Using Jessica Lynch
Genuine war heroes are mad as hell at the Pentagon for shoving a handful of medals at Jessica Lynch for getting conked out and landing in the hospital, writes Col. David H. Hackworth. Hackworth notes that many see it as a ploy to entice young women into the military:
According to retired Marine Lt. Col. Roger Charles: "There's nothing they won't stoop to spin. The Army needed a female hero to boost female recruiting and PR efforts, so they went and invented one."And that's the root of the problem. The elevation of Jessica to Joan of Arc status is to recruit more women, even though thousands of female soldiers couldn't deploy with their units to Iraq because of pregnancy, no sitters for single moms' multiple kids and other problems.
And poor Jessica Lynch has become the unwitting poster girl for an Army of One that's fast becoming an Army of Two ñ since apparently more than half of the women deployed to Iraq are now pregnant.
Hmm, seems like a great argument to me for upping the gay-lesbian Army recruiting efforts, since it's pretty much impossible to get artificial insemination or adopt a baby during combat.
**Here's a Reason Mag review of the book about Lynch. (The Hackworth link above is from that review.)
NOTE: Blogging will be light today and tomorrow, because I'm in New York shooting some TV stuff...soon to air...unless I suck!
This comment doesnít have anything to do with Jessica Lynch. (Iíve always opposed the war, and donít think that much more needs to be said about the Bush administrationís cynical and emotionally manipulative propaganda.) This comment is in response to a post from several months ago (that has since been archived) about radical feminists Sally Miller Gearhart and Mary Daly, and Carey Robertsí response to them. http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/000145.html In your comments, you say that these overtly bigoted feminists are no more deserving of serious critique than ìa man on the subway wearing green antennae [who] insists thereís a giant pink bunny eating all the passengers in the next car,î but Iím inclined to disagree.
The comparison of Ms. Gearhart and Daly to an insignificant subway lunatic is inaccurate for a couple reasons. For one, the man on the train with green antennae is unlikely to be a popular author, but both Daly and Gearhart are. The latterís most well known book is the Wanderground. If you browse the internet for references to Ms. Gearhart, youíll see her grouped with such popular novelists as Ursula Le Guin and Marge Piercy. For one example see: http://www.feministsf.org/femsf/authors/leguin/criticism.html I wonder how many subway loonies enjoy that privilege. Ms. Daly was also a professor at the prestigious Boston College, a status few common wing-nuts on a train could hope to achieve. When she was coming under heat for teaching female-only classes, a call went out for feminists to ìband together, and give her our support.î http://www.feminista.com/archives/v2n10/wilson.html Certainly, the good folks at feminista.com wouldnít band together to support a random lunatic.
The other important difference is that the green antennaed man is not likely to be recognized as a part of any powerful movement. But the feminist movement recognizes Gearhart, Daly, and even the late Solanis as members. Even in your comments, you describe them as ìrad-fem male-bashers,î the ìfemî part obviously standing for feminist. So the continued presence of overt anti-maleness within the feminist movement, not to mention by some women with a significant following, presents a serious problem for those who claim that ìfeminism is all about equality of the sexes.î Even if you denounce the Gearharts and Dalys of this world as ìextremists,î then that still implies that more mainstream feminists hold similar beliefs, only less strongly. Youíd never see an extremist-environmentalist clear-cutting an old-growth forests, or an anti-abortion extremist donating money to NARAL. So if feminism is ìall about equality of the sexesî then why on earth would a feminist extremist advocate a vision thatís the very antithesis of equality of the sexes??? If the feminism = equality thesis were true, then feminists would denounce all the Gearharts and Dalys of this world as ìanti-feminist.î But this never happens ñ instead it happens to those like Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, et. al., who hold views less anti-male than Gloria Steinem.
In any event, Ms. Gearhart and Ms. Daly clearly have much more opportunity to influence people then any wing-nut on a subway would. Through their status as authors and academics, they have the ability to infuse their prejudices into society. So as with any other hateful bigot in that sort of position, itís crucial that people committed equality and civil liberties expose and denounce them. But unfortunately, too few people (particularly people on the left/progressive end of the political spectrum) have had the courage to stand up against radical feminist bigotry. As a result, bigots like Gearhart and Daly have been largely successful at infusing their views into the feminist mainstream. While of course the vast majority of feminists today would not express agreement with Ms. Gearhartís goal of drastically reducing the male population (except of course in ìjestî), I think they still do share many of her prejudices ñ all be it far more subtly. But then thatís how extreme hatred of a group always starts in a larger population ñ as a more subtle contempt. The German didnít just go from being the most open minded and tolerant people one day to massacring millions of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals the next ñ they had to be indoctrinated with resentment and hatred for many years. So thatís why itís so crucial to renounce bigotry at its earliest stages ñ before it gets to the point where it can cause a lot of real damage.
Abe at December 10, 2003 11:25 PM
Abe,
I agree--we must speak out against bigotry in the early stages. But I think that the biological and psychological differences between the sexes will always trump this ideological crap from the feminists. Every woman that I know recognizes the BS in the feminist agenda. When normal women on the street talk about equality, mostly what they're saying is they want a chance to be paid the same as men when they're doing the same work.
And most of them are willing to admit that men and women are NOT good at doing the same things. We don't hate men--we recognize that each gender has valuable contributions to make. Heck, we keep trying to hook up with you guys--if we wiped most of you out, where would that leave us?
Peggy C at December 11, 2003 7:21 AM
Equal pay is certainly a good thing, but feminists have perpetrated a lot of myths about a supposed ìpay-gap.î Theyíll say that women only get 78 cents or whatever for every dollar that men make. But that figure is based on all full time workers in all professions. When you look within a given profession (and you even said that women should ìbe paid the same as men when they're doing the same workî) then the pay gap is greatly reduced. A lot of mostly male professions ñ like construction workers ñ get paid a lot more because theyíre doing very dangerous work. And men make up the vast majority of work place fatalities and serious injuries. Also, within a given profession, the gender wage gap shrinks down to next to nothing when you control for work experience and the amount of overtime put in. Older women often return to full time work after several years of raising small children and not being promoted and gaining work experience and seniority. And this is still a problem, but not the sort of rampant discrimination against women that wage-gap feminists would have you believe exists in this country. (Iím sure there are likely a few companies here and there that discriminate against women, and likely even a few that discriminate against men, but I donít think this amounts to anything economicly significant in the US economy as a whole.) Itís more a problem of traditional gender roles and the nature of our capitalist economy. Some good solutions would include letting men feel that they could be the house husband without being considered a bum, and shortening our work week ñ as they have in some European countries. Also job sharing should be done more. With the liberal feminist movement of the 60s/70s, women started working a lot more, but men didnít start working much less. So there was a much larger supply of workers, which brought wages down for everyone. (Wages were also brought down by other factors ñ like companies moving factories overseas.) Now a typical middle class family just barely makes enough to get by on two pay checks ñ while a comparable family in the 50s got by fine with a good bit left over on just one pay check. And the two wage families now a days are working twice as hard so they donít have much time for themselves or to be with their kids or cook their own food. So Iíd suggest to all married couples that if they can find a way they should reduce their combined working hours to know more than 50 hours a week. Whether that means job-sharing or having the husband or wife not work. And maybe one of these days weíll even have a government that will shorten our work week, but I wouldnít hold my breath. In any case ñ Americans work way too much!! (But blaming this on men is simply divisive and distracts people from the real issues.)
Abe at December 11, 2003 5:17 PM
You raise some valid points, Abe, and I'd like to add one more. You wrote: "Older women often return to full time work after several years of raising small children and not being promoted and gaining work experience and seniority."
That fact does account for some discrimination in the practices of hiring. Say you're an employer and you're considering two possible candidates -- one man and one woman -- for a job. Both candidates are in their early twenties and are equally qualified. Which do you hire? Before you answer, realize that you're going to spend $100,000 training this individual and that your business depends upon long term business relationships.
With this in mind, who's more likely too keep the job? Which one is more likely to quit the job to start a family, take time off for maternity leave, need days off to take care of sick children, etc.?
Yes, there is discrimination in the workplace. There's also a reason behind it.
Patrick at December 12, 2003 2:21 AM
Also, being a woman in a predominantly male organization, I can verify that I do NOT make equivalent pay for equivalent work. However, the job has other perks that make it work for me, so it's not something I doggedly fight. There is still a prevailing attitude among many 'professional' men that women are not their equals in the workplace.
And I will be the first one to say women are not qualified to do every job, just as I don't think men should do every job. But when we're doing the same work, at the same quality and reliability level, the pay scales should balance.
I am still in my childbearing years, but will not be having children. So though the risk in hiring me over a man is theoretically greater, in actual practice it is less so. And, since I don't smoke or drink, I use a lot less sick time than the men I work with. But those sorts of facts don't matter to the 'old boys'.
I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that as a female, but not a feminist, I have still found existing prejudices that will at least inhibit, if not prevent, my success. And since I have no man in my life to 'take care of me' (!), it is essential that I succeed on my own.
Peggy C at December 12, 2003 7:47 AM