Women in the military and their restrictions on combat engagement

The New York Times (“NYT”) recently profiled female Marines serving in Afghanistan. According to the article, the American military sent 40 female Marines to Afghanistan as part of “an unusual experiment” to create full-time “female engagement teams” to accompany all-male patrols in a particular rural region where men are culturally off limits from Afghan women.

According to NYT, the mission for these female Marines is to win over Afghan women by meeting with the women over tea in their homes, assessing their needs for aid, gathering intelligence, and assisting in building schools and clinics. This seven-month deployment is nearing an end, and the mission has been deemed a success. The article notes, however, that these Marines have also been involved in combat situations – such as firefights, ambushes, bombings, and base attacks – thereby sidestepping military rules restricting women in combat.

As stated by NYT, current military policy prohibits women from “combat” branches such as the infantry, armor, and Special Forces. Apparently, Congress has even tried to restrict women’s role in the military even more. However, possibly as a sign of the practical necessities of the military, women have been skirting these rules for nearly a decade in Iraq and in Afghanistan. To comply with the combat prohibition rule, women simply “attach,” rather than assign, to combat branches; female engagement teams simply “accompany” Marine infantry units.

In late summer 2010 the military reviewed and clarified certain rules: (1) female engagement teams could not go on foot patrols with the primary purpose of hunting and killing enemies; and (2) the female engagement teams were only allowed “temporary stays” of 45 days at combat bases. To satisfy the language of the latter rule, every six weeks female Marines travel from their combat stations for an overnight stay at a larger base camp before returning back to the combat outposts.

At least one female Captain has stated that “[t]he current policy on women in combat is outdated and does not apply to the type of war we are fighting.” The author of the NYT article notes that the Marines promote an image as “the most testosterone-fueled service,” and that the Marines are a long way from allowing women in the infantry. The remainder of the article offers a glimpse into the minds and typical days of three female Marines, but the author does not substantially probe the basis for the combat prohibition rule.

The most likely reason that I can think for this dual standard is a preconception that women cannot or should not handle the physical and/or mental requirements for combat situations. If so, this rationale seems rather presumptuous and calls to mind other prejudicial notions of what women are or are not capable of doing. It may be a biological fact that women are, generally speaking, physically smaller than men, but this may not necessarily hold true on an individualized basis for women and men who serve in the armed forces. A woman who wishes to serve in a Marine combat unit may be more physically-capable or more mentally-prepared than a similarly situated male Marine, but the military’s rules do not allow for this variability. Instead, the military applies a hard and fast rule that possibly rests on a questionable foundation.

Moreover, a comparison of the black-letter of the rules versus the real-world operation of the rules highlights the ineffective restriction that the rules impose. One rule prohibits female teams from going on foot patrols to hunt and kill enemies. According to NYT, however, female Marines involuntarily become engaged in combat situations simply as a result of doing their jobs. These types of situations basically boil down to "kill or be killed." From a practical standpoint, it does not make sense to prohibit female Marines from engaging in combat with a purpose when the military is placing them in situations where they will inevitably have to engage in combat anyway. Similarly, the “temporary stay” rule does not seem to serve any actual purpose when female Marines can, and do, circumvent the rule by complying with the black letter, but not the spirit, of the rule.

In conclusion, the military may have valid reasons for prohibiting women from serving in combat branches, but as a categorical rule, such a wholesale restriction along gender and sex lines seems suspect to me because I cannot think of why an individual’s gender or sex should factor in to one’s ability to join a combat unit. Furthermore, in the real world, female Marines sidestep these rules anyway, thus evincing a certain reality which the military's rules do not reflect.

Remembering the "W Effect"

Does anybody remember the Hillary Clinton/Barbara Bush Cookie Bake-Off of 1992?  If so, do you feel the shock, the outrage, like this blogger?  Or are you rather entertained and curious for more First Lady Cookie Recipes? But the cookie bake-off controversy is just the tip of the iceberg of how conservatives -- and a complacent, sensationalist media -- have reshaped the feminist landscape.

As Laura Flanders shows in her book: The W Effect: Bush's War on Women, the conservatives took the helm in the '80s and largely did away with what the feminists of yore have achieved.  Not even the supposedly liberal Clinton years could undo the damage; in many ways, Clinton's fiscal conservatism hurt the feminist agenda just as much as Reagan's.  But with George W. Bush, an onslaught of anti-feminist policies came to finish the job and wage a virtual war on women's rights.

The book is a collection of essays, interviews, and blog posts by investigative journalists, social critics, scholars and activists. It is divided to chapters with titles beginning with the letter W: World; War; Wages and Well-Being.  Especially illustrative is the title of the chapter on the Bush Administration's incessant attempt to control women's bodies and reproductive choices: "Weddings, Wombs, and Whoopee."

The essays range from lightweight to heavy-duty, the authors from Gail Sheehan to Gloria Steinem.  The range of emotion it provoked in me oscillated between desperation to outrage, including astonishment and vigorous head-shaking.  For example, I was surprised to find out that in 2003(!) we were already talking about this "current" Recession.  (After living through 2008, your memories of the recession of 2003 aren't that bad, are they?)  I was also jolted by the number of ultra-right wing, incompetent cronies Bush has placed in powerful positions, like naming John Klink, formerly the Vatican's representative to the U.N., as leader of our country's delegation to U.N. conferences on children's rights, population, and development.  (Mr. Klink went on to oppose emergency contraception and abortion even for victims of troop rape in the former Yugoslavia.) Or the infamous appointment of anti-contraceptive crusader Dr. Hager to lead the FDA's commission on reproductive health, another fox to guard the hen house, in a very literal sense.

Don't misunderestimate me: I am well aware that Barack Obama is now in the White House.  It seems the raging wildfire of anti-women's-rights policies is extinguished.  But I also know that it will take at least several years for President Obama to undo this damage.  It was all the more fitting that the first legislation he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  I am looking forward to many more similar initiatives, policies, and signings of progressive legislation, in the years to come.

Did anyone see this disturbing info on the "Young Guns?"

http://dccc.org/blog/entry/republican_young_guns_show_alarming_pattern_of_contempt_towards_women/

The Art of Blogging - Part 2

Last week, I wrote about the potential roadblocks affecting feminist blogging. For this blog post, I hope to write about the positive impact that feminist blogging has upon the theory, practice, and involvement of a variety of members of our society. The benefits of feminist blogging work in three ways, or at least this is what my friend and I discussed. First, feminist blogging is a way to take back the hate, the misunderstanding, and to re-word (or rework) what feminism means to our society. Second, feminist blogs – and blogs in general - are a way for the marginalized members of society to have a voice and to share their understanding of the world. Third, feminist blogs build a community and this perhaps is the most important contribution. Each of these three contributions is very interconnected with each other.

Reworking or rewording feminist theory through writing and discourse is not an unfamiliar notion. In fact, many groups (minorities or marginalized) find that this is the best way to demonstrate critical race theory, subvert misconceptions or stereotypes, or ultimately determine their own discourse. Similarly, feminists have used this tool to seek to quantify (whichever version of) feminism by putting it down in words. This concept is not only a means of empowerment, but it also is a way to limit the hatred or misconceptions of feminism. As each individual blogs she gains a self-awareness of what feminism means to her (or him). This translates to a definition of feminism that spans a variety of experiences and opinions. As a result, these blogs together shape a new definition of feminism that incorporates a broad variety of thoughts and theories that frame a timely and situational version of feminism.

Feminist blogs, and blogs in general, have allowed many people to have a voice when they would not have otherwise. For those women who have never had a chance to speak out, the internet is a way to build an instant support group and even the mere posting on a blog allows for a voice immediately. This is not to say that every marginalized group has access to the internet, but such blogs are also a vehicle for many non-profits who help such groups. Through these blogs, these women also have a voice – which is in and of itself a type of feminism.

Finally, such feminist blogs build a community. This ultimately is what a blog should do, especially one dedicated to advancing a movement for equality between genders. These blogs provide a guideline and a reference for many women seeking a feminist identity. By doing so, it provides a culture and a community at once. This does not depend on whether one subscribes to a certain theory, but rather reading and writing on such a blog does this instantly. Additionally, as I discussed last week, blogging breeds hateful speech. But, at the same time, blogging limits such speech because of the community it builds. If the overwhelming majority of feminists are supportive and constructive, no amount of hateful speech can detract from the culture. This community is the foundation for a variety of perspectives of feminism and this foundation is a movement – one blog post at a time.

Violence against women-Part 2

One crisp spring evening more than 40 years ago, dinner was interrupted. The little girl stood side by side her four brothers. They stood facing their thirty-something years old mother who was silently weeping. A drunken, enraged man ordered the five childen outside. He insisted each of them cut a green branch from the tree. He told them to peel the bark off and bring the green "switches" inside. The little girl was cold, tired and hungry, but she did what she was told. There were consequences for not doing what she was told to do. She did not know exactly what was going to happen next, but she knew it was going to be very bad. It always was. The enraged man told the children to take their "switch" and do one of the following three things:

• Strike their mother across the back ten times.
• Strike one of the other children ten times.
• Choose to get whipped with the switch ten times.

The oldest went first. He told the man to hit him. The little girl was next and she made the same choice. As each child completed their turn, all five made the same choice. All five were whipped across the back with their "switch" ten times.

The mother kept weeping.

The little girl thought to herself, "Now we are done. He is finished being mad at us."

But the man was not done. He was not satisfied with the result. So he took one of the switches and for the next ten minutes he proceeded to beat the mother with the switch.

Now, the little girl wept. The little girl did not understand why her stepfather always hit her mommie. The little girl did not understand why the man did not love her.

I was that little girl.

God knows why my stepfather chose to punish all of us that night, or any other night. I remember that before this particular scene happened, my mother merely had dropped a plate while serving dinner. My stepfather beat my family hundreds of times. None of those times did the beatings make any particular sense to me.

It is not surprising, then, that I have spent the bulk of my adult life working to wipe out domestic violence, child abuse and sexual assault. I spent years learning about the cycle of violence, power and control issues, the increased incidence of domestic violence with alcohol abuse, and the personal toll on families that domestic violence creates.

My mother did not have access to laws that could protect her. This was an era before "domestic violence". This was the era when these things were a "private family matter." Now there are laws to protect people like my mother.

Out of necessity, my mother had to bury this issue. She buried it so deep that when she found out that I was running for public office, it never occurred to her that domestic violence would become the crux of my legislative agenda. When I got elected to the State Assembly in 2000, the legislature did not have a particular focus on domestic violence. During my first year in office, I created the Assembly Select Committee on Domestic Violence. I was fortunate to Chair that committee for all six years I served as a legislator. My proudest moment came when Governor Gray Davis signed my very first piece of legislation, AB 469. That is the moment that the little girl got to do something meaningful, not only in honor of her mother, but for all women in California. Once again the little girl wept.

To be continued...

Until next time, please watch this poignant video clip that puts faces to the issue.

Feminism and preferential treatment

I have a confession to make. Today I stopped at an auto shop to have them run a test on my engine (the check engine light was on). Instead of charging me $20 for this like they were supposed to, the guy there just said "don't worry about it." Was I outraged at this seemingly preferential treatment?

No! I was super excited about saving my $20!!

Does that make me a "bad" feminist? Or more importantly, does this type of reaction undermine the goals of the feminist movement?

Now before anyone rushes to conclusions, I did not bat a single eyelash for this outcome. Nor did I look particularly attractive as I rushed there stressed out from work. No sweet talking either... I just stood there looking grouchy. So perhaps this was an act of pity from the guy at the auto shop who saw I was stressed. Or maybe he saw that I was obviously a student and felt like helping me out. Who knows? But this whole thing got me thinking about the various reactions women have when they feel like they are being treated better just for being a woman.

Now having someone open a door for you might not be such a big deal, but what about getting free drinks? Many women would say no, but what about a police officer letting you off for a speeding ticket because you are a woman? How many women would say "That's sexist officer, please give me the ticket"?

Another related concept is beauty privilege (which also applies to men). This idea stemmed from the lists of male privilege and white privilege that have been widely discussed. Beauty privilege describes the advantages people who fit society's conventional beauty standards have over others. There are numerous articles and blog posts on the internet about this subject, but what do you think? I don't think that there is anything wrong with embracing your femininity, sexuality, using makeup, or (in the extreme) plastic surgery if that is what makes you happy*... and you are not using your advantage to hurt someone else.

[*as long as it's truly for you and not stemming from a desire to conform to the expectation of someone else (or society)]

This quote from the beauty privilege blog post sums up my feelings:

"Beauty privilege needs to be recognized in the same way as the other privileges are. We don't tell white people they are useless or hetero women that they can't be feminists. No, we just expect them to understand their privilege and use it for good and not for evil..."

Or, as my favorite cricket once said, "Let your conscience be your guide!"