Letters to the Editor
-
@captainlarab
Captainlarab, you make some outstanding points, but I think I can provide some on-the-ground information about Second Wave feminism and the ongoing development of women in the military.
To rehash, first: Today there is no draft. Men still register at age 18. Women do not register. There was a draft when I was in school and in the process of becoming a feminist. In fact, "why do you deserve equality; you're not subject to the draft!" was a favorite rejoinder.
I didn't at the time think that was equitable. I still don't. It was a question that caused a lot of debate over a number of issues. The question of the draft, universal or all-male, was settled by the establishment of an all-volunteer military. The question of registration? Some people would prefer universal registration, some no registration at all. I fall into the first camp: citizens with full rights assume full obligations. And the threats by anti-feminists of "ooh, your daughter will be drafted" are lies: there is no draft.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the question of the draft and service in general was problematic for those of us who were pacifists (as I was not), those who opposed the war in Vietnam (as I did), and those who supported it. At the same time that this dialogue was going on, Second Wave feminism was instrumental in coeducating formerly all male (and some all-female) institutions -- including the service academies with the exception for some decades of The Citadel and VMI (now coeducational). You correctly identify the distrust, based in many cases on ignorance, by some feminists of the military. At the same time, with its tendency to a more conservative political culture, it was not necessarily the military that would have integrated women into more roles the way Truman integrated African-Americans: in many cases, feminists essentially said "fair is fair, I don't like this, but fair is fair." That was a tough situation and has remained tough. I believe that those first women in the service academies were drawn largely from the "military families," many of which were southern, rather than Northeastern: daughters thus followed sons into the family tradition, which was logical because those were the women who had the best chance of understanding and assimilating into the full culture.
At this point, the fascinating question rose of what a woman's capacity and role in the military should be. Project Athena, one of the earliest studies (by West Point, I think), indicated that women's physical capacities were far greater than had been estimated. The emphasis on physicality by many feminists upped the number of women in sports (Title IX was the "joke" that provided the wedge in), and this translated into expansion of MOS and numbers of women in the military. This is still under debate, with infantry and other combat MOS still being barred, although an AV WEEK study indicated (if I remember correctly) that females in flight test could pull higher Gs than male pilots ON AN AVERAGE.
In 1985, I participated in a study by the Special Projects division at Wright-Patterson AFB, during which one of the 06s indicated that the traditional pool of applicants -- young white males - was diminishing due to the then-baby bust. I was one of the people suggesting that the military seek to boost its declining numbers and the education scores that had deteriorated dramatically during Vietnam by recruiting and retaining qualified young women.
A dear friend of mine, now gone, a Marine mustang with a terminal rank of LTC, trained some of the first platoons of female Marines and found them Marine-worthy: he'd served with Chesty Puller. I'd trust his opinion.
Naturally, at this time, we had the equivalent of MRAs citing the late Kara Hultgren as a naval aviator who died failing to land on a carrier, with a great deal of talk of political correctness and competences.
This is an ongoing dialogue among ideologies as well as men and women, as you point out. You also point out as I cannot how people in the service feel: you cannot be victor and victim. Personally, I'm used to rather more ambiguity on this issue. You take your hits and you move on as much as you can. In the case of Hillary (who, after a stint very early in her youth as a Michigan conservative), she's a college generation older than I: she is bound to react to certain things as a person who had different experiences. I have my own opinions, as a woman, a feminist, a reader of military history, and a New Yorker, about her positions on the current war, but that's for another time.
There are things young women are able to take for granted, thank God, that still startle me. Many of them are exemplified in Chelsea Clinton's career, for which I'm thankful. The demographic of the working woman or the working soldier, rather than the officer is something with which I'm far less familiar. There may be a rapprochement in work ethic and bootstrapping, as the Ohio vote showed.
As you say, it may be unwise to bring up the issue of victimization, but to deny that unfairness exists or that someone perceives it is to be dishonest. Either way, it's got to be hassled out.
-
Why Obama
I am a Baby Boomer. I am a fervent Democrat. I consider myself a feminist. I am a professional with two Masters degrees. I am an Obama supporter.
Just as I would oppose someone voting AGAINST Hillary solely because she is a woman, I oppose someone voting FOR her solely for that reason.
I am supporting Obama because he give me hope that we will not have more of the same politics as usual. I support him because he reminds me of Bobby Kennedy and how my heart was crushed when he was killed. I support Obama because I want to take the White House away from the Republicans and I think Hillary has too much baggage to win the general election. McCain is more concerned with an election against Obama than against Hillary. Their goals are very similar--I'm voting for the candidate that has the best chance to defeat McCain.
I believe that getting rid of the Republican control of the White House trumps any other "ism." Period.