![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A mom at war
Mar. 31st, 2003 10:26 am(from the outrageously prolific MacDiva, who can also be found at her new digs, Mac-a-ro-nies and Silver Rights)
The woman who has emerged as the symbol of the female soldier at war is Army Specialist Shoshana Johnson, of El Paso, Texas. Spec. Johnson was captured by Iraqi forces March 23 and is being held prisoner. She is the mother of a two-year-old daughter. As blogger Roger Ailes points out, conservative commentators are using the young woman's tragic situation to make their own points, sometimes in ways that demean her.
Washington Times editor Wes Pruden is a particularly telling example of the tendency because he has no use for Spec. Johnson beyond cynical exploitation of her gender and job. Pruden is a neo-Confederate, allied with organizations that believe slavery was justified and that African-Americans should not be denied full rights of citizenship. If he were not busy exploiting her, Pruden would be dismissing Spec. Johnson as a member of a genetically inferior race.
In his column, Pruden says:
Like many a bigot, Pruden's contempt for equality applies to gender as well as race. Furthermore, he trivializes the nature of feminism by claiming feminsts want to see young women's corpses in body bags. Don't be mislead by his use of complimentary adjectives. If Pruden had his way, Spec. Johnson and the late Private Lynch would never have had opportunities they took for granted, such as voting and receiving equal pay for equal work.
Other critics of allowing women in the military to serve in positions that may place them in harm's way are less hypocritical, but equally strident.
Donnelly explains her reasoning more fully at the National Review Online. She believes the natures of the genders to be so different there can never be equality when it comes to participation in the military and war.
Some other voices are only semi-critical, fully supporting women in the military, but believing exceptions should be made in regard to proximity to combat for single mothers. A liberal commentator asks:
Though those questions are more palatable than the viewpoints expressed by the conservatives, I believe there are strong equal protection issues in treating groups differently, even in the military. If single mothers are given liberal leave and excluded from combat, it is hard to justify not doing the same for single men who are parents. If single parents are treated differently, can we really justify subjecting married parents to the risks at issue? After all, they are parents, the criterion being focused on, too.
I don't know if Spec. Johnson's predicament will be a watershed for the issue of women, especially mothers, at war, or not. Perhaps the issue will disappear among the clamor about other concerns by the time the war ends. If not, those of us who believe allowing women more opportunites in the military is not just defensible, but a good idea, will have to defend our position in the aftermath of capture, injury and death of female troops.
The woman who has emerged as the symbol of the female soldier at war is Army Specialist Shoshana Johnson, of El Paso, Texas. Spec. Johnson was captured by Iraqi forces March 23 and is being held prisoner. She is the mother of a two-year-old daughter. As blogger Roger Ailes points out, conservative commentators are using the young woman's tragic situation to make their own points, sometimes in ways that demean her.
Washington Times editor Wes Pruden is a particularly telling example of the tendency because he has no use for Spec. Johnson beyond cynical exploitation of her gender and job. Pruden is a neo-Confederate, allied with organizations that believe slavery was justified and that African-Americans should not be denied full rights of citizenship. If he were not busy exploiting her, Pruden would be dismissing Spec. Johnson as a member of a genetically inferior race.
In his column, Pruden says:
The capture of the courageous Miss Johnson, and the news that another brave young woman, Jessica Lynch, is dead has some of the aging radical feminists beside themselves with pride and joy. Equal-opportunity death on the battlefield is the latest triumph of the feminist revolution. Body bags are the latest fashion, like something from the salons of Paris.
Like many a bigot, Pruden's contempt for equality applies to gender as well as race. Furthermore, he trivializes the nature of feminism by claiming feminsts want to see young women's corpses in body bags. Don't be mislead by his use of complimentary adjectives. If Pruden had his way, Spec. Johnson and the late Private Lynch would never have had opportunities they took for granted, such as voting and receiving equal pay for equal work.
Other critics of allowing women in the military to serve in positions that may place them in harm's way are less hypocritical, but equally strident.
Elaine Donnelly, a member of the first President Bush's commission on women in the military, argues that the Clinton-era changes [in military occupations open to female solidrs] are coming home to roost. "This has been pushed by civilian feminists who want to prove theories about men and women and by female military careerists," she says. "Now people like Ms. Lynch and Ms. Johnson are paying the full price for that social experiment."
Donnelly explains her reasoning more fully at the National Review Online. She believes the natures of the genders to be so different there can never be equality when it comes to participation in the military and war.
Anti-feminist blogger Sara of Diotima perceives the issue as protecting society from an unacceptable psychological burden moreso than protecting female soldiers from the risks inherent in being captured. Critiquing Matthew Yglesias' point that any soldier can be raped or otherwise degraded, she says:
I don't think the reasoning behind the Risk Rule was that women can be raped and men can't (although Ms. Donnelley certainly seems to be saying something like that). It probably had more to do with the fear that the American people can't "handle" (whatever that means) the idea that American women are being raped and tortured.
Some other voices are only semi-critical, fully supporting women in the military, but believing exceptions should be made in regard to proximity to combat for single mothers. A liberal commentator asks:
The American military offers its enlisted men and women enormous choices of training and education. Why shouldn't they also be offered the chance to take a few years off and then re-enlist, with no stigma attached? The military takes dozens of factors into consideration when it deploys people. Why shouldn't single mothers be deliberately kept out of harm's way?
Though those questions are more palatable than the viewpoints expressed by the conservatives, I believe there are strong equal protection issues in treating groups differently, even in the military. If single mothers are given liberal leave and excluded from combat, it is hard to justify not doing the same for single men who are parents. If single parents are treated differently, can we really justify subjecting married parents to the risks at issue? After all, they are parents, the criterion being focused on, too.
I don't know if Spec. Johnson's predicament will be a watershed for the issue of women, especially mothers, at war, or not. Perhaps the issue will disappear among the clamor about other concerns by the time the war ends. If not, those of us who believe allowing women more opportunites in the military is not just defensible, but a good idea, will have to defend our position in the aftermath of capture, injury and death of female troops.
