From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women warriors and male myths (WAS: Military Quote)
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:34:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: leland.1992Oct3.021905.15091
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <1992Sep28.230941.18930@access.usask.ca> bickis@skmath3.pa.dec.COM ("M. Bickis") writes:
>Why do I cling to this belief?  Because I believe that gender is an
>essential aspect of society, and gender is associated with more than
>just sex and pregnancy.  If I strip the concept of gender down to its
>essentials, I find a nurture vs. protection dichotomy.  To be feminine
>is to be nurturing, nourishing and *non-threatening*.  To be masculine
>is to be protective and agressive.  (This is the attribute that I
>believe Bly calls "fierceness".)  These attributes are naturally
>linked to one's biology, and are found throughout the animal kingdom,
>almost universally among mammals.

How are they naturally linked to one's biology?  The only thing in
humans that comes close to a "natural" link is that young men seem to
be more violent than women in general and older men.  The good thing,
imo, is that most men grow out of it.  As men grow older, they become
less violent.

(Of course, this ignores the fact that our society still appears to
reward young men for being agressive.)

>This essence of what it is to be masculine or feminine is of course an
>ideal (or 'myth' if you prefer).  Real women can be threatening, and
>real men can be anything but protective.  But I maintain that society,
>and consequently all of us, will be better served if these myths are
>*promoted* rather than derided.  Women feel in danger from men (and
>therfore talk about having to protect themselves) not because the myth
>of masculinity is too strong, but because it is too weak.  An ideal
>man would never hurt a woman because it would me unmanly to do so.
>Only men who no longer take the masculine myth seriously would beat or
>rape a woman.

I don't see how these myths help anyone.  Locking people into
stereotypes seems limiting to me.  How is our society served by taking
52% of us and saying that we'll be nurturing and taking 48% of us and
saying we'll be protective?  Why not have 100% of us being nurturing
and protective?

>Being brutal is part of being a soldier.  I don't want a world in
>which men are encouraged to be brutal towards women.  It is bad enough
>for men to be brutal to other men.  I don't want a world in which
>women are brutal at all.  Even if we accept that violence is
>unavoidable, would it not be commendable if at least half of the human
>race were exempt from it?

A couple of things here.  I haven't been in the military and my
experiences are second-hand, from my sister who recently served 3.5
years as a lawyer in the JAG Corps of the Army and my dad who served
during WWII.  However, the "new" Army stresses several
things--education, performance, and character.  The military used to
be a dumping ground of sorts for men and women who should have gone to
jail, but were sent into the military to straighten them out.  That
rarely occurs any more.  And the point is that the military wants
honourable people, not criminals.  The military does not want soldiers
who enjoy being brutal, it wants soldiers that get the job done.
Granted, sometimes (perhaps often) that is a brutal job, but I think
there's a legitimate distinction here.  (I realize I'm probably
presenting an ideal picture of the military here...)

Secondly, you seem to believe that brutality only (or mainly) occurs
during warfare.  I don't believe this is true.  Granted that I appear
to know more survivors of child abuse and incest than the average
person, but I bet that most of us are brutalized by those closest to
us.  Women commit more than half of physical child abuse.  Women
commit sexual abuse of children.  Women commit emotional abuse.  How
is avoiding women as soldiers going to help with these issues?

>Many men *have* thought about this, and written about it.  Making a
>sacrifice for the common good has been considered a virtue, and only a
>society that promotes self-absorption would denigrate that.  Courage
>has been promoted as a "masculine" virtue--not in that automatically
>appears in all men, nor in that it is unbecoming in women--but in that
>it is *expected* of men.  Lack of courage can be forgiven in a woman
>because she has other burdens to bear.  This is one of the few perks
>that women have traditionally had.  Don't knock it.

In one of her books, Andrea Dworkin addresses this issue of lack of
courage in women.  She points out that until recently, childbearing
was loaded with danger, probably the most dangerous thing anyone, man
or woman, could do.  Take a look through an old graveyard and see how
many husbands outlived their wives, wives who usually died during
childbirth or from infection from childbirth.  Women have shown
courage by having children, by risking their lives repeatedly to bring
new life into the world.  I don't think this very physical courage of
women has been acknowledged.  Odd how the physical courage of bringing
new life into the world has been discounted, while the physical
courage of killing others (to protect loved ones) has been admired.

Personally, I long for a world where both are admired, the act of
bringing new life into the world and the act of protecting it.


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.