Military Bullies

QUESTION: How according to Miller did men resist the inclusion of women in the military?

In  her article, “Women in the Military”, Laura L. Miller asserts that the male members of the American military resist the aspect of social change that is the growing presence of women in the military, by “using techniques of resistance more commonly associated with the protests of minorities.”-P.518

At the root of the gender relations problem in the military is male invocation of the victim role, and refusal to challenge military policy. As members of the structurally dominant group these men ironically choose to take on the role of the “underdog”, and in turn use methods of resistance against the perceived threat (women) that are typically assigned as “strategies of the weak” p.519.  Miller describes these efforts of resistance as being done in such a manner so as not to be traced directly back to the initiator.  Some specific examples of this resistance behavior are: sabotage, name calling, foot-dragging, spreading rumors, constant scrutiny, and indirect threats.

The basic logical objection of the male soldiers appears to be the existence of differentiality in relation to gender policies.  Male soldiers assert that these differences “work in women’s favor, disrupt the meritocratic order, and are likely to imperil soldiers in times of war.”p.525.   The men object to the differences which supposedly allow women to take advantage in the following ways: easier physical training standards, use of pregnancy as an advantage, better educational opportunities, exemption from combat arms as a way to faster promotion, and “getting away with more” because of a male commander’s uncomfort in seeing or hearing anything related to the subject of menses.

I find most of the male soldier’s objections justifiable.  I believe female soldiers should indeed be able to meet the same physical requirements as the male soldiers. Also, the objections related to educational opportunities and exemption from arms seem valid to me. I don’t think women should enlist in the army unless they are able to perform equally to male soldiers. The blame however lies with whoever is in charge of military policies, not with the female soldiers.  The complaint that female soldiers get away with more because of “paternalism” is again, the fault of non-enforcement of regulations and not the female soldier.  Finally, the male soldier’s complaint of pregnancy as an advantage brings to mind a whiny three year old, stomping his feet and yelling, “No Fair!” To these soldiers who complain about this issue I say “Tough-get over it”. Women are responsible for growing another human being inside their body for those nine months and should do whatever is medically best for both mother and child. All of the male soldier’s complaints are due to existing military policy and non enforcement of said policies. The male soldiers need to either speak up* (or find advocates to do so for them) to Congress and the Department of Defense as to the unfair policies, or remain silent on the matter and stop being juvenile and harassing female soldiers.

*SOLDIERS' RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND RESTRICTIONS

Freedom of Expression

The right of all citizens to express their feelings freely and openly has only those limitations necessary to protect the rights of society. Soldiers have the same basic rights. These rights must, however, be consistent with good order and discipline and national security.

CORRESPONDING WITH A MEMBER OF CONGRESS  

Soldiers may write or petition any member of Congress about a complaint. You should not interfere with or try to dissuade a soldier from exercising this right. UCMJ, Article 138 (Chapter 13), protects a soldier's right to complain and request correction of a grievance against his commander.

WRITING FOR PUBLICATION

Generally, soldiers may not write on the following topics without submitting their writing for prior review and approval by the appropriate headquarters:

• National government operations.
• Military matters.
• Foreign policy.

They may write letters to editors and similar articles that constitute personal opinion or knowledge without having them reviewed and approved, even if the topic involves military matters or foreign policy. (See AR 360-5, Chapter 4.) Soldiers may not do personal writing during duty hours or use Army facilities, personnel, or property. (See paragraph 2-4.)

Writing for underground newspapers is not illegal, but it is subject to the same restrictions as other forms of writing. Soldiers may publish these newspapers off post, on their own time, and with their own money. However, soldiers are subject to discipline if the newspaper contains material or words for which the soldier can be prosecuted under federal law.

DEMONSTRATING

Soldiers may participate in demonstrations if they do not-

• Do so during duty hours.
• Soldiers participating during duty hours may be considered AWOL.
• Do so while in uniform.
• Soldiers in uniform can give the appearance that the Army sponsors or approves of the demonstration.
• Do so while on post.
• Do so while in a foreign country.
• Create a breach of law and order such as blocking traffic or assaulting police.
• Do so when violence is likely to result. (See AR 600-20, paragraph 5-3.)

Soldiers who demonstrate in a manner prohibited by AR 600-20 may be subject to disciplinary action.

EXPRESSING OPINIONS ON POLITICAL SUBJECTS

Soldiers do not lose the right to express opinions on all political subjects and candidates. Soldiers may not, however, use "official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or affecting the course of its outcome" (DOD Directive 1344.10). Therefore, as a commander, you may not campaign among your subordinates for any political party or candidate or distribute any literature published by one.

VOTING

Soldiers retain the right to vote in local and national elections. They may register to vote at their legal or permanent residence. (See AR 600-20.) Some soldiers change their legal residence to the state where they are stationed. (However, by registering to vote where stationed, soldiers might incur local taxes. Any soldier considering registering in the local community should visit a legal assistance officer to discuss possible problems.) When duty requires them to be away, soldiers may vote by absentee ballot. The forms needed to get absentee ballots and other election materials are generally available in the legal assistance office or from the unit voting officer.

ATTENDING POLITICAL MEETINGS

When not in uniform, soldiers may attend both partisan and nonpartisan political meetings or rallies as spectators. While soldiers may go to these rallies, they may not speak before a partisan political gathering of any kind to promote a partisan political party or candidate. The limitations on soldiers participating in public demonstrations also apply to participating in political meetings. That is, soldiers cannot do so when on duty, while in uniform, while on post, and so forth. Furthermore, soldiers may not attend partisan political events as representatives of the Army, even though they do not actively participate. (See AR 600-20, Appendix B.)

Soldiers may also join political clubs and attend meetings when not in uniform. However, they may not serve in any official capacity (for instance, as officers) or be sponsors of a partisan political club.

Legal Assistance

Through the legal assistance program, the Army provides free legal advice to soldiers and their family members. (See AR 27-3.) In some places, the Army is also operating a court representation program. This program permits legal assistance attorneys to represent soldiers before civilian courts. To qualify for this program, a soldier must be unable to afford civilian counsel. Check with your legal assistance office to find out if this expanded program is available

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/27-1/Ch10.htm

My Amish Family

WHY HAVE THE AMISH RESISTED CHANGE? DO YOU THINK THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE RESISTING CHANGE?

My Family June 2010

Dressed For Amish Wedding

I am able to provide an unusual perspective on this topic because I am related to Amish people through marriage. My husband Atlee “lived Amish” until the age of seventeen when he “jumped the fence” (the Amish slang term for leaving the community) and began to “live English.”(The Amish refer to the non Amish as English, no matter the person’s heritage.)  When Atlee left home he had not yet “joined church”, which is a good thing, because he would be shunned if he had left after joining church.   The Amish are not baptized at infancy but instead are encouraged to join church as a young adult, only once they are completely positive it is the correct choice for them to make. Because he left without having joined church, we are able to stay in contact and remain close, visiting usually at least once a year. 

This coming February I will have been part of the Miller family for ten years. During this time, I have gotten to know and love the family. From my personal experience of being involved with the Amish, I see the answer to the question of “why the Amish have resisted change” as dedication to faith and family.  I know the Christian faith is important to the Amish, but what I personally see as likely being the heavier influence on the decision to continue with the Amish way of life is the importance of family. The Amish are so close knit that the idea of being away from family and the larger Amish community is largely unappealing. There are those like my husband though, who just know they can’t live the lifestyle and do leave, but it is a small minority.

HOW DO YOU THINK THE AMISH WILL BE 20 YEARS FROM TODAY?

I’m not sure. I don’t know how the “English” will be in 20 years either.  Aside from a huge societal change happening throughout America, I think the Amish will continue to live the same way they have been, making slow, well thought out necessary changes, staying in the world but not “of” the world. 

Sacred Cow-Sacred Car

QUESTION: Why is the cow considered sacred in India? Harris mentions that we have a "sacred" car. List the functions of the Americans' "sacred" car in the same way that Harris does with the functions of the Indians' sacred cow.

The belief that the cow is considered sacred in India is an integral part of Hinduism because it is essential for the maintenance of Indian society.  In Marvin Harris’ article “India’s Sacred Cow”, he describes the functions of the cow as: serving as a symbol of health and abundance, being a producer of yogurt and ghee, as well as being a producer of dung for fire & fertilization. However, of all its functions Harris asserts that the cow’s most important function is it’s breeding, by which the existence of the oxen and bulls essential to the survival of the Indian agriculture is assured. 

For much of American society, the car is not just a serviceable machine to aid one in the pursuit of getting from point A to point B. The “sacred” American car is one of the most important status symbols of our society. The newer and more costly a car one drives, the more prosperous it’s driver is presumed. Ironically, this is often not the case.  People so badly want to be bathed in the golden light of wealth and prosperity, that they often “purchase” cars far more expensive than budget allows, thus worsening the driver’s true economic status. 

The “sacred” American car is an extension of one’s personal space.  The car can be used as a mode of self expression, by means of bumper stickers, plastered on the car, proclaiming the driver’s moral and ethical beliefs, sense of humor, hobbies, likes, dislikes, pride in offspring, etc., etc. Even the paint job and accessories of a car can speak to the personality of its driver. There are drivers who get murals painted on cars and some install elaborate sound systems with which to inflict the chosen song of the moment on other people nearby. Whether the general public wants to hear the music or not, is not relevant apparently.

The sacred American car often times also serves as a “dining room”, since Americans live such frenzied lives that many meals are eaten on the go, in the car en route from one activity to another. Likewise, the car can serve as a “living-room” of sorts, equipped with multiple TV’s, DVD/Blue Ray players, CD Players, IPOD players, Phones, Sirius XM Radio-providing commercial free broadcast of news, sports, comedy, audio books, traffic, weather and a ridiculous amount of music choices. The “sacred” American car can also serve as a means of facilitating amorous endeavors of teenagers without any other available place of privacy, or the means to “rent a room”.  The car can also serve as a sort of “baby nursery”. It is a common practice for parents of colicky babies to drive the baby around in the car, allowing the car to lull the baby to sleep. The car also can literally serve as an actual “home” for those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being homeless.

The “sacred” American car also often provides a medium for release of pent up aggression, expressed in the form of road rage. This is not a healthy medium in which to release aggression, as it is dangerous. Nevertheless, it remains the chosen medium for many unhappy/passive aggressive people.   An interesting phenomenon with connected with the “sacred” American car is the issue of emotional attachment.  Some drivers become emotionally attached to cars, and refer to the car as “she”, or even name the car, usually assigning a feminine name.

The “sacred” American car can also function as a means of employment. The auto industry is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that employs masses of people.  The oil and tire industry are also dependent on the existence of the “sacred” American car.

And finally, there is a whole subset of society that “worships” cars, and car drivers, in particular, race cars and race car drivers.  NASCAR, the National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing, is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that has millions of fiercely loyal fans.  The driver’s race cars are covered with sponsor’s advertising slogans, companies which NASCAR fans naturally support as well.

"No-Fault" Divorce

QUESTION: Before “no fault” divorce laws were enacted, divorce was a relatively rare occurrence, permitted only when a sound reason (such as abuse) could be established.  Given that divorce places children and adults at risk for numerous negative outcomes, should “no fault” divorce laws be revoked?
 
It can be offered that no-fault divorce laws came about as a reactionary defense against an overwhelming inundation of work to the Family Court System. Before the adoption of no-fault laws, one marriage partner would have to prove the other party acted in a way to cause the breakdown of the marriage. This requirement brought a lot of extra work to the court system. The judges and lawyers would have to spend a lot of time finding out who was lying and who really did what to whom. The no-fault divorce laws have certainly made the judicial process faster.

I don’t know for sure if revoking no fault laws is the answer to the problem of marital discord in America. I think if someone wants out of their marriage, the home life situation can’t be that positive anyway. I don’t know that making the divorce process harder would really change how people treat each other. It might stop people from marrying though. But people live together and raise families unmarried also, so what difference would it make?

Ultimately, it is up to each person in the relationship to decide how they want to treat each other and if they want to stay in the relationship or not, no matter what laws are in place. If I were made to simply say yes or no to the question, I would say the no fault laws should not be revoked. It would seem to me to just prolong an inevitable end, causing more pain, and costing more money for everyone involved.

It is of interesting note that in some states (Louisiana, Arkansas and Arizona) there are laws that give couples the option to choose which laws they would want to apply to their divorce, should the marriage end. The options are “covenant marriage” or the no-fault option. In covenant marriage, couples agree to pre-marital counseling and to limit the grounds and options should they decide to divorce. Having to make that choice would certainly bring about an enlightening premarital discussion.

Undertakers

At the end of life when our physical body has to be disposed of, rituals have developed for those left behind. The caretakers of our remains and those who provide the ceremonies for the living in our society are the undertakers. What thoughts do you have after viewing the documentary entitled "The Undertakers"?

One of the most unenviable jobs in society has got to be that of an undertaker. Aside from the morose reality of dealing with dead bodies, the undertakers must also deal with the emotionally devastated loved ones of the deceased. I’m not sure which aspect of the profession would be the more difficult of the two. The average undertaker receives an annual salary of $34,690.00. This is not a great deal of money at all, which begs the question, why then do people choose to work in this profession?  In preparation for this assignment I looked for psychological research on workers in the undertaking industry. This appears to be a topic that has received only the slightest hint of investigation, and one I personally think bears further research.  The undertaking business depicted in the Frontline video was a multi-generational family run business. I imagine that family has continued on in the undertaking business mostly due to tradition. It takes a very strong person to choose to be involved in this profession. Though I consider myself a strong woman, I really can’t imagine myself working in this field, as it just seems it would be too depressing to deal with death on a regular basis. I am certainly thankful for those that do work in this field as it is necessary to our society.

"Late Adulthood"

Read through the policy issues related to late adulthood described in your textbook.

Take a moment to really think about one day facing such aspects in your own life.

What issues really move you now? What policies do you feel strongly about for those who are currently in late adulthood? What social problems make you angry?

Which ones make you fearful of facing when you reach this stage of life?

What issues are of the least concern? What could you do personally now, as a young person, to make an impact on the lives of elderly people? Remember, it will be you some day.

Late adulthood is the longest span of all the developmental stages of life. This stage is a time for life review, of looking back at what one has, and has not, accomplished throughout the years. When I reach late adulthood I hope to be walking side by side through life with my husband, watching each other grow old.  There are many in the stage of late adulthood that do not live a reality quite as rosy as I picture that of my future to be. There are elderly who are hungry, homeless, sick-and unable to obtain good health care. It is shameful that in America we do not value, and thus do not properly provide for the elderly. How did this come to pass? What is wrong with our society, that we allow this to continue?  It is obvious this is a problem that needs to be addressed; the question then is by whom?

As for what I could personally do now to make an impact on the lives of elderly people, realistically not much. At this point in my life I am committed to my own family and I don’t have much time to fight for better treatment for the elderly. What I can do is treat the elderly kindly and with respect when I encounter them. I can teach my children to do the same, and hopefully make an impression on other people as well, encouraging them to do likewise. The things I am personally fearful of facing in old age are Alzheimer’s disease, and widowhood. It is frightening to think of having only a tenuous grasp of reality, and even more frightening to think of facing that prospect on my own.