From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Military Quote
Date: 26 Sep 1992 15:35:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1a0d6iINNcks@agate.berkeley.edu> blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.211034.18529@news.columbia.edu>, dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.EDU (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>> >
>|>    A bit harsh, maybe. The General expresses one _very_ important point
>|> about women in the military that is generally overlooked by people at large.
>|> If you ask the average opponent of WIM (women in the military), they will
>|> say that they are opposed to it because they want to protect women from
>|> being killed/captured/raped.

Then why did the men in the Tailhook incident grab the women's bodies
and assault them and threaten them?  Because they wanted to protect
them?  I'm sorry, I just think that there isn't any male drive to
protect women.  MY man would protect me, and I him.  But again, from
what I said below, it's not cross-species.  I just don't buy it. 

>I think they just don't want women potentially usurping some
>of their "macho" power away from them.  Women are capable of fighting
>if they we to, and very ferociously at that.  (Study up on what the
>Romans thought about the Celtic women who met them in battle in those
>good old empire days).  The opponents know this, the General knows this --
>he admitted it.  But they just can't stand the thought of a woman 
>possibly being more "manly men" than they are.

I think this was one reason why the men in the Tailhook incident started
chanting "No women, no women, no women!"  Here they were doing all this
military stuff to prove their manhood -- and up comes a woman doing it
just as well.  If the GIRLS can do it, thinks a typical guy there, then
this can't be how one proves manhood -- so my manhood is a sham.  The
women there were threatening their very core of self-esteem and
manhood, gained by doing something "women" weren't supposed to be able
to do. 

>|>    But as the general said, the real reason is that WIM conflicts with
>|> women's role in that women should not be allowed to _kill
>
>Hold it right here.  Women should not be *allowed* to kill, etc, etc, etc??
>Exactly who is allowing them or disallowing them?  On the same note, why
>should women allow the men to go off and kill, and possibly ultimately
>destroy the planet along with all the children we women have spent
>years creating and nurturing?

So he's saying that men have to protect women.  From what?  I guess men
are my natural protectors, then.

However, why can't I walk home from my office late at night to my
apartment?  Why am I so afraid?  Why do I have a kitchen knife in my
hand when I do it?  Just what IS it that forces me to be scared when
driving home alone at night or walking home from my office?

The one thing I fear meeting most is another one of my "natural
protectors."  The general is affirming that men protect women -- from
other men.  Excuse me if I don't fall to my knees in gratitude.

If he's so opposed to women killing, he should work to keep us from
having to fear for our lives so much.  When men rape women, and are also
opposed to letting us carry weapons, I have to wonder if they aren't
protecting themSELVES.  (That was deliberately hyperbolic; please don't
accuse me of accusing YOU of raping ANYONE.)  

>But you are correct.  It confilicts with "The Women's Role".  Of course,
>this role is not one that women have made for ourselves, but one
>that has been forced upon us.
>
>|> in the traditional
>|> view. 
>
>Yep, the traditional view.  Some traditions were just meant to be broken
>as the old saying goes.  

Yep.  It was also tradition for bridesw to show everyone the
bloodstained bedsheets after the honeymoon -- and for a nonvirgin bride
to be burnt like matchsticks.  Sorry -- just because something is a
tradition, I'm not really ready to defend it.

>Personally, I would like to see more men
>thinking about why they feel they must die at all costs just for 
>a tad bit of heroism.  I guess they are afraid of being called a
>"coward" or worse yet, a "wimp".  I suppose it's more important to
>go off and kill other people rather than, oh horror of horrors, be
>called a measly little name that just must shatter their ego. 

Personally, I think it has more than a little to do with the major
western religions all worshipping as nice little good boy son who is
tortured to death by the decree of his father -- who is unable to
forgive the world until his only son is tortured to death.  He pointed
his finger, and meek little good boy Jesus went and kacked.  (Sorry for
seriously offending anyone; I just think that this death and martyrdom
kick that western religion gets off on is really damaging to young
men.)

As for shattering ego -- I remember someone named Goldberg -- Herb maybe
-- who said that it was in vogue to ask men to FEEL, but this was like
taunting a crippled man to run.  So much that men ARE is invested in
that ego, in the things like killing and flying airplanes that they then
tell themselves women can't do because we're women.  When we prove
ourselves able to do them, their achievement of "manhood" seems to them
to be a sham.  It's a pretty hollow manhood that has to rely on keeping
someone in artificial weakness to be achieved.

Please note that I'm not running down manhood per se, just the
societally defined version of it that keeps US in subjection, and men
killing themselves to achieve it.  Sounds to ME like no one wins in THIS
system. 
 
>Enough women are killed, raped or forced into prostitution by a war in
>|> which they are excluded. What would it matter if a few of them were allowed
			     ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ (later for this) 
>|> to be defending themselves and other with military weapons at the time?
>
>I don't see where it would matter at all.  If those "traditional males"
>are so worried about a woman being an incapable warrior or whatever, then
>they could perhaps provide some sort of test.  Whoever passes is in.

They have a test now -- it's called "do you have a penis?"

Besides, if this is how they prove "manhood," then having a woman do it
just as well, as I said above, would cause them to have to redefine
manhood, which is a possibly painful and revelatory task.  They don't
want to do it. 

>Of course, I don't see them doing this any time soon because then it
>would be too easy for too many of the wrong people to fail (i.e. too many
>males), and we certainly wouldn't want that to happen, eh?

Again, he fails to see that he is talking about MEN raping women and MEN
through their demand forcing women into prostitution, and MEN then not
allowing us the weaponry to defend ourselves.  I'm sorry, Daniel, but if
*I* had a gun or a nice long, sharp knife in hand if a man came up to me
with rape and murder and mutilation on his mind, it would indeed matter
a great deal to me. 

>|>    I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that the Air Force is the
>|> more progressive of the forces as far as WIM is concerned. I think they were
>|> the first (only?) service to really study women and gays in terms of
>|> quality service.
>|> 
>|> DanZ
>
>We'll just have to see what happens.  I'd like to see all military 
>personnel all over the world out of a job, and into another that's
>more productive for our societies, but since I don't see that happening
>in the near future, I can only hope that we can at least educate
>some of these "traditional males" into treating us women with a little
>more respect for our capabilities.

When I think of the Tailhook incident and think that these are the men
I'm supposed to admire for "protecting" me and my country, I just wonder
what it is they think they're protecting.  Is it the right to use me and
other women as a proving ground for masculinity?  Is it the right to
keep and and other women firmly on the bottom, where we belong, so that
they have someone to look down on -- thus achieving something called
"manhood," but which sounds more like subjection to me?

If the Air Force is the most progressive, then we're in trouble.  Some
slave owners were also progressive in not beating their property as
often or as hard, or not raping the women as much, or not selling off
people separate from their families unless they could read, but I don't
think that's really cause for celebration.

Regards,
Janis C.




-- 
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
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.