Every soldier’s death diminishes me. Every time a roadside bomb goes off, somewhere in America, parents, brothers, sisters, children, neighbors, classmates feel the sudden sting of death. We have now sent over 1700 families over the abyss into the grief of losing young people in their prime.
So, the news that the latest bomb attack killed a number of female soldiers is as tragic as every other bombing. But apparently, for certain members of our culture, woman’s symbolic value makes this loss all the more tragic.
“Fierce debate” will greet the news that women were killed.
The role of women soldiers in Iraq has set off a fierce debate in Washington. Conservatives have charged that the military exposes female soldiers to excessive danger by assigning them to support units that commonly operate alongside male combat troops. They believe the Pentagon is violating the spirit of the law that prohibits women from serving in infantry, artillery, or armor units.
The Center for Military Readiness has made one of its prime missions to exempt women from combat. Fair enough. Personally, I don’t want anyone in combat. Women. Men. Children. I don’t want us involved in this war that the President started.
Women soldiers dying in combat is a horror. But so is the horror of our sons dying there, too. So, before this debate even starts, can we stop? Please? Because quite frankly, as a woman, I find it incredibly offensive that conservatives can shed crocodile tears over women soldiers, but won’t give civilian women the time of day. They seem to have no problem denying us birth control so that some of us will die in childbirth. They seem to have no problem with the millions of women infected with the AIDS virus. They have no problem throwing women off the Welfare rolls. They have no problem denying women the rights and benefits that men enjoy.
I’m sick and tired of my symbolic value being more than my real value. I am a person. A whole person. I’m not your Barbie Doll, your Virgin Mary, your Holy Mother. My life is not of worth only when I am reproducing the next generation or serving the brethren by making men’s lives easier. And I’ll be goddamned if you get to make political hay out of the fact that soldiers died in Iraq. When those bombs went off, they were not men or women, they were scared kids who were about to be blown off the face of the earth, leaving behind holes the size of the universe in their loved ones’ lives.
Cross-posted at CultureKitchen
Saw an interview from Camp Lejeune yesterday. The Marines don’t make any distinction. It’s all coming from political hacks. No debate here.
This, from today’s NYT, confirms what you say:
To see just how little conservatives care for women, cast your mind back to the 1990s. Remember the one phrase we all heard over and over again:
Welfare Moms
Really says it all about the conservative attitude towards women, doesn’t it? Deny them abortions and birth control, cut off the support they rely on when they can’t support themselves, cut them off from the other “poor man’s way out”, try to force them into marriage (no matter how abusive), excuse rapists… And then, whenever something bad happens, hold them up like some idol and start screaming about how they’ve been hurt.
Reagan complained about a “welfare queen” who became a millionaire by gaming the system by having around 80 assumed names. It turned out to be an apocryphal tale (to put it politely).
Interesting, I never knew that. That one’s even managed to spread up here to Canada, and the Conservatives routinely rant about irresponsible women who have lots of babies just so they can get bigger welfare cheques. They have yet to find an actual example of one, but they assure us that they’re out there… Somewhere.
That was in “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot,” by Al Franken. He documented a number of other Reagan howlers as well, like the story he told about jumping offsides, not getting called, and then getting the winning touchdown called back because he wanted to play by the rules.
(1) They genuinely believe women are inferior to men. Having women serve in combat undermines their entire worldview that women cannot do what men do–and there would nothing more potent than a woman combat veteran who returned from Iraq and “pulled a Kerry”…that is, turned publicly against the war.
(2) They realise that the deaths of women in combat is shocking to the American people, who are not used to such things, and may focus unwanted attention on the fact that LOTS of people are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They keep trying to stuff us into those little pigeon holes that match their personal mythology, completely ignoring the fact that we’re actually swans, herons, owls, etc., and we just don’t fit into those little compartments. They so wish we would stop being who we are and just be pigeons!
Now that an opportunity has presented itself, they’re hoping their rhetoric can magically reduce us to pigeon-size, like hot air on shrink-wrap.
Lorraine, your words should be read into the congressional record, read from the floor of the Senate as well.
As always, you speak for the most of us.
Thank you
Lorraine,
Have you come across Cynthia Enloe’s work on women and militarisation? ( Does Khaki Become You? and Maneuvres ) If not, I suspect you’d find her stuff really interesting. She does a great job of unpacking the way that militarisation is a gendered process.
Also she’s an extraordinarily eloquent writer and just a wonderful person.
Thanks for this Lorraine, I agree with you 100%. But on the role of women in the military, do I remember seeing something about the fact that the women who were killed were part of a check-point where women are needed to search women passengers? As much as I hate the idea of anyone being there in the first place, it sounded to me like the military actually needed women to do these functions.
is extraordinary.
thank you. That was published as an op-ed last November.
Slightly going off on a tangent here, forgive me:
While young women (currently) have some degree of control over their own bodies in the U.S., let us not forget that our young men currently have NONE.
While there are some who would prefer that women be mandated to put their bodies on the line as baby-making machines, let’s not forget that our culture, society and laws continue to demand that men put their bodies on the line for the whims of corporate interests, politicians and the other powerful people who run our nation.
I have always believed that the pro-choice movement has to be linked to the anti-war movement.
gave me a physical pain in my chest when I read it. Thank you for saying what I had only begun to formulate.
The architects of this war will, I hope, rot in whatever sort of hell there is for all eternity–and even then it won’t be enough payback for the grief they’ve brought upon so many thousands.
Thank you Lorraine for such a thought provoking diary. Thought provoking because it caused me, as a veteran, to re-evaluate some of my ideas. I wrote in a different diary that I now worry about the effects on combat on young women. I know from my own experience that I have some problems with really, truly, becoming intimate and as I’ve said on other diaries, I’m finding out that this is an affect of the PTSD. My concern was of women who are, or may become, mothers. There’s that special bond between mothers and their children. I for one will never be able to have the intimate bond of breastfeeding. My concern was how that will affect these special bonds. If veteran mother’s will be able to make that bond.
Now I am not sure if that is just a male-chauvinist point of view. Maybe someone can comment on that – I am always open to argument and disagreement. I ask that because this concern is pretty much based off of “baby-making”. No, you are not my madonna and you are not my whore, but in the foxhole you are my back-up, got my back Janet?
The other concern I have, speaking as an individual, is that about the special bonds made between warriors. I believe that if I had gone through training and deployed with a woman warrior, that not only would I have the normal bonding, but that I would be very sexually attracted to her as well. Someone who is my equal and someone who I share such a deep relationship with that I may develop these feeleings, literally “it’s me and you against the world, babe, pass me another 30 round magazine!”
Lastly, as a former Special Forces soldier, I know that women are more than capable of conducting guerilla warfare and are quite good at it. I am of the opinion now, that if a woman can hump that 65lb ruck, she can be on an A-Team. What I am against is a change of standards to get in. It a question of physiology and most women can’t hump that 65lb rucksack. Before I get beat up about that, let me throw this out: I dreamed as a kid of being a Naval Aviator. My eyes went South and now I wear glasses. That means that I could not pass the physical standards to become a Naval aviator. Now, there are a lot of women who are hot-shit Naval aviators who can pass such standards that I can not. So, for me, the standard thing is not about gender but rather about doing the job…if my depth perception is off, you don’t want me trying to land a fighter on a heaving aircraft carrier during a storm at sea in the middle of the night. Also, if you are a high spirited woman who can’t carry your load, I don’t want you slowing down my patrol in a possible ambush zone in the middle of the night. That being said, some women I am sure can put me to shame, they deserve their chance to do so.
But I am concerned about the relationship patterns of females and children when it comes to the aftereffects.
Comments are welcome because I haven’t come up with an answer yet.
I think these are interesting posts, but I would turn it around somewhat. Do you think the mother-child bond is more important than the father-child? If a father is emotionally absent because of dealing with something like PTSD, don’t you think this will have an effect on the children? I think that the mother-child bond is important–I’m a mom of two daughters–but I wouldn’t privilege it over the father-child bond. I think to do so is to buy into cultural constructions of parenthood–I know some men who are better fathers than their partners are mothers, and that’s been my experience frequently. So, what we’re really talking about is the harmful effects of war on anyone who’s involved. But I appreciate your thoughtfulness about this.
As to physical standards. You don’t have an argument from me. If there are physical standards that need to be met, I agree, which is why women should not be denied being combat fighter pilots…
As to sexuality. Well, that’s the rub, right? That’s the real reason that the army doesn’t want homosexuals–it’s afraid that individual bonds would pre-empt the bonds to the unit. Women and men form relationships, men form relationships, and what happens if a man needs to choose between his partner and his unit? So I see your point, although I disagree with you and the analysis I’m offering. Fear that a man is going to be attracted to a woman and she’s somehow going to distract him is the reason that women are denied a lot of things; it makes women responsible for male sexual desire, as if it’s our fault, and therefore we should be punished, becuause a man might feel attracted to us.
Thanks for your questions. I’m happy to keep discussing this.
Yes I do think the mother-child bond is more important because the mother is the birth-giver and nurturer (in the physical sense). However I don’t believe the social constructs of father and mother outweigh each other. I believe socially, father and mother are equally important (or father-father, mother-mother). Nevertheless, I feel that there has to be something physiological with a natural mother and her child that other would not be able to be replaced. And I could very well be absolutely wrong about it as well. But if there is, then estrangement is even more damaging with the mother than the father.
Oh, and women ARE fighter pilots now – and damn good one too! Just not on subs, in the infantry or special op units other than psyops and civil affairs.
Sexuality is exactly the rub (no pun intended). I don’t think we disagree on this at all. I was speaking for myself and how I would/may feel with a woman warrior who was my partner, my buddy. You are right that that is the elephant in the room with homosexuality in the ranks as well. And it is not fair to keep women or homosexuals out of a position because of how I may feel about her/him – that’s my problem and if I can’t be professional enough to keep it under wraps then I am the one who needs to be disciplined. But it is that fear of sexuality that keeps women/homosexuals from these jobs. And I don’t think it may even be a regressive fear. It may be a fear of “shit, if the romatic interest is blown away in combat, how do we deal with our surviving soldier”. That may not be an argument since fraternal ties are pretty strong as well, but it may be used as a way for the powers that be just to not have to deal with it. Therefore the policy, as it stands now, does make it “your” fault and not mine though I may be the one attracted to you. I think that should definately change, but I also think we need to consider my concern in my first paragraph.
Hell, let’s just not send anyone to war, that would nullify this whole debate, now wouldn’t it? If it ain’t good enough for women then it ain’t good enough for men!
that every woman is destined/desires to become a mother.
I have to admit that though I enjoy children, I never really had that “maternal instinct” that I guess is supposed to come along with the uterus and ovaries. I knew instinctively that I didn’t have the patience to be a good mother…and it would be better to be no mother than to be other than a good one.
Fortunately, I was fortunate in finding a man who felt the same way, but from the fatherhood point of view. Hence our childless-by-choice state of being (I’m not going to go with the “childfree” mantra; the point of being pro-choice is to acknowledge all choices as valid).
Sexuality in the military should be treated just like sexuality in any other workplace. In most companies, romantic relationships with co-workers are forbidden, because of the possiblity of favoritism as well as the effects on workplace morale. (I recall a very tough time when the married supervisor of Accounts Payable was having a more or less public affair with an Accounts Receivable rep, and how many of us felt like we had to cover for them.) If a line is crossed, punishment should fall equally on both participants if the relationship is consensual, as well as on anyone who knew but did not inform the supervisory officer(s). (If it’s not consensual, it should be treated as sexual harassment.)
Just my $0.02…
I may seem to assume that, because of poor communication skills probably, but I don’t. I could also be accused of “you seem to assume every veteran who returns from Iraq has PTSD”, which I do not, that’s absurd. I am only exploring an added dimension to this war that we haven’t had, or hasn’t been realized in the past and wanted to open discussion on it. In that I’ve been successful 🙂 !
I am in total agreement with the rest of your post, though.
Thanks for the reply and the challenge to the argument! (Damn, that’s the academic in me!)
Fear that a man is going to be attracted to a woman and she’s somehow going to distract him is the reason that women are denied a lot of things; it makes women responsible for male sexual desire, as if it’s our fault, and therefore we should be punished, because a man might feel attracted to us.
So well said, and the root of the problem is that the woman has become an object, an object of affection perhaps but an object nonetheless.
Lorraine;
DUH ! For the life of ME, what does it take, to get the message across to you people ??????
The SEX of a person who is foolish enough to sign on for the hamburger hill train, is OF NO CONSEQUENCE.
For cryin out loud, will you all get that between your ears.
All that is of consequence, is boots on the ground, and a weapon in the hand, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.
Many Americans have seen the contempt this Administration has for women, and their desire to turn back the clock and make them all slaves once more of the egos of the U.S. Male .
Yet, STUPIDLY, these very same women, SUPPORT THESE PEOPLE, WORSE, THEY EVEN SIGN ON AND ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE THEIR LIVES IN ORDER TO MAKE THEIR ADMINISTRATION AND IT’S SUPPORTERS RICHER.
Can anyone honestly say, this is a sign of sound reasoning ?????????????????????????????????????????
I agree that I would never choose to go into the military, but I’ve been lucky in that I had the education and the wherewithall to stay out. Without economic opportunities, we all could potentially have wound up in the army. So, does the fact that this is an all-volunteer army diminish the tragedy of their individual deaths? I don’t think so.
How do we take the pofit out of war? Why do we vote for the lesser of two evils, both usually being supporters of war? Why don’t we have truly idealistic people running for office any longer?