I completely agree with the rest of your post, but I’m not so sure about this bit. I’ve heard this argument lots of times, but never from anyone actually in the military. I’m not in the army, but I am in the military. I did my initial training (which included field exercises)with female cadets (over half my class were female) and this problem didn’t arise. I think that if women could do the job, nobody would have a problem with them being on the front line. Well, anyway, if there were problems, it wouldn’t be because the men were overprotective. Do you have a cite or other such evidence to the contrary?
<digs out a few recent copies of Maxim)(yes, I do have a subscription, 'kyewverymuch)>
[ul]
[li]Regular feature: “Wine and Dine,” recipes designed to impress women[/li][li]Regular feature: “Maxim Wear,” fashion spread[/li][li]Regular advertisement: Maxim Haircolor for Men[/li][li]Regular Column/Feature: “Says Her” (a woman’s advice to men)[/li][li]Recent Article (May 2002): “Kung Phew! How to Fight Like a Girl” (“Why does your girlfriend kick your ass every time?”)[/li][li]Recent Article (May 2002): “Chickproof Your Pad” (the article details how to make your apartment more ‘female-friendly’)[/li][li]Recent Article (May 2002): “Gimme Shelter” (advice on buying a home)[/li][li]Recent article (June 2002): “Aisle Be There: Getting Hitched Without the Hassle”[/li]
[/ul]
C’mon, at least read the magazine before you decide it’s a Bastion of Swinedomtm!
Ahem.
You know, I’ve always had trouble knowing where I fit in in the debate between ‘traditional’ sex roles and ‘non-traditional’ ones. See, my father was born in 1911 and my mother in 1925, born in rural (and I mean way rural, as in hills-n-hollers) Pennsylvania. Yet they both encouraged us to do what we wanted and be what we wanted and never, ever said “you can’t do that because you’re girls!” My sister grew up to be a mechanic and was a jet engine repair and maintenance specialist during the Vietnam War (btw, at the time she weighed 123 pounds). I was going to be an architect until life intervened.
My sister acts more like the stereotypical girly-girl, although she doesn’t look it (she’s all about jeans, t-shirts, and no make-up). I’ve always dressed up, adored make-up and played with my hair although I act definitely androgynous. Growing up, we both had dolls, but we both liked to build things like rubber-band boats and miniature towns out of scrap lumber and play in a big ol’ pile of topsoil.
So where, please tell me, do we fit in?
Oh for god’s sake. Of course bathrooms are biologically designed. How the hell would I use a urinal without a penis? Hump my fanny against the wall and pray it didn’t spurt everywhere?
And in nearly every country I’ve worked the men’s bathrooms - when you walk past the door - smell quite strongly of urine compared to the women’s which don’t. Maybe it’s due to open urinals, maybe not. I would say about 80 to 90 percent of the male flatmates/boyfriends/relations I’ve shared bathrooms with mis-aim on frequent occasions, sober or drunk.
If I can’t at least get my five minutes in a nice clean biological-female penis-free public bathroom then I may as well migrate to the women-only Isle of Lesbos (if it still exists).
Before we divorced, I cooked while my wife channel surfed on the television. I mowed the lawn and she did the laundry. We worked on crafts, such as ginger bread houses and Christmas ornaments, together. So who was playing which gender role?
BTW, she’s living with her girlfriend now and I’m chasing Steve.
I don’t have a study to cite, as my evidence is purely anecdotal. I worked with an ex-army ranger, and he provided me with a lot of information (not on experience with women, but on the military’s reasons for not wanting them in combat). Also, I’m a game developer who has worked on a few games under contract with the military, and all of those people have said pretty much the same thing. While I haven’t seen studies, their stories match pretty well with common sense, so until I see a good study refuting it (and I mean a good independent study, not something from NOW), I’ll go with it.
Other reasons for not wanting women in combat, according to military sources: Women are higher maintenance. Men typically don’t have menstrual cycles to deal with, which have noticeable physiological and psychological effects not necessarily conducive to effective warriors. There have also been many stories (both anecdotal and news stories, though no cites available) of women being generally - for want of a better word - wussier than men. Many women have intentionally gotten pregnant in order to be discharged. Because of complaints by NOW and other organizations, they have instituted two sets of training regimen - one for women, one for men - because women complained that they couldn’t run as far, or as fast. Like I said, there are just a whole host of problems that can be easily avoided by keeping combat a men’s club. I’m sure there are a lot of women who would make completely bad-ass soldiers, but the problems outweigh the benefits.
You say you did training with female cadets, but that doesn’t say much. Were you ever in an actual combat situation with them? I don’t necessarily mean that men would likely go out of their way to show off, or be overly protective in a superficial way. I mean that in an absolute life-or-death situation, when under fire, men may tend to ignore training in order to save a woman when they would not do so for a man.
Jeff
Men make great scientists because it’s been historically male-dominated and male-oriented. Traditionally, women have had to “act male” to be considered great scientists, but there’s nothing intrinsic in women that prevents us from pursuing of knowledge.
I think of plenty of advantages. For one, it’s stressful living up to someone else’s ideal of what you should be. Yes, girls are more likely to go for the pretty and the gentle. Boys are more likely to be rough and tumble. But there are too many exceptions to these trends to expect or force everyone to conform. You’re better off letting people be who they want to be.
Secondly, by slotting people into holes they may or may not be pegged for, you limit society as a whole. Historically, science has been considered the realm of men. But there’s nothing keeping women from being wonderful scientists. How is it beneficial to society to keep potential scientists from doing what they want to do because someone thinks they should stay home and raise baby?
Thirdly, as long as the work gets done, why should we care who’s doing it? If Veronica shoots a rifle well, put her in the Army. If Darren is an exceptional pre-school teacher, put him in a classroom with three-year-olds. Veronica may like dresses and Darren may like monster trucks, but that doesn’t mean that can’t and shouldn’t be able to transcend their “roles”.
My sole objection to women in combat units has to do with menstruation: soldiers in combat situations routinely tear apart even their cigarette butts so they can’t be used to track them–uh, how the heck are you supposed to do that with a tampon or sanitary pad?
A comment on the “women are better at verbal/English”–that rather conflicts with at least a thousand years of great poetry by men, doesn’t it?
On bathrooms: hasn’t any woman used the men’s bathroom, at least once, in a nightclub or concert situation? The lines for the women’s restrooms are incredible!
Monstro has a good point. Gender roles have existed, but by transcending them, we allow people to take/leave what they want. If you limit a gender role to saying girls are good at house and taking care of baby, while boys are aggressive, essentially you’re just reinforcing negative stereotypes. You’re saying that girls are meant to be domestic nurturers because of evolution. Shouldn’t we be encouraging them (and all children, regardless of gender) to do what they want to do?
Also, Brutus:
Does it matter if we fall into our “natural” roles as long as things get done? That is, in a family, does it really matter if the father is caring for the children while the mother is out at work, as long as the family is happy and productive?
A look at children playing would tell you that we naturally fall into our respective roles.
So, my little sister, who never showed any interest in dolls, despite being given them frequently, who ran around playing rough and dirty with boys, whose room was littered with hotwheels and Ninja Turtle action figures? Does she naturally fall into a male role?
Zoggie
Absolutely, as long as that encouragement doesn’t take the form of discouraging them to do certain things because we don’t value them (“My little girl’s not going to be some boring old housewife!”). So often IMO “letting kids grow up to be whatever they want” translates into “make sure girls don’t end up as homemakers,” which are not the same things. In case one it’s being left to the individual. In case two, the parents’ own hangups about what’s respectable are pushing their childrens’ decisions.
Monstro:
I’m not saying there’s something in women that “prevents them” from pursuing these fields, only that they tend to not prefer them because of differening interests and areas of excellence. When I start to talk about science to most women, their eyes start to glaze over out of disinterest, even moreso than with men. I don’t think this is entirely the result of patriarchy.
Currently, if you look at occupational demographics, and the majors that men and women take in college, you will find that men tend to gravitate towards hard sciences, and women don’t. It is my contention that this is primarily due to men having a greater interest in - and possibly greater propensity towards - these majors and jobs. That even if oppression of women had never occured, we would still see the numbers skewed in this way. Are you saying that you disagree with this contention?
Squish:
“Women are better” != “Men are not good”. Just because Tiger Woods is a better golfer than Jack Nicolaus, does that mean Jack Nicolaus isn’t good? Or a better analogy: I tend to enjoy a good steak better than a good salad. However, that doesn’t mean that I haven’t had some de-freakin’-licious salads. Had a phenomenal one just over the weekend - Greens with candied walnuts and feta cheese, with a white whine viniagrette dressing. Makes me drool just thinking about it. Still tend to prefer steak, though.
True, there are far more male poets made famous in the past millenium than females. Probably due to that whole female oppression/patriarchy thing.
Jeff
Are you being facetious, or are you contradicting yourself? I don’t think either gender has a monopoly on verbal expression/communication, and I doubt either has a monopoly on science/math.
If I was in the army, in a combat situation in rough terrain, I imagine I would take the pill continuously (without seven day break) anyway.
Plus the fact that many women undergoing extreme physical duress/exercise find their periods stop anyway.
You can bury or burn a tampon you know! And you can easily find bits of used cigarette butt.
Isn’t that unhealthy in some way?
[QUOTE**You can bury or burn a tampon you know! And you can easily find bits of used cigarette butt. **[/QUOTE]
The act of burning would make it easier to track, by human noses as well as dogs. Burying it, like burying feces, might work. While you can certainly find used cigarette butts in everyday civilian life, I’ve had it demonstrated to me how a cigarette butt is torn apart for ‘the field’. Trust me, you wouldn’t be able to find the traces once one of these guys got through with it.
This anecdote might not be precisely on point, but I’ll share it anyway, 'cause I’m a sharing type of chick.
[anecdote] A few semesters ago I took a psych course; Child Development. At one point, we discussed the topic of whether certain gender roles should be promoted to children from birth (pink vs. blue clothing, buying dolls as gifts for girls & trucks as gifts for boys, etc.).
I found that many men and women in my class were much more comfortable with the idea of little girls venturing out of the traditional gender roles than with the idea of little boys doing the same.
IOW, many classmates (male & female) felt fairly or very comfortable with the idea of their female children wearing blue as infants, playing with trucks, roughousing, or messing about with toy tools.
Many of those same people, however, felt varying degrees of uneasiness when imagining their male children wearing pink, playing with dolls, playing house, or dressing up in Mommy’s heels or jewelry. Some said that they would allow their little boys to wear pink or play with dolls/makeup, yet feel uncomfortable with it & encourage them to play with more “boys’ toys”. Others said that they simply wouldn’t allow their little boys to play with “girls’ toys”.
As I said, it wasn’t just the male members of the class who found the idea of boys in pink/playing with “girls’ toys” hard to deal with. Plenty of women felt the same way. [/anecdote]
I wonder what the cause of this disparity is… I think that what I saw in my class is the rule rather than the exception. So, I ask you; why is it generally more acceptable for a woman to exhibit “male” qualities or like “male” things than the reverse?
(I don’t intend this as a hijack…If it seems like such, I’ll cease, desist, & start a new thread)
This anecdote might not be precisely on point, but I’ll share it anyway, 'cause I’m a sharing type of chick.
[anecdote] A few semesters ago I took a psych course; Child Development. At one point, we discussed the topic of whether certain gender roles should be promoted to children from birth (pink vs. blue clothing, buying dolls as gifts for girls & trucks as gifts for boys, etc.).
I found that many men and women in my class were much more comfortable with the idea of little girls venturing out of the traditional gender roles than with the idea of little boys doing the same.
IOW, many classmates (male & female) felt fairly or very comfortable with the idea of their female children wearing blue as infants, playing with trucks, roughousing, or messing about with toy tools.
Many of those same people, however, felt varying degrees of uneasiness when imagining their male children wearing pink, playing with dolls, playing house, or dressing up in Mommy’s heels or jewelry. Some said that they would allow their little boys to wear pink or play with dolls/makeup, yet feel uncomfortable with it & encourage them to play with more “boys’ toys”. Others said that they simply wouldn’t allow their little boys to play with “girls’ toys”.
As I said, it wasn’t just the male members of the class who found the idea of boys in pink/playing with “girls’ toys” hard to deal with. Plenty of women felt the same way. [/anecdote]
I wonder what the cause of this disparity is… I think that what I saw in my class is the rule rather than the exception.
So, I put it to you; why is it generally more acceptable for a female to exhibit “male” qualities or like “male” things than the reverse?
(I don’t intend this as a hijack…If it seems like such, I’ll cease, desist, & start a new thread)
Not a hijack at all. I’d just reiterate what I’ve been saying in a few posts, that we still denegrate traditionally female roles and attitudes, and only value women who branch out into male roles.
Yeah, but why? Why don’t we value men who branch out into female roles?
It could be argued that men who branch out into female roles are taking social risks by truly trying to embrace the idea of equality because we live in a patriarchal society, whereas women who branch out into male roles aren’t taking risks, they’re just doing what they are now allowed to do/express.
IOW, men are the ones with more to lose, so the idea of them branching out should be valued more than the idea of women branching out.
Mind you, I don’t necessarily agree with the above hypothesis, I just came up with it.
ducking & running now commencing
I can see that, Cosmo- and b]Eonwe. Girls are encouraged to do a lot more (though granted, there is still sexism in the workplace and in every day life), while boys aren’t really. Boys are often afraid to- consider most adolescent guys. Most are afraid of losing face in front of their friends. A girl might get made fun of for doing a typically male activity (whether it’s being good at mechanics or watching football…whatever), but a guy would get serious put downs if he started a fashion club or something. And consider that when teenage guys make fun of each other, it’s often by relying on homosexual epithets. Or female ones (i.e., “pussy”- our modern day equivalent to “you throw like a girl.”)
In some ways, it’s just as hard for men to deal with society’s gender roles. When women have problems, it’s expected that they’ll go to friends/family for it, while guys are usually expected to tough it out. (Again, a lot of this comes from William Pollock’s Real Boys.)
So bottom line, expecting people to conform to set roles is generally a bad idea. Of course, I guess we all do it to some extent. Perhaps we’re just at a place where women doing what men do is considered more or less okay, but the opposite still is kind of iffy. We’ve come a long way, baby but gender equality still needs work.