Your Humble Blogger was listening to a portion of the local NPR call-in show yesterday afternoon, on which they were talking about the controversial subject of women in combat situations in the military. You know, like that. And one of the men who called in pointed out that as long as a female soldier knew that she could never be put into the front line, and as long as everyone around her knew that she couldn’t be put in the front line, she would be a second-class citizen, and would be treated that way. I have heard this argument before, and I’ve heard it enough times from veterans and active military men (and women) that I think it has some force.
Now, the reason I bring this up is that it came together in my mind with some stuff I’ve been reading about the turn of the nineteenth century, on or around the year 1805, and the place of military combat in culture. The writer (Adam Nicolson, in Seize the Fire, about which more in a few days) says that it was generally held to be true, not to say self-evident, that a man’s true identity was discovered in times of crisis, particularly in battle. I had heard that before, and although I don’t know how common it was at the time, it’s a pretty plausible idea. That is, that battle is where you find out what you’re really made of, that if you can keep your head when all around you are getting theirs shot the fuck off and so on, that men in England now abed aren’t real men, after all. And it occurred to me that if a person’s true identity is discovered only in the heat of battle, and women don’t engage in combat, then—Q. E. D.—women don’t have true identities.
Now, it’s probably more accurate to say that under this schema women’s identity is a completely different thing than men’s. I suspect that in 1805 or so, it was considered that a woman’s true identity was in her home, that is, the test of a woman was not in a moment of extreme danger but in a lifetime of regular persistent work. Myself, I’m inclined to the latter idea; I suspect that what counts is the career value, not the peak. But of course either idea is reductive and absurd. If we really are anything, then what we really are has to include what we are at any time, because we can’t ever be what we really aren’t. But that’s beside the point; the accuracy of the cultural truism has little effect on its, um, effect. And to the extent that the women’s identity, forged in the home existed in the culture, it was clearly inferior to the men’s identity, forged in battle.
All of which is undoubtedly in introductory RedFemLitCrit at the sixth grade level; the question I have is to what extent the idea that one’s true identity is discovered under fire is still informing us. More specifically, is there an awfully big minority of Americans who would agree with that idea without ambivalence? A majority? A small number? And, whatever its potency in the civilian culture, is it a dominant idea in the military? Because it seems obvious to me that a person who does believe in the Forge of Battle would be likely to join the military. A person who believes in the Slow Steady Proof of Daily Responsibility might join up as well, since the Slow Steady Paycheck of Daily Responsibility is to be taken into consideration, as (of course) is the Daily Responsibility to Home and Country. On the other hand, such a person may well find other areas to prove their identity, as (according to this view) whatever one does is ultimately what one is. So it’s perfectly plausible to me that if, say, 25% of the population thinks that somebody who hasn’t been shot at isn’t Real, that 75% of the people serving in the military think so.
Of course, this does not take into account indoctrination once in the military; I assume that they do not deliberately attempt to inculcate a battle-centric view in recruits, as that would scarcely be conducive to good peacetime morale, but mingling amongst servicemen, particularly fraternization with people who have been in combat themselves, may well have its own indoctrinating force. Or not; I haven’t enough experience to know. And, of course, I’m assuming from my own view that such a philosophy is not ideal, and that having a disconnect between the philosophy outside and inside the military is not ideal. Quite likely there’s substantial benefit in it, and gauging the cost against that benefit is trickier than I think. Still.
These things are frames, in the current parlance, although I think tints might be a better word, or filters. It’s not just that they control what is seen and what is cropped out, although that is part of what they do, it’s that what you do see takes on the color of the tint, to the point that it’s very hard to tell what was originally that color and what just looks that way. Is the country, in some sense, what it was in mid-December 1941, and in mid-September 2001, or is it what it was in late November 1940 or in June 2005? Is your marriage what it is when y’all are grumpy, or when y’all are setting the table? Are you who you are, or who you are ... now? And the thing about these frames or tints or whatever is that they are actually harder to see than a person would think when looking through them...
chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.
That single phrase “front line” captures so much of the wrong-headed thinking about this occupation. But it’s a distractor from the truth, which is that female soldiers are treated as second-class citizens by assholes, and it’s not because the female soldiers have particular military duties or particular body parts or particular chromosomes; it’s because the ones treating them as second-class citizens are assholes. And that’s not going to get fixed by putting more women in unarmored Humvees so they too can play cardboard duck in this Mesopotamian carnival we’re running. It’ll just mean that the assholes will find another reason to blame their prejudices on someone else.
inside out to michael firstish and also v.
the military uses gender expectations against the infantrymen to train them into killing. this has to be dealt with alongside considering what “the heat of battle” means as a forge of character. you go in thinking that it’s the end-all because you’ve been trained for that, and particularly that it’s a test for men of equal-if-not-greater meaning than childbirth.
also i don’t yet have a notification for shipment of pony.
but we really do lack rituals of significant meaning for men these days. not that death-and-killing is a noble replacement, when you’re warping the context to fit your personal heroism needs.
i don’t want to walk back toward “promise keeping” or iron john or men’s groups which really weren’t an effort, or walking on coals with mr robbins. or climbing every mountain in the world… no wait, a girl is doing that, snort.
what’s worth doing? mortgage rates seem less life-affirming than anybody thought.
So, this ties in somewhat (not as much as i’m about to pretend it does, perhaps, but heck) into another worldview split i’ve been thinking about recently, i.e. that between perceptions of risk-seeking and risk-averse individuals. I hadn’t thought of this in gendered terms, but i am sitting here with my hammer thinking this looks non-trivially similar to what you’re talking about. (It happens that i think this ties into some other areas, with “innovative” standing in for “risk-seeking” and “diligent” for “risk-averse”, and, to a certain extent your note is talking about risk-seeking vs. diligence (ish), but i’ll just stick with the former comparison for now.)
So, the culture i inhabit strikes me as not the one you have in mind when you talk about your “awfully big minority of Americans”. But, within my culture, i think risk-seeking is celebrated much more than risk-aversion. This is not the same, per se, as saying it’s rewarded, but it’s also more relevant, since we’re talking about ideals and perceptions here. For reference, i will point you to some song lyrics. This may not be a great example, because most of y’all probably don’t know this song, but bear with me. It’s clever, right? The structure of the verses is such that you think there’s a balanced comparison between equally valid lifestyle choices being made, but it becomes increasingly clear over the course of the song that only one of these options is actually being celebrated.
And, here’s the thing: you may objectively disagree with the implied characterisation of the guy who waits until he’s sure he means it before saying “I love you” as a passive loser. But the final verse (“You can draw me all the maps of the falling places…”) has some drawing power. The idea of being the explorer, the risk-taker — it has some drawing power which the idea of the person who makes sure everything doesn’t go seed in the meantime lacks.
Now, you’re talking in your example about physical danger (and the physical danger of combat, in particular) rather than just run-of-the-mill risk-taking. But my point is that that entire half of the stage has narrative power that the other half simply lacks.
Hmmmm. I wonder if the reference to “falling places” is a reference to the Flitcraft story in The Maltese Falcon. But the general point is, I think you’re right that the risk-taking attitude, and the Forge of Character attitude, all are easier to tell stories about than the other way. Which is what david in on about with mortgage rates not seeming very life-affirming; it’s a fairy tale about a prince who wins the hand of the princess by diligently carrying out the administrative duties of the prinipality.
Thanks,
-V.
please note that military action is not risk-taking. all KINDS of things are done to keep the risk down – the number of people our troops kill compared to how many we lay low shows the effects of this. one particularly large example is something called the navy and another commonly referred to as the air force.
which comic was it that got in trouble for saying suicide bombers were braver than naval gunners?
my favorite military recruiting message is the one where the young man climbs a mountain without a rope and gets to wear a spiffy uniform for having reached the top. he strove to meet the standard and was better for it. this is somewhat at odds with the idea of the adventurer and risk-seeker.
being in the military is definitely risky. it’s not leap-before-look risky, though. the training is the opposite.
On the risk-taking point, david, I think there’s an important difference between the idea of risk and risk itself. The military may well cultivate an idea of risk, that is, place a high value on actions and decisons made when at high risk, while simultaneously trying to minimize risk. Furthermore, as humans are very very bad at calculating and comparing risks, it’s likely that a person could implement a high-risk philosophy whilst engaging in behaviors that simulate risk while not increasing it. Being in the military (and I haven’t been, nor have I even had long conversations about it with youngish veterans) seems to involve a good deal of simulated risk, sometimes deliberately heightened, in addition to (at present) a good deal of actual risk, always minimized (I hope).
Thanks,
-V.