Around Memorial Day Let’s Remember Female Soldiers

Despite a hidden history of female warriors, which in the U.S. dates to the Civil War if not prior, the image of women soldiers, with rifles in their hands and charging on the enemy, is novel for a lot of people.  Academic and other writings indicate that 100s of women fought beside men during the Civil War, while disguised as men.  For generations women have argued for front-line combat roles, and the career opportunities they bode.  Those posts are vital high-profile promotions and careers.

How do we see women in combat?  It’s usually in the movies or TV:  I could remind you of and discuss combat films that remind us of and respect soldiers’ deeds.  “Bourne On the Fourth of July,” “Saints and Soldiers” and “Jar Head,” which depict the aftermaths of the Vietnam, Second World and First Gulf wars, respectively, remind us of how combat affects soldiers.

But where are the women warriors on-screen?  We’ve seen Jessica Biel in “Home of the Brave.”  She portrays an amputee who survived an engagement in the Middle East.   In “G.I. Jane” Demi Moore portrays an Alpha female who undergoes Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training.  The story shows a test case for integrating women into that program.  On TV one of their title characters in the Lifetime channel hit show Army Wives is Col. Joan Burton, a base commander.

While their on-screen stories are not abundant, there are probably a bevy of reasons: a major one might be the proportion of citizens who serve in the armed forces, or how many of those are women.

In true life, while women are 51 percent of the U.S. population, they are 20 percent of military.  Less than one percent of American citizens are soldiers.  While a lot of people may scratch their heads and raise their eye brows at the thought of women under fire, some women find and make homes and careers there.

There’s a telling line from “G.I. Jane” where the Senator who nominates her later says that polling shows male soldiers won’t know how to deal with a female comrade. “Corpsmen would linger over a fallen female,” when according to triage, they needed to move on to a soldier they could treat.  I regret that YouTube may not have that clip.

Greater chronic, persistent, perplexing crises have made headlines about how the “old boy” military traditions and culture of the early 20th century after service women.  There are news and documentary stories of the hardships: documentarian, Kirby Dick (director of “This Movie is Not Yet Rated,” about America’s movie rating system) is coming out with a film about a cultural epidemic of sexual assaults in the armed forces, “Invisible War,” on June 22.

Last Wednesday, two female U.S. Army reservists filed a lawsuit in order to finally permit women to serve in combat positions.  Their bottom-line is that the ban limits “their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits.”

Women want to serve.  But the military culture acts like it is of two minds and mouths.  We haven’t yet seen on-screen or other stories where gender is an incidental element instead of a novel one.  This, especially when those women, who have committed to a career, want to advance.

Even the UK wonders how an American state would choose to ban ethnic studies classes

Last week, Patricia Wiliams, a writer for the UK newspaper the Guardian wrote about Arizona politics.  That’s a surprise.  And strange.  Why’re Arizonan politics on it and the UK’s radar?  Well, she writes about America-centric subjects.  But it’s also because the prospect of a state, Arizona, nixing whole subjects or specialties, ethnic studies, from public school curricula is strange and off-putting; truly, put bluntly, it’s frightening.

In December, its lawmakers passed a law where Arizona can ban classes, with their anti-ethnic studies law, HB2281, is trying to ban classes that’ll sew division or dissent.  What kind of dissent scares them?

Here are the bill’s prohibitions; it bans any curricula that:

1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government.

2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.

3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.

4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

Most people say that they hate censorship, or at least, that it’s bad.  The idea of banning or burning books frightens and anger many people.  Those books tend to push tradition hot buttons; and young, impressionable people to consider ideas that push their boundaries in a broad range of ways.  Those books challenge the mainstream mindset, and are often in dispute in junior high and high school lesson plans.

This law clashes with the individualism and independence, which Americans often celebrate and say distinguishes our society from those, which are uncivilized. Pres. Reagan is revered for having warned us about the consequences of being disagreeable toward one another while we disagree.  Banning whole academic subjects is disagreeable.

To create a law that bans those classes, which many moderate- and progressive-minded people consider good and, well, progressive, sounds like a 21st Century take on a tactic, which 20th Century Southern activists used against agitators.  We need to ban activities that provoke trouble.

In April, The Root made an interesting point about those fans of that bill, who criticize ethnic scholarship after having read the theses or dissertations’ titles, but not the content.

Conservative people routinely praise the virtues and values of college degrees, most people with those degrees would, in addition, praise the capacity for and interest in independent, critical and creative thinking.  Yet, from the manner in which this bill was written, those who wrote this have an inconsistent grasp of these skills.  That seems to be a common streak in those who yearn to prohibit either actions or information, whether it is books, ideas, movies, etc.

Why won’t Anglo- or America-oriented classes, which praise Anglo-Saxon foundations of American history and cultural sensibilities breed a similar although different sort of dissent among Arizonans?  Aren’t the core and mainstream classes simply specific to the majority culture?  You assume that core classes are themselves ethnocentric, with a bias toward and emphasis on Anglo culture and sensibilities.  They will have to be banned, too.

I believe that this is the operative question: which community’s resentment or dissent do they fear?

Are you catching up with life, or has it caught you with your pants or skirt down?

The New Year is gone.  Now, the newness of 2012′s arrival has passed us.  What’s more?  May has already arrived; if not today, then next month, you’ll glance up from your inbox or TV guide or twitter screen and ask yourself, “shit, where’d the time go?”  So is that urgent desire to read more, be more or do more (to paraphrase a quotation from the 1989 film “Dead Poets’ Society”) nagging you?

No doubt, at least twice a year someone or something reminds you that, save for Sir Richard Branson, whose work and passion are one and the same, no one ever said, “I wish I spent more time at the office.”  He wrote a memorable book, “Losing My Virginity,” about how he began his career.

Fifteen to twenty-years-ago, (before the Millennial people and their compatriots took reign) the array of news and entertainment daunted us: books, movies, TV programs, newspapers and magazines, and, for the worldly, all of these in myriad languages.  Now, we have web 2.0, and distractions abound – exponentially?  When you’re ambitious, distractions are enemies.

Two-thirds of 2012 remains.  You want to take the time to appreciate life away from work: spend time with good books, memorable movies, fast friends and great love.  Are you sure of your priorities, and how much time and energy you want to apportion to those?

Maybe you wonder, “what’s the hurry?”  That’s fine; if you’re content to reside in the present moment, deemphasizing a time-conscious mentality and lifestyle, farewell.

If you’re ambitious, maybe you want to catch up on the list of Best Picture winners from the Film Independent Spirit Awards, peruse and commit to a selection from the latest list of banned books, learn a new recipe every month, or spend more time with someone special?  Unless you expect to live vicariously through the “Time Enough at Last” episode of “The Twilight Zone,” from 1959, you need to confirm your personal, post-work priorities.

Bottom-Line: before yet another no longer new year ends, you want to venture beyond your daily routine, the work-a-day life complacency.

One of my favorite quotations, “Death tugs at my ear and says ‘live; I am coming’,” which is less aphoristic than most, wins out because it’s pithy.  Time passes rapidly.  If you’re ambitious, and you don’t manage your energy and strategic priorities with that knowledge, you’ll want to kick yourself, or worse.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.