Response to Nov 6th
Gender in the military is something that is changing everyday. We see how many women have forced their way into becoming a part of the United States military. We see numerous examples of how women protested during World War Two and how they became more active as the war progressed. There were numerous movements during the war whether it be Rosie the Riveter or women or women trying to form an all women's corps. Throughout World War Two, women were successful in their attempt to try to break gender barriers as well as some sexism. Many women during this period joined the industry or factories and they proved that they can work as hard as men. There is also an increase in the amount of married women who join this workforce and this begins to break the barrier even further.
The topic of gays/ lesbians/ LGBT etc. joining the military in my opinion does not matter how they identify as long as they can contribute to our acting military. I found it very interesting when Nick was talking about these type of people in the military and he said he did not care at all. I remember an article I read in high school saying, "Once the helmet is on, we are all one no matter what". I find this quote very thought provoking that whether you may hate the person behind you, but the second you put your helmet on, it does not matter what was said in the past. I think anyone should be able to serve in our military as long as they have the capability to do so.
After reading Vuic's chapter in At War, it was very interesting to me to see the ways the US has used gender norms'/roles as it pertains to the military. There are several quotes in the chapter that could be used to write a blog post about, but this passage on page 201 was really interesting to me. "Before the First World War, most middle-and upper-class Americans did not consider enlisted military service a particularly honorable line of work. The introduction of the Selective Service Act in May 1917, however, made all eligible men potential draftees, and the War Department worked to craft a new image of soldiers that would create broad-based support for the war effort. This new image enlisted notions of masculinity to paint soldiers as respectable, honorable, and patriotic men who fulfilled their manly duty to protect their homes and families." This is the viewpoint of military service that I have heard all of my life, that serving in the military is a duty for men who want to protect their families, and embody masculinity. This is the same line of thinking that made Swofford want to join the Marines. This shows how the US military utilizes gender norms to get people to serve. These gender norms the military perpetuates may convince men to join while it has discriminated against women who want to serve. The military has been forced to allow for more women to serve in combat after the All Volunteer force was implemented, which is some progress. I believe that more progress needs to be made in the idea that to serve in the military takes certain kinds of people; and that doesn't have anything to do with their sex or sexual orientation, but people who are willing to make sacrifices for their country. Military service isn't just a masculine ideal, it is for anyone who wants to serve.
ReplyDeleteGender has always and will continue to be a key in the change in military laws and as well as public opinion/interest. Like talked about by Vuic in her piece, establishment of organizations like the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corp brought change to the way that women were seen within the military. These sort of pushes would be one of the reasons I believe we see such a huge change in advertisement's after Vietnam. The military sees the support for women joining the military by supporting groups and takes advantage of it. Also, something I found interesting is not only the use of women as a workforce after the government sent virtually all the men away to war, but also the lower wages given to them during and post-war. These women performed the same jobs as the men but were still under paid, men even got worried that since the companies were offering lower wages to women that they would begin to hire more women. Vuic also mentions the use of women in a family role as a weapon or tactic against the Soviet Union and a fight against communism. The Gay rights movement within the military has also been similar to the women’s movement. A shocking quote that Claytor said was, “’damage the image of the military in the eyes of the American people.’” He is speaking about the homosexual population within the military. When in fact wouldn’t the establishment of an equal rights and friendly military create and closer and more productive units. Discrimination such as this tend to do more harm then damage, and this can be seen in both the women’s and gay rights movement. Why did it take so long for the military to allow women in combat roles, if they meet the required criteria there should be no limitation and the same goes for the LGBTQ+ community?
ReplyDeleteIn the chapter by Kara Vuic from At War, there is a clear discussion of the roles of gender within the military. This chapter clearly illustrates the particular challenges of women and what they have faced thought the twentieth century to the twenty-first century.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect that I found particularly fascinating was how during the World War I women attempted to use the military as a tool to gain rights but were confined to support roles. This only slightly improved during World War II when women were able to create the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps, however, they were still confined to these roles only as civilians and were kept from combate. Furthermore the military made it clear that women’s role within the military was only a temporary one and removed them from these positions as soon as possible. Yet women’s war time effort did not go unnoticed and potentially influenced societal views of women, increasing the favor toward gaining rights such as the ability to vote.
Similarly, African-Americans also attempted to use the military as a way to gain rights and be granted the ability to vote. Therefore giving them the rights of a citizen. During World War II African-Americans joined the military with the ideals of the Double-V Campaign in mind. The Double-V Campaign was the idea that they must fight a war at home as well as abroad, this campaign was believed to increase respect towards African-Americans as well as increase the likelihood of them being viewed as citizens. African-Americans were also forced into non-combatant support roles, similar to women in the military, but this was also used to segregated them from their white peers. This only made it more difficult for them to gain the rights that they desired. Yet African-Americans role and contributions made during World War II arguably impacted the societal views of African-Americans at the time.
This shows that military service is viewed as a way for those without rights to gain respect through society which can lead to improvements for these groups. But is it truly the cause of serving in the military or just the effects of outside social reforms of the time.
When it comes to the topic of gender and sexuality, there has definitely been an increase in discussion throughout the last few years that has caused a lot controversy and mixed opinions in people. The debate of what should and shouldn't be allowed continues in major groups such as professional sports, but especially the military. Based on what I picked out from the readings, I would say the main argument for not allowing homosexuals to participate in the military is because of the duty to keep the militaries “masculine theme”. “The presence of homosexuals “would frustrate formation of close personal bonds and would fragment the unit.” Moreover, he claimed, allowing “known homosexuals” to serve would “damage the image of the military in the eyes of the American people”. This quote really serves as the main argument that a lot of people use to not support homosexuals being part of the military. The same argument is also used by certain people to show their non-support for women in the armed forces. Despite this viewpoint on both, evidence and proof has shown that both gay men and women are just as capable in serving the military as straight men are. The article points out at one point homosexuals were seen as unsuitable for the military but then were deemed incompatible. Other arguments that were presented were the fact that homosexuality is deemed as a serious sin and goes against religious beliefs, and it may lead to HIV/Aids issues within the military. “Although conservative senators and representatives rarely spoke of their own moral beliefs and even less frequently appealed to the authority of religion, their broader argument rested on the presumed moral beliefs of young servicemen and women. Because many young service members believed that homosexuality was “unethical or immoral [or] against their religion,” It is obvious that the gay community faces a great deal of discrimination when it comes to participating in the armed forces. Though through the years changes have occurred, it is still far from equality. The “don't ask don't tell” concept still discriminates against homosexuals because they do not have the right or motive to declare themselves as openly gay because of the militaries response. Though there is a great deal of debate on both sides, there is no question that the military, along with a lot of American people are against the idea of homosexuality in the military because of their duty to preserve it’s sense of masculinity throughout history.
ReplyDeleteI found both passages to be very thought-provoking. The argument about homosexuals in the military has two clear sides, and aside from the more radical positions, I can understand both. Personally, I feel that if you’re willing to fight in the name of the freedom of America, then you should not be discriminated against on any basis. As long as it won’t get in the way of the common goal of the military, sexual preference should not matter. However, one argument made by Senator Lauch Fairthcloth was very compelling. Faircloth said, “What if—and how would YOU feel if—your 17 or 18- year old son—and that is a pretty young boy—became under the influence of an aggressive 40-year old homosexual who was his drill sergeant, or 35, pick an age.” As I do not feel that this defines the motives of all homosexuals, this particular scenario would be somewhat concerning to me and I feel it would be to others as well. But, as I mentioned before, I feel that as long as the sexual orientation of a person willing to serve is capable of doing their job effectively regardless of their preference should not be discriminated against.
ReplyDeleteKara Vuic writes about women in the United States military. There is a hiuge benefit to having women in our military, and they should be encouraged to join. Vuic writes, “Because religious customs prohibited American men from searching or engaging Iraqi and Afghani women, military officials created Lioness and Female Engagement Teams, small groups of women tasked with security and community relations dealing with local women.” In this example, women were very useful and shows that having women has its advantages. Not only should women be allowed to join, they should be treated equally and have the same opportunities as men. Women are just as capable as men, and that is proven by the women who are graduating Army Ranger school. This shows that women can be great servicewomen and the U.S. military needs to make sure that its doors are open to everyone, especially women.
ReplyDeleteThe chapter on gender in At War delved into women in the military. It examines the history of women in the military and how their roles have changed. Granted, the military has not always been completely fair towards women, however, the chapter wants to make the argument, or at least a sub-argument, in my opinion, that not allowing women to fight or by putting women to work as a report writer is sexist and bad. While it maybe sexist, especially the reasons given might be sexist, like saying women are only good for menial work, the driving force behind not wanting women to fight is two-fold and unsexist: A) America was founded on Judeo-Christian values that emphasize the idea of family and B) evolutionarily speaking, men are the fighters and women are the ones that stayed home, taking care of the rest of the family. If both men and women fought, the human population would be drastically lowered. While I do not think it is true now, if women fought in, let’s say World War II, imagine what kind of impact that would have had on society. Kids would have been orphaned or never born. The economy would have stalemated and possibly would have collapsed because there would have been no one available to fill the jobs left behind by the men that got drafted or volunteered. I do agree with the argument that women played a crucial and complex role during wars. I would argue that they had even more of a challenge than the men fighting, too. If you stop to think about what women have to do, and this is still true today, when their husbands or boyfriends are off on a tour of duty. They have to work to provide for their family, if they have one. They have to take care of the house, do the yard, fix broken appliances or get them fixed. They have to pay bills. They do this all the while they have their own lives they could be living and do live, for the most part, but it is arguably more challenging to do and balance all that and more than going and shooting a weapon. As for women joining the fighting force, I am against forcing them to sign up for selective service on the basis that men and women are inherently different. As I pointed out, men have been evolutionarily programmed to fight while women have been evolutionarily programmed to stay and take care of things at home. Furthermore, and I know not everyone is going to like this, but it has been scientifically proven that men are both physically and mentally tougher than women. That is definitely not to say that women can’t do what men do, but in general, men are both physically and mentally tougher and stronger. If women what to join the military and fight alongside men, they should be held to the same exact standard as the rest of them.
ReplyDelete