Well, I already posted one thing this morning, but this has been bugging me since yesterday so I thought I'd give it to you all straight: If Obama wins in November, within two decades, half of the officer corps in the military will be women. Good or bad? I don't know. I've always favored equality, but that's neither here nor there. I don't think it's because there will be some Obama induced quota (I don't think). I think it will be about society itself and not necessarily in a good way.
See, yesterday morning, driving to work, I was listening to SWWBO's favorite radio show. They were on remote at the Dole Institute talking to KU students about the election. Within the half hour drive to work they had interviewed ten students. Six for Obama (no surpirse there), three for McCain (two of whom were young women) and one undecided. Here's the kicker: out of all of those students, only one was planning to join the military.
Guess which one.
Six of the students for Obama included four young men and two young women. Out of the four young men, they talked about "service" to country through the Americorps as teachers. One young man didn't know exactly his career. Now, being a teacher is not wrong and we certainly have room for more male teachers, but, when the only person to choose military service out of ten students, seven being young men, is a young woman, it really gets you thinking: something is drastically wrong with our nation.
Did there mother's coddle them too much? Kiss their boo-boos too often? Make them wear their bike helmet in front of all the cool kids? Wouldn't let them play with guns? Made them take Irish step dancing instead of joining Little Green Football (not LGF, the kiddy league)?
What happened here?
I do want to give kudos to this young woman. When she spoke, she talked about self reliance and defending her "brothers and sisters" in arms, which made me think she's probably been doing ROTC and weekend warrior stuff for awhile. I get why there are women attracted to the military that don't fit the left's model of downtrodden youth's looking for a living. It is about self-reliance while participating with a whole group. That is pretty much the message that women receive today. You have to be able to take care of things yourself, but their is power in numbers and satisfaction in being part of the whole.
We've come a long way baby.
But, is that the message that young men are getting?
Is it absentee fathers or awarding mothers custody 90% of the time? Is it forcing young men to read Oprah's book list in literature or demanding that they not play so rough on the playground lest they be suspended?
Someone is going to say computer games, but, that seems wrong since half the world thinks computer games contribute to voilent behavior. What in the world happened that turned our young men into wimpy metro-sexuals who want to go teach while their sister Amazon goes off to war? You know, once upon a time, somebody would have been shamed by that.
You know, I'm a feminist so I think women have the ability to do whatever they set their minds to. I am always looking at history, particularly, pioneer women, who plowed the fields, built sod houses, fended of men and animals, so I think there is an inate ability to perform whatever is necessary, when necessary by either sex. However, that one interview got me thinking: are the social cons right that the emergence of women in certain aspects of society have created wimpy men?
Not all, mind you, but more than we might like. Or, is it simply that the continuing "lack of burden" in society has provided more men the opportunity to shed the responsibility of defending society, thus, the appearance of women on the scene simply seems greater in proportion?
What will our world look like when Amazons rule?
See, yesterday morning, driving to work, I was listening to SWWBO's favorite radio show. They were on remote at the Dole Institute talking to KU students about the election. Within the half hour drive to work they had interviewed ten students. Six for Obama (no surpirse there), three for McCain (two of whom were young women) and one undecided. Here's the kicker: out of all of those students, only one was planning to join the military.
Guess which one.
Six of the students for Obama included four young men and two young women. Out of the four young men, they talked about "service" to country through the Americorps as teachers. One young man didn't know exactly his career. Now, being a teacher is not wrong and we certainly have room for more male teachers, but, when the only person to choose military service out of ten students, seven being young men, is a young woman, it really gets you thinking: something is drastically wrong with our nation.
Did there mother's coddle them too much? Kiss their boo-boos too often? Make them wear their bike helmet in front of all the cool kids? Wouldn't let them play with guns? Made them take Irish step dancing instead of joining Little Green Football (not LGF, the kiddy league)?
What happened here?
I do want to give kudos to this young woman. When she spoke, she talked about self reliance and defending her "brothers and sisters" in arms, which made me think she's probably been doing ROTC and weekend warrior stuff for awhile. I get why there are women attracted to the military that don't fit the left's model of downtrodden youth's looking for a living. It is about self-reliance while participating with a whole group. That is pretty much the message that women receive today. You have to be able to take care of things yourself, but their is power in numbers and satisfaction in being part of the whole.
We've come a long way baby.
But, is that the message that young men are getting?
Is it absentee fathers or awarding mothers custody 90% of the time? Is it forcing young men to read Oprah's book list in literature or demanding that they not play so rough on the playground lest they be suspended?
Someone is going to say computer games, but, that seems wrong since half the world thinks computer games contribute to voilent behavior. What in the world happened that turned our young men into wimpy metro-sexuals who want to go teach while their sister Amazon goes off to war? You know, once upon a time, somebody would have been shamed by that.
You know, I'm a feminist so I think women have the ability to do whatever they set their minds to. I am always looking at history, particularly, pioneer women, who plowed the fields, built sod houses, fended of men and animals, so I think there is an inate ability to perform whatever is necessary, when necessary by either sex. However, that one interview got me thinking: are the social cons right that the emergence of women in certain aspects of society have created wimpy men?
Not all, mind you, but more than we might like. Or, is it simply that the continuing "lack of burden" in society has provided more men the opportunity to shed the responsibility of defending society, thus, the appearance of women on the scene simply seems greater in proportion?
What will our world look like when Amazons rule?
Remember, that was a self-selecting group from what passes for the more liberal campus here in Kansas.
I don't think all this angst based on one small group at KU is worth losing sleep over.
Prodigal son looks like a long haired hippy, he got his GF preggers, works a low-paying job as a place holder because at 23, he still hasn't a clue what he wants to be when he grows up. But they're having the baby, and they're getting married. But he's only going to wear a uniform the day a draft notice shows up.
But he's not voting for Obama, either.
1) Tiny selective sample, anecdotal.
2) Counting (and discounting) chickens before they hatch. Just because one women says she will join and the other didn't doesn't mean that will be the ultimate reality.
3) A really really long list of really crummy assumptions about why the males didn't say they intended to join. Where did you get such presumptions from?
You might be making a good point but your example stinks.
It just seemed so "in your face". And, it isn't the first time that I noted the discrepancy, it just happened to be right now this was a relevant discussion. Do you really think that we are growing "men" these days?
It doesn't feel like it.
Maybe you are right, but that's why I ask the question. What are we doing here and are we doing the right things to construct a well balanced society? The military is already 30% women. I don't think I'm growing the probabilities of a large female officer corp out of nothing.
I wonder what the percent would have been if the interviews would have been on the "other" Kansas campus.
Probably in Manhattan at least a couple of the students would have been off duty soldiers from Fort Riley, and KSU has the reputation for being a lot less liberal than the "Berkley of the Plains" in Lawrence.
When I was a student at K State (GO CATS!) 25 years ago, there was a very high% participation in ROTC (including yours truly - back when it was REALLY WEIRD for a girl).
I also know that the Marine!Goth got a lot of flack when he enlisted during his senior year in HS from family members who don't know him well (the four years of JROTC and the whole 'cadet of the year for the 9th Marine Corp district' should have been a SMALL hint </irony>). I think it's harder for high school students of both genders to consider the military as a career when they are on the college track.
And also those students without a family history of military service just seldom even think about it as a viable option. That's why programs like JROTC are so important.
Sorry, but the Corps got there first LOL.
..that's what it would look like
http://www.booksonboard.com/index.php?BODY=searchresults&SEARCH=steven%20pressfield
Just to set the record straight, I had ONE of the "few good men" as my late husband and have another as a son.
Karla (sneaking off blushing now.......)
The only place I'd draw the line is in combat arms. Living conditions and stress levels while deployed is the primary issue in that. By stress levels, I don't mean that I think women are less able to endure the stresses. I do know that men tend to get a bit more primal by necessity at such times and mixing genders in conditions that amount to living a**hole to belly button while in a pressure cooker is a recipe for constant, continual and comprehensive disaster.
Other than that, I give as much honor to women who choose to serve our nation by wearing a uniform of military service as I do to men who make the same choice.
1) I think men are not clear on modes of behaviour. Many 'rules' have been challenged by feminism and by modern life and I think we're left with less clarity on what it means to be a man as opposed to a human. What makes us different to being a woman or being human. I've come to realise the qualifier to be a man is really rather simple. It dangles between the legs, or if you get fussy it's encoded in genes. That means all the male iconism is just that, a symbol which only has meaning if we want. So all the cars, trucks, guns, grease and every other male symbol has no real meaning beyond it's real ulitity. Those 'making themselves men' by such are just fooling themselves into trying to become something they already are. We need to dig deeper. To go beyond being a man to being what? a gentleman? So here I guess I'm saying what a man is and what he is not and forging ahead to suggest we aim not be be men but rather men of worth. Now here the military has something it might offer.
2) The rise of technology means the previous inherent advantages of a man (in general only) to protect and fight are of virtually nil value now. The strength, stamina etc we see men do so well with in sports means little in the face of guns, nukes, mobilty etc. Any man or woman can pull a trigger, push a button or drive a vehicle. Here I'm saying our previous appreciated abilities are now neutralised. We'll have to find new ones or old ones we overlooked.
3) In anthopology it would apear a rather enormous amount of tribes go through some kind of coming of age for their men. It's usually a really big deal. It has some appeal to me because it provides a celebration of being a man as well as a fundumental divide to help boys grow up and grasp the responsibility and freedom given unto them. How many boys in our society fail to grow up? When they're 16? 18? 25? 55? I'm not saying become a stodgy boring old man overnight who's a true conformer in every sense. I'm talking about taking responsibility and freedom.
4) Men seem to have slipped into the secondary importance in some ways. Nowhere is it more prevalent that in health. I see too many messages from society that devalue men. Who wants to be an active part of society that doesn't want you? How do you grow up in such an environment?
5) How long do fathers spend with their sons these days? 5 minutes too much hmm? We all seem to be very busy doing the unimportant.
All these things are in flux. Women have had to change too. Men are learning new ways and old male identity isn't complety dead and probably never will be with all it's good and bad ideas rolled in. It will just change, hopefully for the better.
Now I'll *never* get any time off...
I strongly disagree that technology has made any real difference in how much strength and physical ability is required for much of our military work.
Infantrymen carry much more weight in gear into a fight, on their backs and hanging off their bods, than in wars past. Rounds still have to be lugged from gun 6 to gun 1, on the run, in a hurry and often in bad weather. Tank track and suspension still needs fixing and not always in the comfort of a shop or depot.
Speaking as a light infantryman who trained up during the "maneuver war" days, all that meant was longer humps for more days in all variety of terrain and always with too much weight on our backs.
There are some jobs in the military that aren't terribly physical strength related, but those are all support jobs.
Support is a valuable part of the war winning team, but it does not win the fighting part of a war.
Dependent feminism, not patriarchy, is the enemy of independent Womenhood.
Most of the jobs in any of the services can be performed equally well by men or women. In the many stories I have covered about the actions of women in our military who found themselves in combat, I have yet to see one where the woman failed in her duty.
I maintain that Monica Brown, Leigh Ann Hester, Amanda Pinson, Tasha and Ashley Gerken and Michelle Norris are not exceptions but represent the standard for women in the military
I also knew and worked with several enlisted females, private through NCOs. Most were all good at their job and solid in the field. In fact I can only think of one or two females that I met in the Army that I really have anything negative to say about. Which is better than a lot of men I've met in the Army. Of course that is probably proportionate, since there are a lot more men than women.
Since we're on this subject... I never had an issue with gay men or women in the Army either. One of the gayest men I've ever met (not that you'd know it from his actions or talking to him) was an E-5 in my platoon. He was one of the finest soldiers and NCOs that I have ever met and would also follow him into combat.
What V5 said about gay soldiers.........same here. One of my two best friends in Viet Nam, (I found out afterward) was gay. Back then, he could easily have avoided service by coming out of the closet, but chose not to. That takes courage.........
Sadly, he avoided Victor Charles for two tours, only to be taken by AIDS in the early days of the disease.
I'm in AFROTC, so yes, we have a lot of women (more than Army ROTC, at least) but I don't see that as a bad thing. Except of course for the fact that this doubles the pool of competitors I have to beat out to get my pilot slot. But I digress...
My point is that yes, America is breeding an ass-backwards generation, but there still seem to be enough exceptions to that rule to fill the rosters with both men AND women. I have worries about the future of the military, but this isn't one of them.
My sister has a little boy who about to turn 2. And I fear that in her "enlightened" college-oriented viewpoint, that she and her husband will attempt to immasculate my nephew. I believe that it is a balance, to teach respect and gentlemanly manners as well as the life-saving aspects to a harder man. If the sitation arises, I don't want the individual that is cowering or pleading for his life to the only obstacle between me and the bad guy. I want the man who will fight, growl, snarl and spit to get us out alive. I want the man that is willing to put hs honor and loyalty ahead of himself. Who understands sacrifice doesn't mean giving up his morning latte.
Even if it means the toilet seat will be left up at times and that football with be on every tv in the house and Sportscenter.com on the computer.
What's a latte? Is that like putting coffee in your milk or something?