The militaristic aura is embed in the United States culture, the invulnerable military forces that overshadow all other nation, as a result of 47% budget investments of course. As result of such investments both monetary as well as political there is also the incorporation in the media, with brave and heroic men of the service, but for women their own travels into the military world are barely being acknowledge. As the military is recognized as a masculine field the involvement of women in the service is often oppressed as there continues to be a notion that women are the weaker sex and cannot met the demands of combat. Retired infantryman Smith is flabbergasted at the notion of women in the combat services as they will be subjected to nudity and needed backroom breaks in front of their fellow unit members, in all honesty its uncomfortable for anyone even if your male or female but this does not deter the troops from doing their jobs. Smith like the text of Chapter 10 also warns of the threats of harassment that women face in the field, this can span from exclusion from certain military positions or to sexual harassment such as rape. In addition to a military world now, including women is also the continual efforts of women outside the military spectrum attempting to put a stoppage to the military filled culture. The continual integration of society with militarism allows for the glorification for warfare, and in doing so normalizes fighting and the invasion of other nation that we objectify as the enemy. There remains the argument that women are not aware of the benefits of war but in reality it is because of war that women are continually oppressed not just in the service but also as civilians, environmental dilemmas and the threat of violation by servicemen are all results of a militaristic society.
The first article posted gives a classic neoliberal standpoint on the role of women in the armed forces. She does not question the institution as a whole, but opposes the discrimination women in the military have faced such as barriers from promotion and the failure to receive due recognition and honors. Berlatsky, on the other hand, is quick to point out the militaristic values inherent in Baker’s standpoint, shared with others who see gender equality in the military as a victory without complications. The Pentagon’s ruling is surely an achievement for feminism in some ways, but what is the cost? Can the same feminists who advocated for women’s access into the military also protest its destructive, costly nature? When thinking about this issue, I recalled Dr. Craig’s comment from class that feminists are always arguing with each other. Different women will surely have different opinions on the value of militaristic power, how far to take the fight for women’s access, and how much emphasis to place on militaristic honor. What should be a given is the opportunity to take action on way or another. If women want to oppose the institution of the military, they have the freedom to do it. If other women believe in the honor of serving their country through combat, they should have as much right as any other person.
In the first article, it is mentioned that women are in combat already, but do not have formal recognition of it, which is what was also mentioned in the textbook. Both mention that this prevents many women from attaining promotions. The article also links the lack of women in leadership roles to the prevalence of sexual assaults, which I agree with. I also think that sexual assaults may also be linked to the male soldiers believing that women do not belong in the military. Lifting the ban on women in combat situations may allow women to be more socially accepted and less attacked by others. While war is not something that should be supported, war is a large foundation in American society, as the textbook mentions. The article talks about how war is shaped to be a "moral force," which seems to be positive, but sounds more like another way to justify domination of others. The image of higher morality implies higher social status to judge others. The military has used this tactic to justify attacking other groups, and including just one more group does not make it any better.
- What is militarism and describe the relationship between militarism and gender? Militarism is both a view and a culture- the view that the other is the enemy and the culture of investing in defeating that enemy. Militarism plays a heavy role in gender because it encourages a sense of hyper masculinity- where men are supposedly stoic, heroic, and physically strong. Women do not belong in this space, because we assume that femininity is the opposite of masculinity, which is not true in the slightest. The military’s purpose is to serve and protect the citizens of that nation. Militaries may also get involved in other countries if there are major atrocities present. Women, as combatants face many instances of rape and abuse in the military, especially by people within their chain of command. Women as nearby civilians often have to cater to the sexual needs of the men in the military. Women do not have a lot of control when it comes to instances of war as civilians, wives, and even on the front lines as combatants. The article reveals that women are already in the military, but do not get the honor and formal recognition that often follows it. The author then begins to discuss how men believe that the women will be distracting, which is definitely another form of victim blaming. Instead of controlling themselves on the front lines, they are utilizing their internalized sexism as an excuse for their own behavior.
The two articles and chapter 10 are quick to point out the fact that women are barely being recognized for their roles in combat. Though they have been active both in their official and unofficial positions, the latter is often ignored and forgotten. This has to do with the concept of militarized masculinity, which suggests that military is more catered to men. For the most part, this is true just because 1) men make up the majority of enlisted officials and 2) it is a social norm and custom that men are thrown into the actual war while the women are supporters back home and on the sidelines. The articles also suggest that despite their progress, women in the military still face ongoing discrimination and job inequality. Even though most of the women in the military do better (financially and socially) than if they remained civilians, they are still being denied the right to be promoted to higher ranking positions since these jobs often require combat experience (something that they have, but are not recognized for).
The second article recalls an interesting quote by Heather MacDonald, who suggests that some feminists merely want the equality for the sake of equality, itself. Meaning that they care more about the idea and concept of gender equality than the actual women in these circumstances. This may be true for certain groups of feminists, but I believe that overall, they are doing this with noble intentions and not just for "an insatiable need for gender equality"
Militarism is not only the division of civilization between enemies and allies, but is also an institution that is centered on the division between male and female. The military has been portrayed as a predominately male institution throughout history. It was not until World War I that women were allowed to enlist in the military. This designation of the military as a male institution may have formed due to the creation of gender roles. As Virginia Woolf stated in the article, the act of fighting and killing was believed to be an act that was essentially male. As stated in chapter 10, individuals are taught to believe that women are naturally peaceful, while men are naturally violent. This division of gender has caused the military to be a predominantly male institution that places restrictions on women’s involvement in the military.
Although the ban on women in combat has been lifted allowing for over 230,000 positions to be available to women, there are still restrictions as to which positions will be open to women. Restrictions have been placed on military positions for women by allowing military leaders to choose whether or not to close some combat positions to women. These restrictions have been a defining point in the separation of men and women in the military. As stated in chapter 10, commanders have been able to restrict women from moving up in rank in the military, and maintain the hierarchal structure of the military as a masculine institution. Though the abolishment of the ban has contributed to the equality of men and women in the military, there are still efforts that need to be made in order to bring equality to all aspects of the military.
I feel like a big contributing factor to why so many men object to the idea of women in the military, particularly in combat, is because of the idea of militarized masculinity. Historically, the military has always been glorified and advertised as an opportunity to gain honor and be a hero; a place to really “become a man.” A lot of people still think of gender and gender identity as a binary, with emotionless masculinity on one end and hysterical femininity on the other, so the idea of women stepping into a traditionally masculine role and taking on responsibilities that are so male-coded seems shocking. Many people who are against women in the military seem to not understand that traits like honor and strength are not inherently male, and that women are not fragile creatures who can’t handle the same harsh conditions that men can, as the quotes from Ryan Smith in the first article suggest.
I am not familiar with American military, and my fist image of military is Army Men in Toy Story, who are all men. Military is dominated by men in many ways; number of male solders, position, structure, rule, and role. As the articles and reading show, women are prohibited to engage in combat because it is male-centered environment. I do not want to fight and engage in combat, so it quite hard to understand women want to join a combat, and male’s opinion is understandable; if there are women, they cannot concentrate on their tasks. I think military is made to fight against other country in order to get peace and security, which is only in the U.S. Thus, I do not agree with having military because it causes war which only produce misery. If there the U.S. didn’t have military, women as combatants would not suffer from combat, being mothers, and harassment, and women as civilians would not be afflicted by being family member, being militarized prostitutions, and crime committed by servicemen. These are created by military, so if there were not military, it would not happen, and make women’s lives more simple. War or having military violate women’s right; as combatants, women cannot work in the same way with men, and as civilians, they are always adjoining to war and military, which means unhealthy way to live. I always have a question, “do we need military to achieve peace?”
I strongly agree with “women should have equal access to jobs and career advancement inside the military as well as outside it.”(Berlatsky, 2013) I think everybody require to have equal opportunity to choose their lives.
The American military has always been a male dominated industry.Although I do agree with the idea that women should be given equal opportunity to perform any job within the military and by officially giving women access to combat jobs giving more advancement opportunities. The second articles statement that women are less prone to war and violent tendencies may be in a very general way accurate but that does not seem to be any real reason to support or refute whether or not women should be given equal military access. However the idea that women entering general military could cause problems I do find a highly plausible assumption. Biologically women are on average smaller and physically weaker then men are so difficulties on the physical spectrum could arise if women were unable to handle as much physical work as men soldiers. However so long as men and women in the military are held to the same guidelines their should not be any problems in that area.
Although both articles varied rather drastically in terms of their end message (the first article in support of women in combat and the second criticizing the very essense of war itself), I feel like both brought the expectations of masculinity and war to my attention rather clearly. In the first article, it is pretty clear that the op-ed it is replying to thinks of the nature of war as a very "masculine" turf that would horrify women because of how disgusting it is (as if women are too dainty and delicate to handle it). Additionally, the second article talked about how war is thought of as very "masculine" in nature as well. The association of war to masculinity has really contributed to the negative perception of women in combat as well as the discrimination and violence that women have faced in the military (whether they are actually in combat or not).
Both articles tie into chapter 10 very nicely, I mean they are both talking about women in combat and whether or not they should be fighting. The first article focuses on how women have been participating in combat for years and are just now getting the okay saying that women can take on combat positions in which they will be able to move up to higher ranking positions because of them. Which is really dumb, because it was mentioned in Chapter 10 that women are put into "combat" positions when they are placed into intelligence based or medical jobs because they are the most likely positions to get attacked. Then in the second article it discusses more on why women should and shouldn't do combat. From a feminist perspective women allowed in combat is a win, but for conservative women it's a loss. Which I think is dumb, because as a women I feel that you should be happy when opportunities that were not previously available to you become available. And that it is a win to women of all kind, especially women who have fighting in combat for years and not being recognized for it.The article also goes on to say that fighting in combat is a masculine thing at that it brings pride to men to say that they have fought, but women should have that luxury as well.
I agree more with the first article that supports women in the military as opposed to the second that does not on the basis that women do not like war and the idea that war altogether is bad. Tying the second article to chapter 10, some women may also be opposed to war as it sometimes seems like a "military industrial complex", as well as the fact that a lot of mothers have children who enlist and go to war. I think equal opportunities in the military are a big step towards equality as it has been a male-dominated field for decades as seen in the US. The second article makes it seem like all women are against war, and that is not the case. There are times when it can be avoided, but there are times when it is also inevitable. It seems that there are still some restrictions on women to try to keep them out of certain positions in the military, sort of like a glass ceiling. I believe that if women in the military have to abide by the same guidelines as men, then everything else should be equal. Entry of women should not affect the moral of groups just because some men believe it is "distracting" and emasculating to perform bodily functions in front of the opposite sex. If they can handle the the warzone then I'm sure seeing a person of the opposite sex go to the bathroom is not a big deal.
The idea of women fighting in combat positions is looked down upon. There is an image that seems to be instilled in some people’s heads that physical things are meant for men, and men only. Because war is very physically demanding, it is seen out of reach for most women. That is why women involved in the military are for the most part not on the battlefield. They are in administrative positions and anything regarding health care or nursing. Women’s “motherly tendencies” are seen as needed in places like the military because their caring and loving ways will help wounded soldiers heal faster and in more comfort. There is a lot of militarized masculinity which overall turns into sexism. This is seen when there is harassment toward women in the military. The military is not restrictive to sex, but society has restricted it. This is unfair to women because that then starts more sexist ideas in other work environments, and women are not able to advance in professions. Since the military is one of the biggest symbols instilled within us when it comes to America, they should lead by example and disregard sex. A woman might even be better in the battle field then some men, but some aren’t even given the chance, which ultimately sets all of society back, not only in the military, but overall.
Smith called having women in combat environments "distracting and potentially traumatizing". In the face of bullets, bombs, chemical, and biological weapons, soldiers must focus on staying alive, defending noncombatants, and taking down enemies. Smith's idea that women simply being on the front lines with men could compromise a unit is trivial. The author's main point is that women have been in combat all along. Since this is the case, aren't women in combat used to the conditions of lack of hygiene and relieving themselves in front of comrades? It is not women compromising men. It is militarism and militarized masculinity. Women in combat have a harder time advancing to higher positions, and if they face sexual assault or harassment, they get punished for it. Women in this position are seen as "enemies" which is the basis of militarism.
The second article goes into militarized masculinity, as Berlatsky mentions war as a patriarchal value. Patriarchy values domination, which war is built on. Virginia Woolf's view that war is "some satisfaction in fighting which we have never felt or enjoyed. Complete understanding could only be achieved by blood transfusion and memory transfusion..." implies biological determinism -- that war is inherently male. I side with the Berlatsky on this one, and say that war is part of what society constructs as masculine.
The military is in place to protect citizens of the United States, and due to our gendered roles in society, men are seen as protectors and women are seen as needing to be protected. Because of this, many men may feel threatened and uneasy by the idea of a woman working in the military fighting to protect them and their country, because of the perception that it is and should be a mans job. Because women are seen as incapable of doing the same job as men (even though they have been doing it, and not to mention doing it well) as being more emotional and weaker, they have been put in these front line positions that aren't actually considered combat positions, so they don't reap the benefits or the opportunity for advancement that men do, while doing essentially the same job as male soldiers. This is basic sexism and its not ok by any means and must be corrected. Men and women in the military should be held to the same standard and be given the same opportunities in order to reduce institutionalized discrimination.
Both articles describe war as being very masculine, but have difference stances on whether women should be allowed to serve in combat. The last sentence of the second article relates to Chapter 10 because we read that one reason women may be opposed to war is their responsibility to protect and nurture children- whether those children be the enemies' or their own. Also, I found it interesting how in the first article, there was a lot of emphasis on how men may feel uncomfortable/distracted by the presence of women when going on about their normal behavior. The author kept mentioning how uncomfortable the men would feel doing natural actions, such as defecating, in front of women, but how the women may feel isn't mentioned, just that a man would not want a woman to witness them doing that. When at war, with the fear of death constantly in the air, having women see a man naked or defecating seems rather unimportant and an invalid reason for why women should not be allowed in combat. I also found it interesting how, in the second article, the author mentioned that previously widely-discriminated groups were given more respect and equality when they went to war because they were "openly fighting and dying for our country." I find it sort of sad that, in order for these groups to garner respect, they had to sacrifice their lives for a country that discriminated them at the time.
Militarism is a type of government in which they believe in having a strong military to fight aggressively the enemy. The relationship between militarism and gender is that militarism is mainly based on militarized masculinity . Militarized masculinity is thought of only men being part of it. Men are seen as the strong and heroic while women are seen as the weak. In both the article and textbook women are seen as inferior and are dominated by men. Some examples would be when the textbook explains how woman were seen in world war two as only good for intercourse and relaxing the military men. They aren't seen equally as men. Both woman and men are human beings who are very well capable of fighting for our country. The purpose the military in our society serves is the protection for our country and civilians.
I had mixed emotions reading both articles. Militarism is seen as more of a male thing because of history. Women were never allowed to fight and this is because they were never seen as strong and/or mentally capable of going through what men did. I believe this has changed because as years have passed, women have proven to be just as strong as any man. Women have been fighting the same war as men, but without any credit. As the government allows women to fight, people will see that not allowing them to fight in the first place was a mistake. Women are capable of doing so much and with this passed, we will see women heroes. No longer will females be known for sex and weakness. Yes, war is scary, but no one is holding a gun to a female and forcing her to fight. Everything is by choice and with this new choice, we will see more victories and more people enlisting.
After reading both of the articles assigned, I had a couple of thoughts regarding the demographics and the dynamics of the U.S. Infantry… The article surprisingly states that, “few members of Congress opposed the decision,” of opening more than 230,000 on-the-ground posts to women in the military. They claimed that it was inspiring because it shows an augment in the respect and equality of women. In the second article, "The Feminist Objection to Women in Combat," the author states that this has even been seen as a win for feminism by feminists. But what if that wasn’t necessarily their main motivation in involving more women in the military? What if Congress approved of this change because the military is expanding and needs more people? While considering the claim that the military is desperate enough to increase their demographics that they are willing to train the “weaker” sex, we can still ask the question of whether or not women deserve to be initiated into the infantry. And the answer to that should always be yes. Regardless of whether women present a “distraction,” an aversion, or an interference to the dynamics of the infantry, they have every right to participate in protecting our country.
In Response to articles on military and women
ReplyDeleteThe militaristic aura is embed in the United States culture, the invulnerable military forces that overshadow all other nation, as a result of 47% budget investments of course. As result of such investments both monetary as well as political there is also the incorporation in the media, with brave and heroic men of the service, but for women their own travels into the military world are barely being acknowledge. As the military is recognized as a masculine field the involvement of women in the service is often oppressed as there continues to be a notion that women are the weaker sex and cannot met the demands of combat. Retired infantryman Smith is flabbergasted at the notion of women in the combat services as they will be subjected to nudity and needed backroom breaks in front of their fellow unit members, in all honesty its uncomfortable for anyone even if your male or female but this does not deter the troops from doing their jobs. Smith like the text of Chapter 10 also warns of the threats of harassment that women face in the field, this can span from exclusion from certain military positions or to sexual harassment such as rape.
In addition to a military world now, including women is also the continual efforts of women outside the military spectrum attempting to put a stoppage to the military filled culture. The continual integration of society with militarism allows for the glorification for warfare, and in doing so normalizes fighting and the invasion of other nation that we objectify as the enemy. There remains the argument that women are not aware of the benefits of war but in reality it is because of war that women are continually oppressed not just in the service but also as civilians, environmental dilemmas and the threat of violation by servicemen are all results of a militaristic society.
The first article posted gives a classic neoliberal standpoint on the role of women in the armed forces. She does not question the institution as a whole, but opposes the discrimination women in the military have faced such as barriers from promotion and the failure to receive due recognition and honors. Berlatsky, on the other hand, is quick to point out the militaristic values inherent in Baker’s standpoint, shared with others who see gender equality in the military as a victory without complications. The Pentagon’s ruling is surely an achievement for feminism in some ways, but what is the cost? Can the same feminists who advocated for women’s access into the military also protest its destructive, costly nature?
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about this issue, I recalled Dr. Craig’s comment from class that feminists are always arguing with each other. Different women will surely have different opinions on the value of militaristic power, how far to take the fight for women’s access, and how much emphasis to place on militaristic honor. What should be a given is the opportunity to take action on way or another. If women want to oppose the institution of the military, they have the freedom to do it. If other women believe in the honor of serving their country through combat, they should have as much right as any other person.
In the first article, it is mentioned that women are in combat already, but do not have formal recognition of it, which is what was also mentioned in the textbook. Both mention that this prevents many women from attaining promotions. The article also links the lack of women in leadership roles to the prevalence of sexual assaults, which I agree with. I also think that sexual assaults may also be linked to the male soldiers believing that women do not belong in the military. Lifting the ban on women in combat situations may allow women to be more socially accepted and less attacked by others.
ReplyDeleteWhile war is not something that should be supported, war is a large foundation in American society, as the textbook mentions. The article talks about how war is shaped to be a "moral force," which seems to be positive, but sounds more like another way to justify domination of others. The image of higher morality implies higher social status to judge others. The military has used this tactic to justify attacking other groups, and including just one more group does not make it any better.
- What is militarism and describe the relationship between militarism and gender?
ReplyDeleteMilitarism is both a view and a culture- the view that the other is the enemy and the culture of investing in defeating that enemy. Militarism plays a heavy role in gender because it encourages a sense of hyper masculinity- where men are supposedly stoic, heroic, and physically strong. Women do not belong in this space, because we assume that femininity is the opposite of masculinity, which is not true in the slightest. The military’s purpose is to serve and protect the citizens of that nation. Militaries may also get involved in other countries if there are major atrocities present. Women, as combatants face many instances of rape and abuse in the military, especially by people within their chain of command. Women as nearby civilians often have to cater to the sexual needs of the men in the military. Women do not have a lot of control when it comes to instances of war as civilians, wives, and even on the front lines as combatants. The article reveals that women are already in the military, but do not get the honor and formal recognition that often follows it. The author then begins to discuss how men believe that the women will be distracting, which is definitely another form of victim blaming. Instead of controlling themselves on the front lines, they are utilizing their internalized sexism as an excuse for their own behavior.
The two articles and chapter 10 are quick to point out the fact that women are barely being recognized for their roles in combat. Though they have been active both in their official and unofficial positions, the latter is often ignored and forgotten. This has to do with the concept of militarized masculinity, which suggests that military is more catered to men. For the most part, this is true just because 1) men make up the majority of enlisted officials and 2) it is a social norm and custom that men are thrown into the actual war while the women are supporters back home and on the sidelines. The articles also suggest that despite their progress, women in the military still face ongoing discrimination and job inequality. Even though most of the women in the military do better (financially and socially) than if they remained civilians, they are still being denied the right to be promoted to higher ranking positions since these jobs often require combat experience (something that they have, but are not recognized for).
ReplyDeleteThe second article recalls an interesting quote by Heather MacDonald, who suggests that some feminists merely want the equality for the sake of equality, itself. Meaning that they care more about the idea and concept of gender equality than the actual women in these circumstances. This may be true for certain groups of feminists, but I believe that overall, they are doing this with noble intentions and not just for "an insatiable need for gender equality"
Militarism is not only the division of civilization between enemies and allies, but is also an institution that is centered on the division between male and female. The military has been portrayed as a predominately male institution throughout history. It was not until World War I that women were allowed to enlist in the military. This designation of the military as a male institution may have formed due to the creation of gender roles. As Virginia Woolf stated in the article, the act of fighting and killing was believed to be an act that was essentially male. As stated in chapter 10, individuals are taught to believe that women are naturally peaceful, while men are naturally violent. This division of gender has caused the military to be a predominantly male institution that places restrictions on women’s involvement in the military.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the ban on women in combat has been lifted allowing for over 230,000 positions to be available to women, there are still restrictions as to which positions will be open to women. Restrictions have been placed on military positions for women by allowing military leaders to choose whether or not to close some combat positions to women. These restrictions have been a defining point in the separation of men and women in the military. As stated in chapter 10, commanders have been able to restrict women from moving up in rank in the military, and maintain the hierarchal structure of the military as a masculine institution. Though the abolishment of the ban has contributed to the equality of men and women in the military, there are still efforts that need to be made in order to bring equality to all aspects of the military.
I feel like a big contributing factor to why so many men object to the idea of women in the military, particularly in combat, is because of the idea of militarized masculinity. Historically, the military has always been glorified and advertised as an opportunity to gain honor and be a hero; a place to really “become a man.” A lot of people still think of gender and gender identity as a binary, with emotionless masculinity on one end and hysterical femininity on the other, so the idea of women stepping into a traditionally masculine role and taking on responsibilities that are so male-coded seems shocking. Many people who are against women in the military seem to not understand that traits like honor and strength are not inherently male, and that women are not fragile creatures who can’t handle the same harsh conditions that men can, as the quotes from Ryan Smith in the first article suggest.
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with American military, and my fist image of military is Army Men in Toy Story, who are all men. Military is dominated by men in many ways; number of male solders, position, structure, rule, and role. As the articles and reading show, women are prohibited to engage in combat because it is male-centered environment. I do not want to fight and engage in combat, so it quite hard to understand women want to join a combat, and male’s opinion is understandable; if there are women, they cannot concentrate on their tasks. I think military is made to fight against other country in order to get peace and security, which is only in the U.S. Thus, I do not agree with having military because it causes war which only produce misery. If there the U.S. didn’t have military, women as combatants would not suffer from combat, being mothers, and harassment, and women as civilians would not be afflicted by being family member, being militarized prostitutions, and crime committed by servicemen. These are created by military, so if there were not military, it would not happen, and make women’s lives more simple. War or having military violate women’s right; as combatants, women cannot work in the same way with men, and as civilians, they are always adjoining to war and military, which means unhealthy way to live. I always have a question, “do we need military to achieve peace?”
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with “women should have equal access to jobs and career advancement inside the military as well as outside it.”(Berlatsky, 2013) I think everybody require to have equal opportunity to choose their lives.
The American military has always been a male dominated industry.Although I do agree with the idea that women should be given equal opportunity to perform any job within the military and by officially giving women access to combat jobs giving more advancement opportunities. The second articles statement that women are less prone to war and violent tendencies may be in a very general way accurate but that does not seem to be any real reason to support or refute whether or not women should be given equal military access.
ReplyDeleteHowever the idea that women entering general military could cause problems I do find a highly plausible assumption. Biologically women are on average smaller and physically weaker then men are so difficulties on the physical spectrum could arise if women were unable to handle as much physical work as men soldiers. However so long as men and women in the military are held to the same guidelines their should not be any problems in that area.
Although both articles varied rather drastically in terms of their end message (the first article in support of women in combat and the second criticizing the very essense of war itself), I feel like both brought the expectations of masculinity and war to my attention rather clearly. In the first article, it is pretty clear that the op-ed it is replying to thinks of the nature of war as a very "masculine" turf that would horrify women because of how disgusting it is (as if women are too dainty and delicate to handle it). Additionally, the second article talked about how war is thought of as very "masculine" in nature as well. The association of war to masculinity has really contributed to the negative perception of women in combat as well as the discrimination and violence that women have faced in the military (whether they are actually in combat or not).
ReplyDeleteBoth articles tie into chapter 10 very nicely, I mean they are both talking about women in combat and whether or not they should be fighting. The first article focuses on how women have been participating in combat for years and are just now getting the okay saying that women can take on combat positions in which they will be able to move up to higher ranking positions because of them. Which is really dumb, because it was mentioned in Chapter 10 that women are put into "combat" positions when they are placed into intelligence based or medical jobs because they are the most likely positions to get attacked. Then in the second article it discusses more on why women should and shouldn't do combat. From a feminist perspective women allowed in combat is a win, but for conservative women it's a loss. Which I think is dumb, because as a women I feel that you should be happy when opportunities that were not previously available to you become available. And that it is a win to women of all kind, especially women who have fighting in combat for years and not being recognized for it.The article also goes on to say that fighting in combat is a masculine thing at that it brings pride to men to say that they have fought, but women should have that luxury as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with the first article that supports women in the military as opposed to the second that does not on the basis that women do not like war and the idea that war altogether is bad. Tying the second article to chapter 10, some women may also be opposed to war as it sometimes seems like a "military industrial complex", as well as the fact that a lot of mothers have children who enlist and go to war. I think equal opportunities in the military are a big step towards equality as it has been a male-dominated field for decades as seen in the US. The second article makes it seem like all women are against war, and that is not the case. There are times when it can be avoided, but there are times when it is also inevitable. It seems that there are still some restrictions on women to try to keep them out of certain positions in the military, sort of like a glass ceiling. I believe that if women in the military have to abide by the same guidelines as men, then everything else should be equal. Entry of women should not affect the moral of groups just because some men believe it is "distracting" and emasculating to perform bodily functions in front of the opposite sex. If they can handle the the warzone then I'm sure seeing a person of the opposite sex go to the bathroom is not a big deal.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of women fighting in combat positions is looked down upon. There is an image that seems to be instilled in some people’s heads that physical things are meant for men, and men only. Because war is very physically demanding, it is seen out of reach for most women. That is why women involved in the military are for the most part not on the battlefield. They are in administrative positions and anything regarding health care or nursing. Women’s “motherly tendencies” are seen as needed in places like the military because their caring and loving ways will help wounded soldiers heal faster and in more comfort. There is a lot of militarized masculinity which overall turns into sexism. This is seen when there is harassment toward women in the military. The military is not restrictive to sex, but society has restricted it. This is unfair to women because that then starts more sexist ideas in other work environments, and women are not able to advance in professions. Since the military is one of the biggest symbols instilled within us when it comes to America, they should lead by example and disregard sex. A woman might even be better in the battle field then some men, but some aren’t even given the chance, which ultimately sets all of society back, not only in the military, but overall.
ReplyDeleteSmith called having women in combat environments "distracting and potentially traumatizing". In the face of bullets, bombs, chemical, and biological weapons, soldiers must focus on staying alive, defending noncombatants, and taking down enemies. Smith's idea that women simply being on the front lines with men could compromise a unit is trivial. The author's main point is that women have been in combat all along. Since this is the case, aren't women in combat used to the conditions of lack of hygiene and relieving themselves in front of comrades? It is not women compromising men. It is militarism and militarized masculinity. Women in combat have a harder time advancing to higher positions, and if they face sexual assault or harassment, they get punished for it. Women in this position are seen as "enemies" which is the basis of militarism.
ReplyDeleteThe second article goes into militarized masculinity, as Berlatsky mentions war as a patriarchal value. Patriarchy values domination, which war is built on. Virginia Woolf's view that war is "some satisfaction in fighting which we have never felt or enjoyed. Complete understanding could only be achieved by blood transfusion and memory transfusion..." implies biological determinism -- that war is inherently male. I side with the Berlatsky on this one, and say that war is part of what society constructs as masculine.
The military is in place to protect citizens of the United States, and due to our gendered roles in society, men are seen as protectors and women are seen as needing to be protected. Because of this, many men may feel threatened and uneasy by the idea of a woman working in the military fighting to protect them and their country, because of the perception that it is and should be a mans job. Because women are seen as incapable of doing the same job as men (even though they have been doing it, and not to mention doing it well) as being more emotional and weaker, they have been put in these front line positions that aren't actually considered combat positions, so they don't reap the benefits or the opportunity for advancement that men do, while doing essentially the same job as male soldiers. This is basic sexism and its not ok by any means and must be corrected. Men and women in the military should be held to the same standard and be given the same opportunities in order to reduce institutionalized discrimination.
ReplyDeleteBoth articles describe war as being very masculine, but have difference stances on whether women should be allowed to serve in combat. The last sentence of the second article relates to Chapter 10 because we read that one reason women may be opposed to war is their responsibility to protect and nurture children- whether those children be the enemies' or their own. Also, I found it interesting how in the first article, there was a lot of emphasis on how men may feel uncomfortable/distracted by the presence of women when going on about their normal behavior. The author kept mentioning how uncomfortable the men would feel doing natural actions, such as defecating, in front of women, but how the women may feel isn't mentioned, just that a man would not want a woman to witness them doing that. When at war, with the fear of death constantly in the air, having women see a man naked or defecating seems rather unimportant and an invalid reason for why women should not be allowed in combat.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting how, in the second article, the author mentioned that previously widely-discriminated groups were given more respect and equality when they went to war because they were "openly fighting and dying for our country." I find it sort of sad that, in order for these groups to garner respect, they had to sacrifice their lives for a country that discriminated them at the time.
Militarism is a type of government in which they believe in having a strong military to fight aggressively the enemy. The relationship between militarism and gender is that militarism is mainly based on militarized masculinity . Militarized masculinity is thought of only men being part of it. Men are seen as the strong and heroic while women are seen as the weak. In both the article and textbook women are seen as inferior and are dominated by men. Some examples would be when the textbook explains how woman were seen in world war two as only good for intercourse and relaxing the military men. They aren't seen equally as men. Both woman and men are human beings who are very well capable of fighting for our country. The purpose the military in our society serves is the protection for our country and civilians.
ReplyDeleteI had mixed emotions reading both articles. Militarism is seen as more of a male thing because of history. Women were never allowed to fight and this is because they were never seen as strong and/or mentally capable of going through what men did. I believe this has changed because as years have passed, women have proven to be just as strong as any man. Women have been fighting the same war as men, but without any credit. As the government allows women to fight, people will see that not allowing them to fight in the first place was a mistake. Women are capable of doing so much and with this passed, we will see women heroes. No longer will females be known for sex and weakness. Yes, war is scary, but no one is holding a gun to a female and forcing her to fight. Everything is by choice and with this new choice, we will see more victories and more people enlisting.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both of the articles assigned, I had a couple of thoughts regarding the demographics and the dynamics of the U.S. Infantry… The article surprisingly states that, “few members of Congress opposed the decision,” of opening more than 230,000 on-the-ground posts to women in the military. They claimed that it was inspiring because it shows an augment in the respect and equality of women. In the second article, "The Feminist Objection to Women in Combat," the author states that this has even been seen as a win for feminism by feminists. But what if that wasn’t necessarily their main motivation in involving more women in the military? What if Congress approved of this change because the military is expanding and needs more people? While considering the claim that the military is desperate enough to increase their demographics that they are willing to train the “weaker” sex, we can still ask the question of whether or not women deserve to be initiated into the infantry. And the answer to that should always be yes. Regardless of whether women present a “distraction,” an aversion, or an interference to the dynamics of the infantry, they have every right to participate in protecting our country.
ReplyDelete