Kony, Globalization, International Women's Day, and My Intermittent Blogging Schedule

ATTENTION: THIS BLOG IS MOVING TO http://tangentialromantic.com/

If you enjoy this post, or any of the previous, than please go to this website to continue reading.  It's a new layout, but I'm going to try to continue the majority of writing here!  I'll update this blog from time to time, to hopefully redirect any readers here to the new website! :) Thanks for all the views here at blogger.com!

It is difficult to keep up with the world and my personal life sometimes.  Sorry for the über-long title.  I am running back and forth between the Housing and Finance Offices on post because this week I moved into my apartment!  I posted some pics on Flickr of this new place. More on that later... now, about these pics below.  This is a picture I took while visiting Cape Verde in 2009, an archipelago off the west coast of Africa.  It's a small country with relatively low rates of violence, a problem with drought, and was originally uninhabited.  It is one of Africa's most stable democratic governments (source: CIA World Factbook).

The media frenzy surrounding Kony in Uganda and the fierce reactions I've read from both fervent supporters and disdainful skeptics, have got me thinking about the rights and wrongs surrounding the issue.  It is true that some parts of the viral video are a little misleading... read this article Joseph Kony is not in Uganda by Michael Wilkerson if you aren't tracking yet.

In spite of the misinformation, part of me is inherently opposed to dismissing the international crimes of one individual because they don't directly influence my life.  Still, I agree with a lot of what Michael Wilkerson wrote; namely that there is no clear solution and simply getting media attention is not the answer (and is a bit suspect if it's directly related to a fundraising effort. I'm vaguely reminded of The Twelve Chairs, where Ostap Bender is smoothing appealing for everybody to give money for a "good cause." p.s. if you haven't seen the Mel Brooks film... do it!)

There are a lot of injustices in the world, and globalization almost suggests that the more a country can guarantee it won't meddle outside of its borders, the less likely the international community is to do anything about it.  Eddie Izzard has a great skit about "mass-murdering f***heads" that covers this phenomena.  The atrocities committed by the warlord Kony, are worse than anything NATO Soldiers have done as individuals (because their countries' governments always pursue some sort of disciplinary action even if it's not totally satisfactory to the international community) in recent international conflicts, yet they are so ubiquitous in times of civil war in Africa, they rarely make the headlines.  I think this doesn't excuse Soldiers of war crimes ever, but it is nice to know our Soldiers presumably follow the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).  Meanwhile, 'warlordism' is a serious problem that developed countries tend to look at with sympathetic eyes without stirring so much as a hand in many a case (and truthfully we can't devote resources to hunt down every single warlord).  Rape as a weapon of war, has been used openly in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Liberia at an alarming level.  It has spurred U.N. Security Council Resolutions, international conferences, and is a serious issue of justice let alone international law.

Amid all this outcry over Kony and the sad reality of warlordism and the suffering of women and all victims of warmongering, I would like to remind the international community in the global effort for peace it has been proven that women are a key factor, too often an overlooked one.

Which brings me to my next point:  Happy International Women's Day 2012!  I know I sorta missed in my time zone for the post anyway, but it's still going on in my native USA.  It's a great day and I'm sorry I didn't make more room in my schedule to prepare a product this year.  I checked out the book, A Few Good Women at the library and told the librarian Happy International Women's day, to which she replied surprised and chuckling, "Why yes, I suppose so! [smile]  Same to you!"

SO, about my intermittent blogging schedule.  I am currently in the process of moving into my apartment.  I also won't have time to install high-speed internet there before I deploy to Afghanistan... and would have to cancel the plan right after it was set up... so I am just using a stick internet... which doesn't even work that well at my apartment.  I have plenty of ideas I want to blog about, but I have to set up my computer at a McDonalds or the Community Activity Center on post, so it's a little hassle to write.  Then during the deployment my blogs will be more intermittent, but I'll keep up to date as much as possible within reason with operational security (OPSEC).

My Reaction to DoD opens 14,000 Army jobs to women

My feelings on this can pretty much be summed up in the quote from Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women's Law Center,

"It's good, but it's not very much more of a step forward."

I totally concur.  I've written very passionately about this.  I guess I would have mixed feelings if the barriers were removed right now because I've already started my military career and I'm generally happy being a Transporter, but it should still be changed.  I'm really thrilled General Odierno is pushing for more changes, even though I know a lot of his quotes come from a similar article about a month or so ago.  He expressed disappointment the deadline for reviewing the gender policy was not met and he spoke highly of the real contributions women make in our Army.

Unfortunately, I believe a larger percentage than are speaking openly and plainly in interviews and from podiums are reluctant to see the change.  Someone said to me today referencing the article with a shrug about women being in combat:

[Just saying...] "Could you pull me out of a burning vehicle?"

I wish I'd had a better retort on hand, but I was off guard and tired.  I wished I had mentioned Sgt. Monica Brown, the medic who may not have pulled anyone who weighed a ridiculous amount more than her from a burning HMMWV, but who shielded Soldiers with her own body in Afghanistan one day, risking her life to treat the wounded.  And beyond that, on countless missions she provided much needed aid to the unit she was attached to.  Though just doing her job she was awarded a Silver Star for valor.  A few days after the flurry of media attention though, she was pulled from the area because she was too close to combat according to current policies.  According to the unit taking her out on missions though, there was no other medic to take at the time.

Now, reading a story like that, why turn to me and ask bluntly if I could carry you out of a burning vehicle?  I think of the guys who already push 200 lb when they are in plain clothes.  Could he pull that guy with a full combat load and body armor on out of a burning vehicle if the seat belt is in place?  I mean let's quit with the what if statements, these hypothetical scenarios don't address the real issue.

The real issue is that women deserve as much fair treatment in this government job as they receive in any other.  The real problems are not about the chivalry of men, the emotional reaction to combat, or the physical demand of their jobs.  Real problems may be privacy, and preventing affirmative action from debilitating the fighting force.  Additionally, the article mentioned the so few women in high ranks because the best career jobs in the army are in fields closed to women.  For me it is not really about the 'Brass Ceiling'... though that part does have some legitimate backing and research.  If the Army is viewed from purely a career standpoint, than it is a problem, but from a more traditional standpoint, call it nostalgic maybe, but from the the standpoint that the Armed Forces are the real life heroes of a nation - the defenders and upholders of the Constitution - it's just plain heartbreaking.  Ask me can I pull you from a burning vehicle... but then let me try.  Don't look at me, my gender, and simply shake your head.  Defense officials say there is no Brass Ceiling, and that women have "no disadvantage in... promotion rate."  Wonderful, so women have not been detrimental or performed any worse than men in all the jobs they are allowed?  So, give us a chance in the Infantry.  Give America's daughters a shot at Eleven Bravo (11B)!  I think she may surprise you if you'd give her half the chance.

MOOTW - Why Modular Units Excite Me

In the Army the overhaul of the organization of units from the old style of armies and divisions is exciting because it acknowledges the assymmetrical nature of modern warfare.  In fact the Army is seems to be constantly engaged in MOOTW:  often small-conflict and sustainment operations.  I just learned today how the Army is moving away from labeling the Front Line and instead referring to a 'Non-Contiguous Battlefield'.  The fact that support and maneuver units are more closely resembling each other in risk is also indicative of the whole Army approaching the moment when gender barriers can be lowered and eventually -hopefully - dropped.  On top of being the absolute right thing to do, the new structure is part of improving the entire organization.  Loosening the restrictions on what positions women may have serves to expand our society's ideas of gender roles in a way which allows both male and female employees to be more productive.  Diverse organizations are more successful organizations.  Success is more and more dependent on drive and innovation than gender.

Second, I was not the only little girl who loved G.I. Jane.  I am not the only motivated young woman in the Army.  And I'm certainly not the most qualified when I think of the high-speed I know who have been to SAPPER or who express an interest in EOD.  The problem is it really takes the wind out of your sails if you know you don't have to try as hard because you aren't allowed to pursue all the different avenues of advancement in the Army.  And on top of that, RANGER school is a Leadership School.  A leadership school, and why do guys go?  Is it because it's an all-male environment?  Is it because men love that sort of thing?  No, it's because they want the challenge.  Well, some women want that challenge too.  A friend told me that people are afraid standards will drop because of false charges of sexism.  They should be afraid at all times that standards will drop for all sorts of reasons, whether based on gender or the national level of fitness.  Obesity is a real and rising problem in the United States, but you can change your level of fitness through training.  You can't change your gender no matter how many pushups you do.

Is the Battle Really Won?

I stress it is not a Battle against the opposite gender, as some would like to believe.  It is a war on Sexism and Racism and all existing prejudice in the world.  An older white man I recently spoke with would have me believe there is no more work to be done, that only time is needed to see progress.  I see this as laziness, an easy laziness to slip into for either side, the victim or the unknowing antagonist.  I am not friends with anyone who is directly sexist.  No one I am close to would ever hit a woman or keep a woman against her will from succeeding or trying to succeed in this world, but I am sorry to say that doesn't mean everything is hunky-dory and we're all gonna be holding hands and singing Kumbaya in Corporate Boardrooms and other male-dominated fields any time soon.

The problem is partly that many women exist peacefully within their roles, so making up 51% of the population means less when many of those women don't feel like they are at a disadvantage.  No offense to anyone's life choices, but if I was choosing a traditional role and had gone to college to get my "Mrs." than it would be easy for me to say that we have progressed quite well into gender equality.  Women have the vote now.  We can drive too right?  Wow, well, we must be well on our way in that case.

It makes me feel good that women are making up more voters, but not all have forward-thinking ideas in mind.  Some would - in the words of an old mentor of mine - "put the women's movement back twenty years!!!"  The other day I was reading an article in a 2010 issue of "Black Enterprise" about minorities in the military and my eye was caught by a line that said minorities and women "tend not to choose" branches like Infantry that lead to more career-Soldiers.  I wanted to call the editor and the author and give them a stern, "Choose your words more carefully" lecture because the issue matters so much to me, not because I think they were trying to be misleading.  Women "tend not to" because they are not allowed to be in Infantry or Armor which makes up the majority of the highest ranking Generals.  And the fact that we haven't overcome this hurdle is reason enough to make me want to take a copy of the stupid law and nail it to the desk of the guy who told me that gender equality has been reached in his eyes.  He even went on to tell me that the government "shoves equal rights" down the throats of businesses today.  He went on to say the only way the poor man who owns a business can be successful with the government is to either register his company in his wife's name or go private.  Honestly, in a world where men still earn more for every dollar to the woman, and make up 89% of CEO's in the Fortune500, how can you believe that gender equality has been reached?  I strongly encourage men like this to seriously watch the youtube of Daniel Craig cross-dressing for women's interest across the world.  It's seriously a great introduction to the man who believes he's being discriminated against by laws intended to bridge a gap that continues to exist in spite of all the time it's had to shrink more drastically.  Here, I'll include the link, please, educate yourself:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC8Ls-5nRxM

"So are we equals?  Until the answer is yes, we must never stop asking."

Why Women's Issues are Important Today

Related issues bombard the news: issues of the LGBT and other minority communities all continue to be contentious political issues as politicians interested in appealing to the widest range of people try to delicately wade through this politically charged modern world.  This makes me optimistic for pressing for further sexual equality, but while we can imagine a world of racial equality, it is a world of gender equality and without restrictive gender roles that remains a mystery to us.

I tried to picture such a world, I couldn't help but imagine same-sex couples interspersed with heterosexual couples, the burden of traditional gender roles shattered.  Men and women in all variety of fashion and clothes, from dresses to suits to togas to nude maybe.  I sort of imagined an African woman reading from a Nook sitting on some steps while a woman of Asian descent spoke with wild hand gestures on her Blackberry.  An effeminate looking man in a suit swept the floor, and an Arabic man in jeans and a T-shirt painted a wild design on the public wall.  Meanwhile a Scandinavian woman in business garb held open the door for a man of uncertain background who had floor plans in both his arms.  I guess that's a bit too far-fetched and bizarre, but really what does a world of gender equality look like?

Indeed, a lot of people hold onto a traditional idea of gender roles. They believe that such roles exist to strengthen society, or that gender equality already exists.  Else they've been stung by reverse sexism. The problem with reverse sexism is that being resentful of it does nothing for either side. Perhaps affirmative action has gotten a bad rap, but the fact of the matter is that women are not equally represented today, and are even still repressed. It is just that sexism even when it doesn't overtly bear that title, still exists.

Women as existing persons are not a minority, they make up a little over half the population. Why aren't we in a larger percentage of leadership positions everywhere? There have been theories on the percentage to reach in order to no longer be seen as a minority, somewhere around 30% before one is seen as a worker before being a token.

The stunning question is what if not enough women want that sort of life?  How can women achieve these numbers?  Is it possible to achieve these numbers?  Many women choose to be stay-at-home moms, or else take lower paying jobs because they don't need to be the primary bread-winners.  I believe that in freedom of choice they should do this, but I also believe that freedom of choice implies I should not have to work twice as hard to earn half as much respect.

Woman President - Is the United States ready for a woman as the Commander in Chief?

On March 7, 2011 this is was the question that Eva Cepeda (spelling?) of El Salvador asked at the Q&A session of the 100 Women Initiative seminar, and while it has been reported that the question left the three women moderators speechless, the answers they give have not been put under a microscope.  This was the last question of the seminar and had the most telling reaction on top of answer.  The women responding questions were the Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale, Assistant Secretary of Education Ann Stock and Clinton's chief of staff Cheryl Mills...


...And their answers were roundabout, wandering, but essentially, "Not quite." They seemed not to want to admit that the United States as a whole was not ready in 2008 to see a woman as president.  Today they could readdress the question and maybe reference the Straw Poll of Iowa, but up until then no woman has come as close as now Secretary Clinton.  Now some might say there hasn't been any woman qualified for the job, but I beg to differ.  What I see is an unwillingness to acknowledge an actual problem in our own backyard.  While women in Latin America have made those strides, and the very woman who asked this question referenced the President of Costa Rica, President Rousseff of Brasil, Chile, and the former President of Panama, the United States lags in this area.  I believe part of that is the strong identification America has with "Traditionalism." While traditional values have their place and their strength, there should be room for growth and especially the growth of the position and power of women in this country.

Additionally, because women enjoy actual representation in the United States and have actually been getting out to vote more than men, and since more are completing college presently than men, there's a tendency to pretend there is no problem.  Cheryl Mills ended her answer saying the Latin America is a model of the "opportunities that we have to do the same thing." As though we are perfectly capable but luck hasn't panned out for us yet.  I may believe that after 2012, but up until this election women have not had as great of chance.  In a struggling economy it is difficult to say where women's progress towards equality in fields of pay and work will go.  It has been the trend that when the Military downsizes, the restrictions imposed based on gender are heightened. That cannot happen this time.

Benazir Bhutto

Experts on Middle Eastern studies would consider this a narrow entry, barely scratching the surface of the complex topic that is political history in Pakistan, but I must address part of the story of Benazir Bhutto.  Many countries in the world have had women PMs or Presidents or Chancellors, but not the United States.

Anyway, Benazir Bhutto has a convoluted and interesting history.  This woman was prime minister in Pakistan twice, and head of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), besides holding other positions in government.  Her father, who founded the PPP, was a former prime minister in Pakistan but he was executed in 1979 after a military coup.

Thus she was outside of Pakistan when she became chairwoman of the PPP, and after returning to Pakistan won her first term as prime minister.  Now whether good or bad, she was removed on charges of corruption after serving only 20 months.  She was the prime minister again from 1993-1996 and was removed again on similar charges.  She was assassinated when she returned to Pakistan after a self-imposed exile to Dubai.  Her assassination was in the city of Rawalpindi in December 2007.  Her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, is the current President of Pakistan.

There are many women leaders in today's world, from the first woman Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard to the current Presidente of Brasil, Dilma Rousseff.  I hope I have shed some light on this one woman who, regardless of her performance, good or bad, reflected on the progress of women in their ability to hold positions of power in the modern world.

Fired Up: The Lonely Soldier

The Lonely Soldier
In The Lonely Soldier, Benedict tells the stories of five women who fought in Iraq between 2003 and 2006.
 
This is a great novel, in addition to a book like this there is a need for another "War Novel," based on non fiction that demonstrates a single woman's perspective or continuous perspective of women in a unit that has seen combat.
The reason I was spurred into action was an article that popped up on Twitter from a magazine called On the Issues.  While I was a Cadet at West Point we had a Book Club for books on leadership in combat and under stress. While the books were those like "Black Hearts" or "War" by Sebastian Junger or "Matterhorn" none of them had a woman officer or NCO I could relate to. All of them made me feel frustrated and inadequate for being a woman and not being able to be the embodiment of what the Army considers the best of the best or the absolute: Infantry.

I own Lonely Soldiers and I asked the Commandant if we could read something like that in the book club as well and his response was politely that he didn't think that book or any other existing book written by a woman or featuring women fit the description he was looking for in a "leadership" book. He said they were too much like "memoirs."
Yes, I thought a war story told from the perspective of those in a unit was sort of like a memoir also... but now I want to know what book could be recommended and how can we get the whole Corps to read it, to understand that women leaders are an important part of today's Army?

This One's For the... Women?

I'm feeling motivated.  From where, you might ask, is this new found inspiration of mine?  Well, the answer lies in a recent conversation with people who have a higher rank than I do.  This will have to be reported gingerly, as people who don't know they are being listened to say things they might not fully mean.  At any rate, I have gotten into the habit of explaining to people that the use of the term "women" has become taboo in the military in places it should not be taboo.  Also, the word "female" is overused and a very sterile term used when it is either unnecessary to identify gender or in order to avoid non-PC terms like "chick", "babe", "girls", or any number of unsavory and demeaning terms for "women."  It was explained to me like this:  when it is appropriate to differentiate by gender and you would have to use the term "male" than it is okay and encouraged to use the term "female," however when you would say "Soldier", "Officer", or "Men" than it is appropriate to use "women" or "ladies."  Besides the terms "male/female" are used outside of the military when you describe animals not people.  How many times have you referred to a group of guys or girls and said, "The males are going to the bachelor party while the females go to the bridal shower."  Um... probably never.

So I now educate small groups of people on this difference whenever an opportunity comes along, usually when having to wait an extraordinary time for something and someone says "female" unnecessarily.  I don't bring it up if there's a time crunch... but anyway someone above me overheard my spiel and he made a point to tease me about it. Which was funny the first couple of times... but after the third day began the same way I brought it up with him and asked politely if he found the concept really so amusing.  Considering he worked in the psychology dept. I was a bit surprised he was making so much fun when it really was an Army-wide habit that I was still guilty of from time to time in spite of self-correcting whenever possible.

I have been batting around "fem-servations" lately on the position of women in the world.  I want to see even more progress.  I can't let the lack of progress frustrate my performance... but I can certainly move towards the goal of forwarding women's interests either with this blog or with articles or some other outlet for this.  Or a combination of those things.  So with this blog, I address the "female" vs "ladies" question.  I've also neatly separated the unrelated and emotional preface from the actual 'meat' of this article.  And I hope this helps with future blogs as well.  This is one of a list of issues I plan on addressing this week.  So more to follow - and soon!

This is Not Over

Today felt old stirrings.  A captain was enthusiastically telling us about a leadership book.  Obviously the book made little difference to me, since I cannot remember the title.  Apparently it's all the rage with commanders.  Anyway... reading Obama's Wars offers such a complex variety of insights, I am appalled we didn't have to read this at the Academy.  It offers so much more breadth and depth on the decision making of this country, that would have helped fuel and foster good conversation in our officership class as opposed to the pointless thinking exercises with incomplete information.  For example the GEN McChrystal case... reading this book is making me reexamine my original evaluation.  I think overall my evaluation has not changed, but I have so much more food for thought on the broad and complicated problem that faces our nation and military forces today.

The other familiar old feeling came when this same captain was referring to Gates of Fire and how it's the ultimate leadership book, blah blah blah, he made all his Lieutenants read it.  It's about the Battle of Thermopylae and the men who fought in it.  While I'm sure it's a great book, just like Black Hearts, which the captain also mentioned, I wanted to point out that we needed a modern book that highlighted the women leaders who are participating in battle right now.  Or we need a historical fiction book about the Arabian Battle Queens, or Joan of Arc.  He talked about how impressive the training was, how it just beat you down and getting back up the description he said was inspiring.  Well, sir, how would you like the same feeling with societal convention?  Want to feel like your a fish out of water?  Like what you're doing is unusual for your gender?  Like you get hit with or have to hear a stereotype describe your peers?  It may not be the physical brutality that you're so in awe with, but women face a challenge and an unregulated indoctrination process as harrowing as that which you've described.  Also, with all the book's accuracy how come you don't know a damn thing about Spartan women and the training they had to undergo or the rights that they had (though few) or the cultural nuances that affected women.  Why do you men give me a blank stare if I ask you, what about the women?  I guess the unspoken question in your minds which saddens me is, "What about them?"

Ah... So This is what they call Work

So much has happened since I started working "for reals" a week ago.  I was technically "late" and missed the first day of orientation, but it turned out not to matter since the first day was like most first days at any job.  Mostly pointless and not much potential to screw up.  So on day 2 I showed up on time and "ready to go."

During this time I'd moved into Camp Natural Bridge, the 'lodging' facilities for Active Army personnel training Cadets during their summer training.  It's enough to live in, but I was quickly pissed off by the persistent fire alarm which went off arbitrarily and could not be turned off without the fire department present.  This obnoxious alarm forced us from our beds once at 2300 and 0300 hours in the same night.  Besides this hiccup, it's basic housing:  a tin can or box which puts a roof over your head and walls around.  It had air conditioning, electricity, hot water, and toilets.  And that's it.  No internet, not even phone signal.  The last thing eventually convinced me it was worth it to leave, but I hadn't moved out until today.  But this is also part of "work."

My job is at the Land Navigation Site #1.  I help to run the compass confidence course and 500 meter pace count course and also supervise the carrying out of the terrain walk.  I feel a lot better at land navigation without trails now and would like to keep working on the skill.  The first four days were more than that though.  They involved long hikes covering a few kilometers a day uphill, overhill, and downhill.  In the humid heat or the pouring rain and thunderstorms.  We walked.  A lot.  My feet are still torn up a little.  Blisters and calluses on parts of my feet I wasn't aware bore all that much pressure while hiking.  There came a point while we trained the cadet cadre where my feet hurt more to just stand on site than to get out and hike up and downhill again.  It was strange because standing still even my toes hurt like my feet were swollen and I just needed to sprawl out and elevate them... but walking briskly up and downhill seemed the best cure.

We received the cadet cadre on a Saturday and I got a group of ten to train for four days.  These barely junior cadets were all unfamiliar to me, which somehow helped.  One of them asked if they were the first group I was leading as an officer.  The sarcasm and cynicism amused me.  It annoyed the older officers who think cynicism ruins training.  I think it can do that... but I also think it's a firm reminder to get your head out of the academic clouds and realize you are training people with very human traits and if it was you on the ground at that age again you would have the same attitude.  I also can see that some very clever kids are just frustrated with the repetition and 'dumb down' process of it all and are itching to actually perform.  Now, often these particularly bright cadets are also a little bit proud, but they are willing and even eager to perform, they just hate being talked down to or doubted and the Army has a tendency to give that impression.  I sort of get that attitude, I understand it, and maybe it's a problem because I haven't learned how to deal with that yet, but I feel like I connect with those cadets.

Anyway they picked team names which I'm obligated due to verbal promise to repeat here:

• The Purple Cobras
• Ladies
• Swamp People
• Best Buds
• The Reapers

The "Ladies" were two guys, but that name came up because I was explaining to them when to use "female" and when to use "Ladies" or "Ma'am" or "women."  My basic explanation was this:  Whenever it's appropriate to use "males" you may then use the term "female(s)", but whenever you would say "men" or "guys" or something similar say "women" or "ladies" etc.  There were some jokes, but also a little bit of the light bulb going on... I could tell a couple of them agreed that made sense.  I'm glad I was able to reach ten individuals.

The Citadel & Shannon Faulkner

She has her own less than a half a page entry on Wikipedia.  When this woman was a girl, she fought in court for the right to be admitted to The Citadel, an all-male state-supported Military Academy in South Carolina.  The state carelessly gave her exactly what she wanted in 1995 without regard for success of the operation or the social era.  She essentially quit within 4 hours and the cadets celebrated with catchy phrases such as, "Save the Males."  Congratulations, gentleman.  Even though in 1996 they had to let women in anyway... the Citadel has lagged behind the other Academies in terms of female integration.

However looking at the case... every so often there must be some male who isn't fit for the Citadel who quits in less than an hour (we do after all have prospective cadets quit within the half hour at West Point, and usually there is a cheer as the first person to figure out this is not their route quits... but there is not usually a derogatory statement made about that person)... and no one will remember that failure.  No one will remember why he did not become a cadet at the Citadel because he did not have to challenge a system, an academy, a state, or cherished tradition in order to be allowed his chance to show up and fail utterly.

So Shannon Faulkner quit and ended up becoming a middle school teacher according to Wikipedia, and is still a source of mockery and a target of sexist ridicule in South Carolina... but why?  All she did was show up... all she did was ask: why not?  And it wasn't for her... but the same men who will admire the quote by Theodore Roosevelt about the man in the arena, don't realize she was the one in the arena.  For all their bravado... the men  really shouldn't have cheered at all because that only showed how petty they were... and as was pointed out to me by someone else, the greatest leaders are not the overt sexists.  A man who is so insecure he cannot stand the thought of a woman co-existing with him in the workplace, a boy really who is too childish to let anyone in his "boys" club and who throws a fit when the door is opened to women... he isn't really the type of leader I care for, but I wouldn't generalize on all of mankind for his foolishness or his "cold and timid soul".

Theodore Roosevelt's Man in the Arena Quote:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Lioness or Feminist?

I am reminded of the lyrics to "Meet Virginia" - I want to live this life, and I don't really want to live this life (this life meaning a way of life, not life itself).

So, honest self-assessment:  I want to further equal rights.  Yet I appreciate being a woman, I don't consider myself extremely masculine, it's just not me.  Further, I don't believe that men are assholes, in fact I rather like men.  I understand most women don't want to do what I want to do.  But I believe everyone should have the right to try and if they're capable than you shouldn't be allowed to hem us in.  Women should have the freedom to fail like any man for any job.  So, being a soldier, I am uncomfortable with the Combat Exclusion Policy, because it establishes a restriction before I can begin to analyze whether or not I even want what the policy says I can't have.  And the attention I draw to this, and the desire I have for people to at least make educated decisions on this... make people label me as a feminist.  Which I don't appreciate, not because I don't support women's rights, but no one wants to be a feminist.  Who would listen if I said I was a feminist?  And do I even consider myself one?  It's hard enough now to get people, primarily men but some women too, to listen and really hear me and I try to emphasize that at this point I don't really consider myself a feminist.  But on the feminist issue, I had to look this quote up, got it from my sister, and then laugh when I saw it is attributed to controversial Christian televangelist host Pat Robertson:

"The Feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

Naturally.

Regardless if he actually said it or not, this sort of statement sums up my frustration with the term "feminist".  I am a woman, and I believe that women should be treated equal to men in society.  Equal is a tough thing to determine.  Equal does not mean in every instance exactly the same.  But it's the American way too isn't it?  That every man has the same opportunity.  I should hope that implicitly this means every man and woman.  I don't think this supposition, or hope, or wish makes me feminist.  Perhaps I am an idealist.  I wish that we were all mature enough for such a world to exist.  It is disappointing that instead of becoming educated, so many argue with me based on pure opinion.  They cite out of date studies.  They have never perused a compendium or so much as an article about women in combat.  They haven't asked and challenged a superior officer on the subject.  Or just asked and listened to her if she believed women ought to be allowed in some jobs and roles.  I have listened to men and women alike.  I have been told just how wrong I am, and how incapable, how my menstruation and smaller muscular structure and mere gender will get me and others killed out there on some isolated combat outpost or on a patrol outside the wire.  I have listened a lot more than most men out there realize.  I have sympathized with their arguments, and I have wondered many times if this country really is ready.
But I feel like insofar as capability to deliver a positive message, the feminist movement and anyone who declares themselves a feminist only discredits their own argument in moderate to conservative circles. In my mind, the term and the movement have lost a lot of power.  Now women's rights activists or lobbyists or advocacy groups exist and the term feminist has a stigma women want to stay away from.  A freshman today when asked what she thought about the combat exclusion policy by a male cadet whose opinion was obvious replied,

"Well I have no aspiration to be in any sort of combat unit.  The only people who really push for it are the feminists who want to do those sorts of jobs.  And I had to research a little the history of the policy, and the other argument was about how men would want to protect the women."

at which point a sophomore piped in,

"Yeah there's a study that proves that."

at which point I piped in,

"There's also a study that shows that under life-threatening conditions your survival is top priority regardless of gender.  Whose to say which study is more correct?"

because come on, there's a study?  Of course there is.  There are plenty of studies that prove both ways.  And more recent studies have proven the opposite of older studies.  Older studies said that women were naturally psychologically worse-equipped to deal with gore... but then what about war nurses?  The conversation I couldn't remember word for word, but I just remember the freshman saying explicitly that only feminists want this opportunity.

What Feminists? Who here would say they are a feminist? The Feminists are Dead.

All Quiet on the Western Front vs War

Here I am reading something with cultural value again!  I feel relieved I can still appreciate a good novel, currently I'm almost done with All Quiet on the Western Front and feel like a very interesting literature analysis could be done with comparison to all the myths about women in the Infantry.  I recently scratched together some interesting theories, but had to take a break from the computer to cure some classic burn-out.  I will have to be very careful of that in my career, it is quite frequent I hear.  I came up with some interesting ideas though in conversation and while reading and I couldn't help but think of my recent reading of Sebastian Junger's book, War.

So on women in the Infantry.  And yes I mean combat units in general, but I prefer to focus on the Infantry because that's the classic case.  What are the differences between men and women?  We are built differently that is certainly true, down to our structural design there are huge differences.  A couples examples: men have quicker reflexes, and women have a keener sense of smell.  Culturally, there are different expectations of us.  I believe a big part of it is the natural role of motherhood, and I only mean in the scientific sense of furthering a species to avoid much larger arguments.  Women who are able, can get pregnant in a limited portion of their lives and when they are pregnant face at least a few months of vulnerability.  In the past there were less chances of a successful birth and there were higher birth rates in many modern developed countries.   Thus, a life devoted to bearing and raising children was noble and expected and in truth bettered society.  Protecting your women was protecting a valuable resource.  This extends to protecting women and children.

However, with modern medicine, more women choose to and can put off bearing children.  These women have proven in athletic and corporate fields that with more freedom they can prove prowess outside of the domestic realm.  When not vulnerable in pregnancy, women are just as competent in many fields once reserved to men.  In intellectual fields I don't see any impairment from any stage of pregnancy, in jobs that require physical work, it has been proven that maintaining physical fitness in the early stages of pregnancy is actually better than previously believed, but there comes a stage and time when one must decrease rough physical activity.  And having never had a child, I admit I am in no way qualified to speak for any of these statements, only what I gather from sweeping and light research.

However, how this all goes back to my argument for women in combat, is that old concerns with child-bearing age and child-birth limited women in some ways, and any inspection of just a half century ago reveals instructions regarding and directed to women that are in so many ways laughable today.  Women are fast increasing the athletic levels at which they perform just check this out --> http://hilite.org/archives/1282 and I think this only goes to further my point.  While I am a little skeptical of smaller-framed, generally having higher body fat percentage women outperforming men, I do believe the differences in our muscular build are insignificant in the field.  Perhaps this would only hold true for a lesser percentage of women, but some nonetheless.  So if we instituted appropriate physical requirements for branches and held both men and women to that standard, we could easily counter the ever-present concern that women are not physically as qualified for combat.

In regard to social and psychological the argument is thicker but it is here that I feel even more strongly.  This is where I think it would be useful for someone to run a literature analysis on All Quiet on the Western Front or another WWI or WWII novel.  Anything that describes harrowing war.  I have been thinking hard in each scene about whether a woman could handle this.  All this talk today about the "nature of war" being the same as it was in the past.  I read some gory lines about men running on the stumps of legs or the constant shelling and the trench warfare launching attacks and counterattacks.  I compare this to recently having read War by Sebastian Junger, and I feel like our war is much less intense and much less maddening than that war.  And this is a good thing, isn't it?  How can a man tell me the nature of war is still the same?  When I look at these two books I feel like that is impossible.  And how can a man tell me I could not handle this based merely on the fact that I am a woman?  There is many a man in All Quiet on the Western Front who fails mid-battle.  Many a recruit that freezes up and dies.  Who is to say that would be any worse for a woman if women weren't confined to the medical professions during that war?  And it is not as though those women didn't see their share of macabre and gruesome.  It is interesting in Chapter Ten the main character, Paul Bäumer, is embarrassed to ask a young nurse where to go to take a piss, because she is young and crisp and clean and „wonderful and sweet“.  But a little while later they all get over their embarrassment and are clear with both functions with this nurse.  Was there a catastrophe?  Was anyone raped?  No.  These professionals dealt with it accordingly and the woman was hardly flustered with these so called private and embarrassing functions.

A man once told me that it would be difficult for a man such as himself to be in what was described to me as a few day long observation patrol with a woman because the men must take all their waste with them and he insinuated that included crapping in a bag and having to hold the bag for a buddy.  I nodded but didn't really understand.  If a nurse might have to do that in a field hospital, or a mother has changed the diaper of a baby, what woman can't handle the sight or sound of shit?  And then this man went further to say that women sometimes had that - you know - problem?  He was referring to menstruation.  Oh dear, well I explained to him that was only a little extra trash... but he was highly uncomfortable with the idea.  Why should women be barred from positions because he has the opposite gender on a pedestal?  Just make some distinctions buddy.  There is your wife, and you can believe whatever you like about her that she doesn't so much as fart.  And there is the man or woman you work with.  In war there will be things that pass that would be shameful in peacetime society, but there remains professionalism and there remains the profession of Soldiers:  that is to win our nation's wars.

I have so much more to say on the subject, but this has been gnawing at me for some time and I needed to at least begin to try to explain myself.

Turkey Blog

I am pretty amused currently.  A lot of times I am tempted to put smiley faces on this blog... right now one would be fairly reflective of my mood.  Not everything is great, but it's the lull before the inevitable end of semester cram-fest.  I mean there are other things on my mind... things about the car, issues I haven't dealt with.  Snow for example.  I don't even have an ice scraper.  I don't have jumper cables.  I haven't changed the oil and am wondering when I need to do that.  My car, Atticus is his name, seems to be doing well.  I just took a nice four-hour drive through some pretty crazy holiday traffic.  I am still pretty intimidated by traffic in general.  I was happy with how well I performed in the city once I arrived.

Both this evening and yesterday's were well spent playing some Apples to Apples.  Thank goodness for that ice breaker... sometimes I forget what to talk about outside of West Point's walls.  We share so much that is easy to talk about in our little gray fort.  I mean all you have to do is ask someone what they did last summer and everything becomes familiar acronyms and training and complicated systems that have become somewhat intrinsic to me.  I guess this is how people get stuck in the military, forgetting not what, but how to talk about subjects outside of military jargon.  I sometimes want to stop mid-explanation to civilians because as I explain one complicated system I realize it's related to another complicated system and they aren't possibly going to memorize it and no one expects them to... so how about we keep the explanation simple?  And on top of that, the academies are one big fraternity with an overabundance of rules which can all be traced back to an exclusive gentleman's code that was once associated with the place.  And I do mean fraternity because of the dominating male essence of the place.  Delicate, graceful, effeminate?  Nothing at West Point brings these adjectives to mind, except maybe the statue of Fame at the top of the supposedly largest free-standing polished granite column in the Western Hemisphere at Battle Monument.  And even Fame isn't the same, she used to have an exposed breast until some officer thought it was too arousing for the good ol' boys.  At least that's what the description was that I read in the museum, although the Wikipedia article claims it was just because the statue was too large and awkward.  I guess I'll have to go back to the museum to find out for sure...

More tedious research into the laws preventing women from serving in ground combat.  I began reading War by Sebastian Junger, since we're supposed to discuss this come the end of Thanksgiving Break.  I can't help get absolutely heartbroken when I read.  It isn't so glorious really:  war.  It is a tough job.  It is admirable of these men to take on this burden.  But whose to say women can't do this?  Who the hell has the right?  These men face a hard task it is true.  But I believe they have the potential professionalism to handle women at these isolated outposts.  Why don't they?  Why doesn't Congress?  Is the message that under the stress of combat, men are allowed to lose their ever-living minds and go on a sexist, raping rampage with any women who might have the misfortune to find themselves on a combat outpost with the sex-deprived, mentally and physically exhausted men?  Is the message that under a constant and dreadful threat men would irrationally protect women who chose to serve under the same conditions?  Is the message that the social fabric of a mixed-gender unit under heavy enemy fire and subject to constant assault and ambush would disintegrate and all hell would break loose?  What does a book like this do but show that the complexities and complications of war are as much of an issue for an all-male unit as they are for a mixed-gender unit.  I don't believe this would be much worse if there were women interspersed amongst the men.  I wonder if the psychological strength of a woman would help with issues such as PTSD.  I wonder if anyone would admire that woman, no matter who she was personally, and would anyone hold her as a hero in their hearts.  A woman who goes to war can hardly be seen as seeking glory and fame.  It does less good to a retired female soldier to have been in combat.  What good does that do her when she can never have the honor to be counted a Ranger or an Infantryman or someone whose job it was to go to a place and win the nation's wars by engaging in direct combat with the enemy?  It's an honor.  We honor those who take on this incredible burden.  It isn't the same in all countries.  This has nothing to do with my thoughts on war... but once you're in it, and once you are a soldier, you have a duty and a commitment.  A woman who wants to defend her country in the same manner by directly engaging the enemy ought not be prevented and surely ought not to be persecuted for it.

The Feminism Block and the Lunch Table

Okay, so today we started the feminism block in our jurisprudence law. The philosophy of law applied to the genders. Very interesting. Liberal law theorists place emphasis on freedom above all else and fear annihilation. Critical Law theorists, represented by the minority, fear alienation the most. I felt fear with the mere mention of the word. You never want to be alienated. It was a great word. Every single time I'd been ganged up on verbally and argumentatively by a male population came to mind. More so than some I'm sure since I have never really hung out with my female peers as much. It was a sobering experience. It was true that a lot of the way we as females develop is to avoid alienation or ostracizing ourselves.

Then at lunch one of our plebes Joe was still making jokes about my sister's boyfriend, mostly to get under my skin. I laugh it off, but at the same time I snip back by accusing him of feeling insecure and being all talk and no action and the least violent loud person I know. Joe called the guy an "air-stealer" and someone taking "resources that could be used by [him]". I retorted,

"Joe, you seem to be projecting, are you going through an identity crisis with your manhood right now?"

Joe: "No one else even gets your joke!"

And everyone started laughing, which I felt was sort of unnecessary, after all it wasn't a bad insult even if it was a little bit high-brow? Not even really, but that's not the point. All of a sudden 'The boys' decided to reference a joke they thought was funny that morning and started to pretend they couldn't understand me and telling me, "No, Taco Bell isn't open right now!" ha. ha. ha. I don't mind Mexican jokes, or woman jokes, but it gets a little annoying when they use it as a way to shut you up. So, maybe I was a little riled up from the feminism block but I rolled my eyes and there was more than a little edge in my voice as I commented,

"Ha ha. You guys are so funny. You know Mia I think it's so funny that I use a joke a couple times in a row and the guys are all over that, but they say the same joke over and OVER and think it's funny every time!"

The boys were still laughing and Mia says to my surprise,

"I know it's that same double-standard you know the one where a girl is slut if she sleeps around but a guy is a player."

And all the guys change their tune, "WHOA! Emmy where did that come from? Left field?"

They are defending themselves and saying that taco bell and this double-standard business are two different things. I quiety try to diffuse and tell Emmy in a lower tone,

"It's okay Mia, I understand where you're coming from. I get it."

And J. says,

"Yeah, but it's completely unrelated. [my name] is laughing at you now Mia."

Now it's too late for the boys to undo what they've done. I look at J. funny, because the boys would defend each other to the death just based on the fact they all have a Y chromosome and I don't mess with that. I also was going to just let the situation simmer down, but when he tried to turn me against my female compatriot... I felt irritation well up inside me. This was alienation at its best, they were even trying to get me another female to alienate Mia.

"Well, no she has a point, there is a double standard, and I'm not laughing at Mia."

And out of the corner of my eye I see S. say to Joe something about making fun of Emmy the next time she talks and I catch his eye and shake my head but he nods gleefully and I say loudly,

"No you won't do that, let's have it out now, if it's such a funny joke about Mia, let's hear it now."

Then Joe starts to say,

"I can't even talk without the women's right activists here arguing against me--"

and he's holding up a cup of gatorade for emphasis or something and I grab the cup and slam it on the table and a good portion of the contents sloshes onto the table and into his clam chowder. I am clearly irritated to the point where it's no good for anyone. He gives me a dirty look, but everyone realizes things are heading too far and everyone starts to pipe down including Joe. I rattle off one final pointed question,

"What about women's rights Joe?"

J. interjects and says,

"I think we should call a ceasefire on that topic for now."

Which makes everyone laugh, including me, I have been looking for a moment to laugh and move on ever since Mia made her point, which I agree with but know there is no solution for at the moment. Still I was glad that I hadn't turned against my sister at arms. It wasn't the best outcome but it was nonetheless a better outcome than if I had stayed silent or worse called her out.

Bad Day Sorta Not Really Frustrated Though

You cannot possibly fathom the hundreds of thousands of tiny minute details that just emphasize to me that I am female and thus different from roughly 84% of my classmates.

I have no particular gift for intelligent writing. I am not the classical writer adding to scholarly journals with my in depth review of the theory of some old and more than likely white male and the information gathered by some old and more than likely white male from a group of decrepit, old, wrinkly old men and women bound by a patriarchal society. A society I am living and surviving in but find myself occasionally frustrated and bound in such a way as to make me want to scream and be considered an oddity and outsider because it would free me from the constraints that society binds us with. If you read Wicked you can see this very clearly. I couldn't get into the next two books or even the end of the first, but the middle portion when Elphalba is in the city and going to college... I can totally and completely relate to that.

I can summarize succinctly but vaguely to you reader my frustration with this one interaction with someone I deeply admire,

"Hey SL did you get my email about lunch Tuesday?"
"Oh yeah, I did, but I sort of didn't read it yet."

Thanks. Thanks a hell of a whole lot. You read that ridiculous email from Baumer. You replied to it. Hell everyone replies to the men on the team, but noone even replies all to the women. Do you just automatically delete or ignore the email if it comes from someone without a Y chromosome!? Seriously what the hell is going through your thick skulls, all of you men, when you know a girl is on a distro?

...

[After a Shower and some time to cool off]

So... I am still frustrated. Not to the point of wanting to scream, but at my lack of communication. I can only connect to one person at one time with one rant. The only people who listen to me rant are inevitably the folks "in the choir". And when I did get on my soap box in the hall and vent loud enough to get a group of guys in discussion with me about it... all they did was immediately jump to the question of whether or not I am a feminist. The final decision must've been a tie. SL and the Phantom both voted that I was not a feminist. "Mat" abstained. Lou called me a feminist, possibly in jest, but possibly in all seriousness. When the Steve's arrived, I became fed up with the increasing ludicrity of the conversation and left before I could find out whether I had been branded or not to be burnt at the social stake.

They naturally asked me whether I was a feminist or not. I replied that I didn't know. The word has different meanings. Ask Webster... then turn around and ask urbandictionary. Semantics aren't the point. I'm momentarily angry with society here. I am as usual bound by something distinctly masculine. It isn't men I'm angry with... it's just the way it is.