Letters to the Editor
-
That's Pretty Cool
I doubt there'll be any real fallout from such a change. The military is really pretty good at training people to follow orders. The Army integrated before the Civil Rights act, too.
Hopefully the women will get the chance to see combat duty soon as well.
(BTW--as someone who lived in the Hudson Valley for much of my life, I'd mention that the area paper, the Record, is an abysmally poor newspaper. I'd give it a slight edge over the Poughkeepsie Journal, but only because of better proofreaders.)
-
The problem is THIS
Men have things called organizations, and clubs, and companies, and governments, all of whom are responsible for setting up FAIR systems that then EACH PERSON IN THE ORGANIZATION has to adhere to. Those who defy the rules get the power of the organization on their ass.
What do women have to account for in return? If a man has a grievance say, about how little sex he is getting in his marriage, or about how onerously he is being treated by hiw wife, or say, about how he feels shafted because the court system did him in after the divorce, or say, he wants to be a househubby, but the wife won't respect him and the women around him mock him.
Where are the organizational support systems in this case to help men become full humans with a full palette of options at their disposal?
There are none. Only men have to account for things. Women get a free pass.
Then you women wonder why men treat you so bad.
Or else, explain to me where I am wrong.
-
I'd say old lyrics should be 'grandfathered'
but I'm worried about the gender-specificity of the term.
In all seriousness, since song lyrics are an aesthetic change, I see this as the same issue as copies of the 10 commandments in courthouses. If the commandments were put in place long ago they're fine, if anachronistic. If they're new, they carry an innapropriate, exclusionary message.
On the other hand, the lyrics directly address the cadets in a way the commandments don't, so that lends some weight to the argument for change. And the military doesn't treat women the same in theory or practice, so I suppose it's better to change them after all.
It's always interesting to see how conflicts with old, no-longer-appropriate terms and institutions play out. Boston had a very intersting case recently: Lechmere station in Boston was named after a man who, it recently came to light, was a slave owner and unsavory character, but it's commonly associated these days with the Lechmere department store that used to be on the site. In the end, owing mostly to local ignorance of Lechmere the person, the name was kept.
-
Brightstar, maybe I'm just too tired today...
..but I can't made head nor tail out of your post. Usually I can at least understand you, but this time I'm frankly bewildered.
-
Inclusive language
The devil is always in the details. Not so very long ago, inclusive language was all the rage in the Episcopal Church. Old hymns like "Faith of our Fathers" transformed to "Faith of Our Parents," and similar adjustments. Most people clearly understood and agreed with the need for such changes, a handful of stodgy "traditionalists" aside. In my own congregation, our priest wisely told these people to just sing or recite the older words if they preferred. But then, we had a few ultra-p.c. types who insisted on looking in every nook and corner to root out this sexist paternalism and making EVERTHING gender-neutral. When it came down to changing the Lord's prayer to "Our Maker, Who art in heaven..," most everyone balked. After all, these were Jesus' own words, and one point Jesus was trying to make was to teach us to see our relationship with God as a close, personal connection, and not see God as a far-off abstraction.
I commend General Hagenbeck for his sensitivity towards the women cadets and alumnae of the Academy. The changes he implemented that are cited in the article are sensitive, reasonable, and much needed. I trust that General Hagenbeck will need no guidance on being equally sensitive toward West Point tradition, although I expect that he will be offered such guidance by many male alumni. I hope that these old boys may come around soon to understanding the wisdom of the Superintendent's changes.
-
To imbue young men...
The traditions, songs and mission statements make a difference. By focusing relentlessly on men, they send the message women are not welcome as equals. There is enough bashing from your peers to put up with without an establishment endorsement legitimizing it.
It may be symbolic, but it matters.
My first class year at Annapolis, I discovered one of the large stack of forms I had signed the first week of plebe summer authorized the Naval Academy Alumni Center to debit my pay account one hundred and twenty five dollars per year to pay for a life time Alumni Membership. The money came out during the summer when mids usually spent time in the fleet and pay statements got lost, so I had never seen the payment before.
After four years of daily misogyny and sexist slights, I was very disenchanted with the he-man woman hating culture and the blind eye the powers that be turned. Aside from championing the football team, the alumni association didn't seem terribly relevant.
I went to the alumni house to see what my money was buying and saw all the old mission statements in brass on the walls that only mentioned men. The new one that included women was no where to be seen. There were photos and paintings of men on the walls as well. There were no depictions of women in public spaces even though female grads were commanding ships by this point.
I qualify "public spaces" because I visited the woman's head and was greeted by drawings of civilian women fawning over male midshipmen. They were very 1960s with the woman serving the male mid (in uniform) a picnic lunch in one and having the male mid lying with his head in her lap under a tree in another.
I wanted my money back.
So I went to see the retired Captain serving as president of association and was patronized and treated dismissively for about an hour. Realizing he couldn't change my mind, I was told I had to meet with each of the officers in my chain-of-command before I could dis-enroll. This was a huge chunk of unnecessary time and bother, but I did it.
Of course, none of them understood. My roommate thought I was crazy for rocking the boat, but I wasn't going to support an organization that obviously had no place for those without a penis.
Maybe things have changed, but I doubt it.
At least the Army seems to be cluing in a little.