the left and the right.

You don't have to be Margaret Thatcher to have power. If you're an infantryperson with a gun, you have power, more than most people on the planet. How do you use it? I'm supposed to think that I'm inoculated from tyranny if it's a women carrying the gun. I've heard a lot of things like that in my life, then patiently waited for real life to play out in front of me, and what I was told would happen, didn't happen. If women's thought is different, then why is imitating the worst construct of male-dominated society, war, something to celebrate? Show me the different thought, not an imitation of the same old thought, celebration of combat, which is patently offensive to many people, both men and women.

merry_and_silver · Jan 23, 2013

Williebee said:
I'm thinking that first paragraph doesn't say quite what you want it to. As it stands, not separating the job from the sex performing it? That's some unfortunate sexism.

The second paragraph? Well, if we were in one of those societies, it might be relevant. But it isn't, no more than the Godwin was.

Back on topic, what this decision should accomplish is to help acknowledge the shared danger that our service people share.

It's unfortunate that you didn't understand what I said, but I'm certain that many people did. Your definition of sexism, or a dictionary's, is not the definition. It is your definition, or the dictionary's.

clintl · Jan 23, 2013

Just to clarify, since my post seemed to set everything else off:

I'm very happy that the discrimination is ending.

On the other hand, I'd very much like to have a world where we don't need military forces at all any more, because we've grown up as a species and don't fight wars.

Williebee · Jan 23, 2013

merry_and_silver said:
?.. Your definition of sexism, or a dictionary's, is not the definition. It is your definition, or the dictionary's.

Say what? You should probably expand on this.

RichardGarfinkle · Jan 23, 2013

merry_and_silver said:
Good point, so women shooting people in combat, and torturing people for the C.I.A., makes them more "human" and "equal".

Real life is messy. You can't slice through it with memorized principles, like, "Everybody should be able to have a gun if they want," or "Women should be allowed to do any job, if it exists, without questioning whether or not the job should even exist in the first place," or "Democracy is always good."

If you try to apply those principles without thought, people will call you on it. Or if they don't call you on it, and just shut up because you keep repeating your principle, they're not convinced.

Unfortunately, language and principles like the above are inadequate to describe all of the situations that life confronts us with. It would be easier if that weren't the case. Somebody would just give you a book of the "right" principles, maybe somebody like Hillary Clinton could have slipped it to you at a party if you had known her in college, then you read the book, and just cite Principle X-9-A when the situation is appropriate. But it doesn't work like that, and thought that is not based on, well, thought, but a principle that is supposed to work on everything, is pretty easy to spot, on the left and the right.

You don't have to be Margaret Thatcher to have power. If you're an infantryperson with a gun, you have power, more than most people on the planet. How do you use it? I'm supposed to think that I'm inoculated from tyranny if it's a women carrying the gun. I've heard a lot of things like that in my life, then patiently waited for real life to play out in front of me, and what I was told would happen, didn't happen. If women's thought is different, then why is imitating the worst construct of male-dominated society, war, something to celebrate? Show me the different thought, not an imitation of the same old thought, celebration of combat, which is patently offensive to many people, both men and women.

You keep bringing up the concept that women's thinking is inherently different from the thinking of men. I don't think anyone here has posited that idea.

I think most of us would agree that too much militarism in a society is not good for it. How much is too much is a matter of dispute. But discrimination in a military is its own evil and should be dealt with.

merry_and_silver · Jan 23, 2013

RichardGarfinkle said:
You keep bringing up the concept that women's thinking is inherently different from the thinking of men. I don't think anyone here has posited that idea.

I posited it.

Opty · Jan 23, 2013

merry_and_silver said:
It's unfortunate that you didn't understand what I said, but I'm certain that many people did. Your definition of sexism, or a dictionary's, is not the definition. It is your definition, or the dictionary's.

Wrong. Words have actual definitions. They mean specific things. Otherwise, concise intellectual (or even intelligible) discourse is impossible.

If a person is going to put forth an argument, inventing and using their own definitions for words that already have actual, real, widely accepted definitions, then debating that person is an exercise in futility.

merry_and_silver · Jan 23, 2013

Williebee said:
Say what? You should probably expand on this.

Is this a game of "gotcha"?

Because I don't want to play.

I've been involved in working on issues like this for years with a very liberal forward-thinking group of people, at least in my opinion, and often at great personal risk to myself, which in some ways has followed me through life, on backcountry actions at the Nevada Test Site and the like. I've heard it all, or most of it. If you don't like the way I expressed myself, or think that it reflects a sexist mindset, you might be right, or you might need to reexamine the criteria by which you judge sexism.

In my opinion, language is complex, we speak in ways and patterns that are as often memorized as reflect some underlying psychology. You are welcome to think whatever you want about me. I have my entire life by which to judge myself, and not a few random words on a message board, however revealing you think they may be.

I notice that nobody wants to address the point I made about the Nazi prison guards. Just refute my point, and I'll be a good boy and go away. If it is always a "social good" that women move into jobs that were previously held primarily by men, without consideration to what that job is (a seperate issue, as everybody keeps repeating here), then were the female guards at Nazi death camps a "social good"?

I'm waiting for somebody to say yes. Then, just as you assess me, I'll make an assessment about your willingness to discuss issues honestly, and have your systems of values challenged.

Please, I'd like an answer to that question, and not another ad hominem attack.

merry_and_silver · Jan 23, 2013

Opty said:
Wrong. Words have actual definitions. They mean specific things. Otherwise, concise intellectual (or even intelligible) discourse is impossible.

If a person is going to put forth an argument, inventing and using their own definitions for words that already have actual, real, widely accepted definitions, then debating that person is an exercise in futility.

No, you're wrong.

People argue about the meanings of words all the time, and concise, intellectual, and intelligible discourse is still possible.

In fact, people even argue about what is and isn't a word, and concise, intellectual, and intelligible discourse is still possible.

To take it a step further, concise, intellectual, and intelligible discourse is even possible around something like James Joyce's Ulysses.

This is an ad hominem attack to avoid answering the points that I made.

amergina · Jan 23, 2013

Female guards can be a social good.

Guards at a Nazi death camp were a social evil.

Death camps are a social evil.

Does that help?

merry_and_silver · Jan 23, 2013

amergina said:
Female guards can be a social good.

Guards at a Nazi death camp were a social evil.

Death camps are a social evil.

Does that help?

I'm not sure what you mean by, "Does that help?"

I have a pretty clear idea of how I see things on this issue. I also have a great deal of experience saying, "I was wrong." It's liberating. It is also instructive, and leads to greater knowledge.

I appreciate your thoughts on this issue.

Zoombie · Jan 23, 2013

I think the whole Nazi prison camp guard argument is...one of them logical fallacies.

There is never a good genocide. But, until the world is perfect, there ARE justified reasons to go to war. What those reasons are can and should be debated, talked about and generally poked at...and they should include both genders and sexes, all religions and creeds, political stances and personal viewpoints.

That's...kind of the point of an egalitarian society.

Since there ARE times where you need soldiers and yet there are NO times where you "need" death camps (unless you're an insane dictator racist with a single testicle, which none of our political leaders are last time I checked) then the whole analogy is...a bit silly to me.

Secretary of Defense (finally) lifts ban on women in frontline combat

Monkey

Is me.

missesdash

You can't sit with us!

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

merry_and_silver

Ken

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse

Opty

ladyleeona

fluently sarcastic grandma offender

merry_and_silver

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

merry_and_silver

merry_and_silver

clintl

Represent.

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

merry_and_silver

Opty

merry_and_silver

merry_and_silver

amergina

Pittsburgh Strong

merry_and_silver

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse