What are your thoughts about the material presented by our guest speakers on Tuesday?
Any additional thoughts about Don Imus or pornography that have not already been presented on the blog?
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Erin, please contact me via email immediately. Thanks, Dr. Patton
I felt that his presentation really offered insight into the confusion that I see within Iraq right now. I think he did a good job demonstrating the contrasts between good and bad. I mean, perhaps there are people who have beniffited, but what about those who haven't? I felt like he did a good job of pointing out the differeing viewpoints.
I was really glad he brought the cadet along with him. She offered more insight that I thought was really interesting.
I don't really want to get into a discussion about the war and about the draft..I could go on for awhile.
I would just like to add a comment about Don Imus. I found some of his comments to be really off color and in bad taste. I had not heard of Imus before the whole "nappy headed hoes" comment. However, sometimes I see other figures in the media make comments that I find to be on the same level, but it seems they get much less attention or less reprucussions (I never spell that word right) occur (Ann Coulter, anyone?)
Jenny Holly
I never really thought of the war in this kind of perspective before. My Ex-Boyfriend is overseas right now and I keep in contact with him on a regular basis. He sends me pictures of him standing in front of places or pictures of him with some of the kids over there. However when we were showed the photos on tuesday and he kept saying "Then it's back to work". It really opened my eyes. Never has Bryan showed me anything that horrifying nor has he said how dangerous the things he does are. I would assume that is because he doesn't want me to worry, however it really makes you think about the dangers that our men and women face every day just so people like myself can live in peace.
I also like both of their versions on combat. I believe that anyone who is in the way of danger is in the combat zone. To me having to carry knives and guns with you everywhere you go, you are fighting in a combat. Just because you don't shoot someone, doesn't mean that you aren't fighting for you own life with every step you take. I mean he said his version of combat would be actually going after the guy who put you in danger, in those types of situations, you don't necessarily know who put you in danger or when they are going to do it again.
About the speakers Tuesday, I was really glad they came and offered their views on combat and women in the military. I certainly disagreed on some points, like when he said Iraq was not another Vietnam. Well, no not exactly, but there are parallels to be made. Also, about the draft, I disagree about it being reinstated, and I also disagree about it being the Democrats who would do it. I would not, however, have a problem with women signing up for the draft if men have to, but like I said in class, I disagree with the draft in general REGARDLESS of who it is. He also made a good point about insurgents, who destroy the things you build for Iraqis, and you have to start over again. That must be such a frustrating position to be in, and it angered me a little that our government and administration would put our soldiers into situations like that. It seems as though the same things keep happening. And I also found it interesting that he said when fathers will let their daughters sign up for war, people will be okay with women in the military. At first I was thinking, well my father is from a different generation, and I can sign up for the military if I want to! But after some thought, I think he makes a good point there. The community in general does not want to see women in war or combat. I do believe, however, that at some point the military will HAVE to let women go into combat roles, and if women want to do that I think they should be allowed. (By combat roles I mean the way the military defines combat).
Don Imus. Well, I must say that after viewing some of the other things he said in class, I am appalled that he was not fired a long time ago. I know this is a situation about money, but I cannot understand how he can say some of the things he said and still CBS or whoever let him stay. Until the public outcry over "nappy headed hos" that is. Yes, he has a right to free speech and to say whatever he wants to, but I do not think that a major organization should support and ultimately promote views like that by letting him stay on the air. And about politicians going on his show, I do not get that either. If I were a politician, regardless of who his listening base was, I would not associate myself with that. Of course, I guess that does not make sense because most politicians will go wherever they think they will get the most votes. But I don't want to be a politician anyway, so no worries.
Oh! And I also wanted to comment on what Jenny said about people making tasteless comments, like Ann Coulter. I completely agree. But the difference here is that Ann Coulter is writing her own books, not on a TV radio show every day. I do think there is some outrage with some of the things she says, but a lot of neo-conservatives love her (not all, but a great many considering she always sells books). I guess that goes along the same lines as Don Imus somewhat, since he apparantly always had listeners. And as far as free speech goes, she can write as many books as she wants, and Don Imus can say racist comments all day long. In the end, it still comes down to money. If there were more public outcry over Ann Coulter, maybe her publisher would drop her. It kind of upsets me that the public still support people like her, and even Don Imus. I, personally, choose to boycott Ann Coulter and others of that ilk. Or, as Keith Olbermann likes to call her, the Coultergeist.
Ashley, I totally understand. It is sort of different. Radio/TV versus books. I suppose she does have a right to write whatever she wants, it just bothers me when it makes it into public events and onto television interviews. Ann Coulter just gets on my last nerve in every possible way. If little ol' Jenny was to ever get into a fight, it would be with Ann Coulter. :D
I meant to add to my comment though, what about the guy who actually made the jiggaboo/wannabe comment? Is he a person who is solely on the show, or does he have his own show? I don't know. I don't know much about him.
I thought that the guest speakers' presentation was very eye opening. It is easy to sit here in the United States and throw our opinions around when we don't have to be there. Just watching that presentation made me start to question my own opinion on the war. I was unwavering in my "get out now" opinion, but now I don't know. What happens to all the innocent people if we just withdraw? I think we made a HUGE mistake when we went in and now I don't think we know how to fix it or even if we can fix it. Regardless of what I personally think about the war in Iraq, I wholeheartedly support and respect our military personnel. It is very difficult because if you don't support the war you are automatically labeled unpatriotic, a traitor, and unsupportive of our troops. This goes hand in hand with the "you are with us or against us" rhetoric. If you don't support the war, you support the terrorists and I think that is complete crap.
Another topic that was lightly touched on was the rape of female soldiers. I don't think I was very convinced with the female cadet's portrayal of what the military is doing to prevent it. If that is the case, if the "buddy" system is working, why are so many women still being raped? She said that she carries weapons ready for an attack from a male soldier but then lightened it up by adding that she packs them regardless of who might attack her. There are two articles that you really should read so I am posting them here. I hope that you will read them and maybe it will give you some insight into women who are being raped in the military. The second article discusses the outrage over Don Imus and questions why the same wasn't done when the rape of women in the military was exposed. I think you will find them both informative. You will have to copy and paste the URL because for some reason the link doesn't work when I post it. You may have to remove some spaces because if I don't put spaces in the URL when I post it, for some reason it gets cut off.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/
2007/04/16/564/
Originating article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/
magazine/18cover.html?
ex=1331870400&en=823808201240cefd&
ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Janice Clayton
Honestly, when he said that he thought the draft would be reinstated and the cadet agreed, I had a very sick feeling in my stomach, and it made the think ahead. I know it isn't a sure thing, but should I consider serving in our armed forces for a couple of years, to either get it out of the way, or to say that I've done it. I know those aren't very sound arguments, but they make sense in my head so leave me alone. I thought his presentation was very real, and I think if more people gave presentations like that, a lot of debate that is going on in the world right now, would cease. He wasn't trying to persuade us, and he wasn't trying to prove a point, he was just giving us the facts, and I really appreciated that. I would love to have him come talk again before the semester was over, just about what he has experienced, because I know he couldn't fit it all into a one hour presentation. After thinking about this some more, I couldn't help but asking myself "how would they reinstate the draft if the house was still controlled by the Democrats and the senate still very split. Wouldn't reinstating the draft be a more Republican thing to do. Also, would this work if the White House was taken over by a Democratic President? All of these questions are very interesting and I'm looking forward to the next two years of American Politics.
I enjoyed our discussion in class on Tuesday. I wish that Heather had gotten more of a chance to tell about her experiences however. I have had several classes with her in the past and she has some great stories to tell!
I am glad he brought the slideshow with him; it put the war into perspective. I feel that we all get caught up in the pro-war v. anti-war argument and don’t pay attention to the fact that we are already there. I am really glad he made the comment that he would rather fight them there than in the US. I think that is something people don’t think about when wanting the troops out so quickly. I realize our men and women are dying over there and I am grateful for their sacrifice. But, deep down, I feel like their deaths would have been in vain if we pulled our troops out now and then later had to deal with the terrorists again on our own soil. It would seem like, why did we waste our time and human lives to leave and not finish the job we started?
I am very glad that he did give his personal opinion! I was afraid that he would stay in Army mode and not give us his real feelings. I think the humanitarian aid idea was great! I only wish our leaders had thought of it before we went to war. I had never really considered the alternatives to war. The way it was framed by the media made it seem like war was our only option. But I guess hindsight is 20/20 and now we can see other options that may have worked better. I am just curious as to how our relations with Iraq would be now if we had gone in and helped the people immediately?
I really enjoyed both of our guest speakers!
I'd never heard of Don Imus before this scandal much like a few others. In fact, I didn't even know all of his comments before we watched the clip in class. The only thing I'd heard about was "nappy headed hoes." I don't understand why the media focuses on that one phrase. It made it seem as if this was one isolated incident. It was one slip of the tongue. Because of this, I'm disappointed by the media, a common occurance. The other comments are almost worse. For instance, "jigaboos vs wannabees" has a long history of racist connotation. Granted Don Imus was not the one who actually said that phrase, but he certainly was not giving any opposition. He readily agreed and actually instigated the comment. Though he was misreferencing, he was the one who brought it up. Bottom line, it's his show and he is responsible for its content. I think what makes that phrase worse is that its not common language found in our society. The publicized comment of "nappy headed hoes" is often found in rap lyrics. Hoes in particular is found in everyday conversation. However "jigaboos vs. wannabees" is something I think even most rappers would say is crossing a line.
Though I'm disappointed in the media outcry for its negligence, I do not hold anything against Don Imus. I think he is ignorant to say the least. However, he does have free speech and those are his opinions. I may not agree with something someone is saying, but I will always defend their right to say it. As was said in class, the station also has the right to cancel his show. Should they have cancelled him before? Absolutely... if this was a game of ethics. The problem is, we do not live in an ethically bound society. For people like Don Imus, the capitalist market is his major censor. As long as people or companies will pay to have someone on air, there is no reason for a company to cancell that program. The biggest problem I find, ethically speaking, with his program is the possibility of exposure to children. Adults can simply turn it off if they don't like it. However, parents do have the right to want to keep those types of programs away from their children. Yet the solution is not taking anything off the air that is not suitable for children. The solution is for parents to take an active role in watching what their children have on television.
Should television be based on ethics? not really
Should Don Imus have been fired earlier? No, he was making money.
Should Don Imus have been fired for this incident? Yes, he was losing money.
To comment further on some of what we discussed in class about the firing of Don Imus. Yes, it is obvious that he was fired due to monetary reason. Also, I do think that people should have made a big deal about what he said. When we were commenting on the fact that you do not have to listen to the show & therefore do not have to “consume” Imus’s program, I do not think it is that simple. The fact that he attacked the Rutgers basketball team personally is obvious. However, what about all of the people that do listen to his show and “consume” what he says. Those people could very easily carry those thought and ideas out into their everyday lives and have them influence how they treat people (i.e. African American Women). Whenever Dr. Patton was relating this back to pornography it obviously can carry the same repercussions. Women in general could be affected by the skewed belief that all women are like porn stars. This could mean that a person could have never watched porn, or listened to Don Imus, yet have their lives affected by people that have or do. Also, just to touch on why Imus had never been fired before for some of his tasteless comments. It was for the very same reasons that Howard Stern continued to stay at NBC even though he was offensive. People that hated Imus still would tune in to his show just to see what he would say next. That is all that sponsors want, people to tune in and hear their advertisements, and hopefully run out and buy their products. Personally, I knew what kind off on air personality Imus was before this incident and I am glad that he finally was canned! He had gone too far many other times before, but at least this time enough pressure was applied to the sponsors of the show to get him axed. Dr. Patton, I’m sorry I was not able to comment on the Tuesday guest speaker, I missed the class to take care of my sick child. Sorry.
I thought it was interesting to have such a different perspective from both genders about the definition of "combat." I agreed with Dr. Patton about being a combat zone and in an area where gun fire is going on or IED's blowing up around you should be considered giving the title of a combatant.
I do understand we are stretched too thin and should not just leave Iraq. We do need to send a massive troop surge over there and completely do a major cleanup of Iraq, however that would take time, time that some Americans don't understand or don't care to understand. It would also help if we didn't live in a bubble of protection from the government about what is really happening over there. The news only tells so much before the men in power decide what is "TMI" for the American people to be able to handle.
The Iraqi people were oppressed, and still are oppressed in many ways, it will be a few decades before they are even comfortable enough to actually regain control of parts of their homeland on their own. They have been at war amongst themselves since the beginning of time, their views and ideas are very different from America's. Of course, the Iraqi people are happy we are there, but they are also afraid and confused. They are not educated enough, and are easily bought over to one side or another because of the way they live, corruption is easily done by threatening their families. They have had a hard life and will continue to have a hard life and any way to make it easier for them from one moment to the next is better than nothing.
My mother was 34 when she signed up for the national guard and was 45 when she was sent to Iraq in 04-05. She was part of Military Intelligence Battalion, 29th Infantry Division in company with the 39th Brigade Combat Team. When she was there, my son told his classmates and teacher he had a grandmother in Iraq, no one believed him. I asked my mother to send a gift to the class from Iraq. She sent postcards, fake rolex watch, and a jewelry box made of camel bone. The class was shocked.
As I said in class my mother used to be an advocate about women signing up for the military until she went to Iraq. She told me she was glad I didn't listen to her about signing up for the the military at that time. There was way too many issues going on with the army and the way they handled things was not for the best. This was of course during the outrage over the prison and the pictures of our American troops posing with hooded prisoners and the likes. We didn't talk in too much detail about what happened and what she witnessed. She did say that we had way too many unexperienced soldiers who didn't know what to do there. She was glad she could be there to help, but at the same time, she felt it was just going to be too great a cost for the U.S. too handle. I can remember her telling me that she was frustrated at not being able to do her job properly, as well as other women there, because some of the men thought differently on how to handle situations than the women did.
I do feel that IF women were to be drafted, I would definitely sign up for the Air Force. I wouldn't do very good on the ground in direct combat, however, I am decent with a gun. My father would take me target practicing so I could go deer hunting with him. I am very good with a rifle and a scope, shotgun, I am decent, a muzzle loader I don't like the smell.
When we discussed why men are drafted right out of high school because they were easier to deal with, it made me think about what age would the women be for a draft If we had one. Would women ages 18-30 be the first group of females drafted? That is the major age of child bearing years? Would they be women in their 40-50's instead?
This would be the years where most women would have had children just getting out of the house and making their families. Could we draft women the ages of 31-39? These are the majority of women whom are done with bearing children and are busy with raising the children they have had. What does everyone else think about this question of the age of women being drafted?
I really enjoyed our military speaker. I agree that the pictures really put the whole discussion of the war into context. You can listen to the news and hear the numbers the reporters give about the number of soldiers and Iraqis killed or wounded in attacks but there aren't really any faces to go with those numbers. The pictures our speaker presented put faces with those numbers, especially the one of the wounded little boy. I don't think any of us can really even attempt to understand what it must be like to be put in the situation our soldiers are put in, in Iraq. The speaker talked about how one day the people would love the soldiers because they gave them things like the chickens and built their schools and the next day they hated the soldiers because their sons had been killed by soldiers for attempting to plot an attack or something. I couldn't even begin to think about what it would be like for the same woman who is praising you for being so generous one day shooting at you the next. The discussion about the little kids who played with the soldiers and their parents who used information about the American's whereabouts they obtained from the children to plot attacks was also heart wrenching. That part really hit home with me because I can remember my grandmother telling me stories she heard from her brother when he was fighting in Vietnam about little kids making friends with soldiers and then shooting them with the guns their parents gave them. Today I turned on the news and all they were talking about was the 12yr member of the Taliban video taped beheading an American spy. How evil of a person would someone have to be where they would be ok with teaching a child to hate so much? We have our own problems in this country dealing with violence among teenagers but it really puts into perspective how fortunate we are to live in this country when we see a 12yr old beheading another human being in another country on the news.
I really enjoyed Heather Ellis's talk about women in the army. I thought it was especially good that we got to see what her opinion of combat is compared to what the male speaker's is. I thought the fact that we actually got to hear two conflicting view points from individuals in the military was a kind of eye opening experience, for me anyways. I guess I always just pictured people in the military agreeing with one another on everything. I always knew that somewhere, someway individuals in the military would have to disagree on something but I think the military overall tries to present an image of cohesiveness to the public. I do think that this "cohesive image" is a good thing to present to the public because I think sometimes people get the idea that division means an entity is not doing its job properly. Of course, most of us don't want there to be any doubts when it comes to the armed forces doing their job. The idea that the army is cohesive when it comes to their actions and the decisions they makes us or at least me feel a little more secure and like our nation is being well protected. Witnessing a presentation where two members of the army disagree on points such as what constitutes combat allows you to se the more human side of the military that debates and deliberates on decisions just like everyone else as opposed to the "machine image" most of us picture the military as.
As for Imus, first I would just like to say that I watched the "red state update" that talked about the Imus incident and it was hilarious. As for the actual comments he made, I don't think they were any worse than what we've seen from in the past. The only difference in this case is that the people from Rutgers had enough sense to hit television networks where it hurts the most: the wallet. Their timing, with the press conference almost a week after the comment was made was a great way to keep the issue alive and in the media. The fact that that they were able to scare sponsors enough so that they would yank funding from the station is what really did Imus in. Imus was not kicked off because of the comment itself but, because he was costing the station money. If sponsors had not pulled their money then Imus would probably still be on the air. Under the 1st Amendment, Imus has the right to make these comments, no matter how distasteful they were. However, in the same way CBS had the right to fire Imus for costing them sponsors.
Kristeena Winkler
A couple of months ago, one of my friends let me look at pictured his cousin took in Iraq. They were filled with bloody bodies; men, women, and children. It was stomach curling. So, when Tuesdays speaker was getting his slide show ready I was preparing myself for the worst. Although, his pictures were nothing compared to the ones I saw, I was glad he included them for the other classmates to see. It’s easy to get lost in the numbers when it comes to causalities, but actually seeing a dead human being covered in blood makes it a reality.
The one thing that I did not agree on was when he said that we have to fight the enemy before they attack us on American soil. I do not totally agree with that statement. If we held that to be true, we would be in every other country in the world. We have enemies EVERYWHERE. Why aren’t we tracking them down and invading their countries? Why just Iraq? And if I’m not mistaken, the men that were responsible for 9/11 were from Afghanistan.
As far as Imus goes, I do not think what he said was right and he should have been fired. But Howard Stern is more over the top and controversial. And the mere fact that these sexist, racist, old men are making millions of dollars makes my blood boil. I still can’t get over the fact that people still listen to Stern. Who wants to hear women having organisms and him exploiting retarded people? What is wrong with this society that lets a man like that influence society????
I was left with two main ideas that I took away from the presentation on Tuesday. Both of the speakers were very objective, and didn’t seem to stray much from the facts; the obvious exception was when they discussed their individual definitions of combat, but the official definition of combat seems pretty ambiguous as it is. Regardless, this was an excellent factual presentation rather than propaganda for or against the war. Earlier this year sometime, there was a film viewing for a documentary made by an American entrepreneur who made his way into Iraq in late 2003 with fake media credentials and spent some time both independently and entrenched with the military. These two presentations have been very eye-opening, and are really the only objective presentations about the war that I have had the opportunity to see.
Like Jared, I’m also a bit stuck on the statement by Captain Gilbert, supported by Cadet Ellis, that the draft is likely imminent. Being thousands of miles away from Iraq with a rather large ocean in the way, the Iraq war, tax dollars and friends in the military aside, doesn’t have too much of an effect on my everyday life. Being a 21 year old male, however, the possibility of the re-institution of the draft has potentially massive implications on me personally. I think it would certainly prove just how much we really care about this war. It’s easy to put a yellow ribbon sticker on the back of your car, and wave the flag, and call for staying the course for the sake of freedom. Of all of the people who do that (never mind everyone who DOESN’T support the war), how many are willing to go the extra mile and be willing to be conscripted into service to be sent off to actually go fight for that?
The potential for a draft also brings back the debate of women in the military. Just because women aren’t eligible for combat positions, does that mean they should be ineligible to be drafted for any other position? Captain Gilbert stated the obvious, that the draft age demographic is the most expendable subset of society. If we’re really all about being equal here, is there anything that makes women more or less expendable than men? I’m inclined to propose that women who call for equality in pay and work conditions be the same ones demanding that the folks in Washington make the draft equal in regards to gender.
Please don’t kill me for that last sentence!
It sucks that I'm posting late because I was looking forward to defending Imus some more.
Anyway, I thought the speakers were spectacular. I wish the media would focus more on the good things our military is doing in Iraq instead of the bad. In my mind the humanitarian stuff is what is really going to make a difference. I watched 60 minutes on Sunday and they interviewed some Iraqi civilians. These people are having to wait for days just to put gas in their car and they are fleeing the country in droves. The whole situation is horrible, but I do not feel that a withdraw is the answer.
As far as general combat goes I agreed with Captain Gilbert that unless you are "engaging the enemy"(heard that on the History Channel), then you are not in combat. And I still have mixed feelings on whether or not women should be in those roles.
I, like many other classmates, felt a little tremor when the draft came up. I have jokingly said that I would move to Canada, but honestly I will probably never be faced with the dilemma. I'm almost over the age and frankly I find my self more and more useful everyday. But, my 5 year old son is not very useful yet and he will be 18 before I know it. My unborn son should be making his way into the world any day now and he will probably be just the right age when we have to go kick ass somewhere else. I worry about them being drafted. Not that I am anti military, or even anti draft, I am just a firm believer in a volunteer military. If you can't get enough people to volunteer to protect the country, then they don't deserve to be protected. If my children grow up to be front line combat soldiers, then fantastic, but I want them to do it on their own accord, not simply because at 18 they are dispensable in the eyes of Washington.
However, I am not idealistic, things are not going to get better. World peace is a myth and I don't think it would make for very interesting History books or Discovery Channel Documentary's anyway. So we are probably going to have to buck up and get used to being in places some people don't think we should be. Somebody is going to have to pay for the shit colonialism did to the world and right now it's us, and hell, we didn't even colonize that many people.
As far as Imus goes, what can I say, I hope the man finds a happy home on satellite radio. I have to question the wisdom of firing him though. Was it because of money? It seems to me that the listeners CBS will lose by ousting Imus will be even more of a financial lose than what the sponsors were pulling. I mean they could have given it a month tops and sponsors would have been right back in there ready to pay up. I mean shouldn't it be listeners come first sponsors second? Otherwise why would anyone want to advertise on a show nobody listens too?
Cameron
I also really enjoyed the guest speakers we had in class-- two individuals that I do not know personally, yet still esteem and hold great respect for. I personally feel that no matter your opinion on the war, or what gender a soldier may be, when it comes to the issue of soldiers-- ones that are serving for our country and ultimately for us-- such demands respect and appreciation.
I agree with Leslie that I wish the female soldier would've had the opportunity to speak a bit more. I felt like the male soldier was at times trying to answer her questions for her, however, this may just be the leader in him coming out.
The slideshow the soldier presented made me even more appreciative of our soldiers--- I know I wouldn’t have wanted to see the scenes in those pictures every day. I also found it very interesting to hear Mr. Gilbert talk about how soldiers had to be so cautious with the children and how the children could be the ones “spying” for family members and others who may want to cause destruction. One has to use a lot of caution and pretty much be watching and be paranoid everywhere you go, which is somewhat sad but none-the-less, what must be done.
Overall, no matter how much we try to ignore it or disagree with it, the guest speakers were a good reminder that war is still going on and people’s husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters and friends are still overseas serving for our country.
First of all I apologize for my post being late, I concentrated all weekend on the research paper and just forgot about the blog posting.
I felt that the guest speakers were amazing and they presented their information with as little bias or slant as one could ever hope. I do feel like we, as a class, were a little too eager to have animosity towards the soldiers because of our views about the war and that is really a shame. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between good soldiers and bad policy, but we really must try. Both presenters were willing to put their lives on the line to protect yours and mine, and regardless whether we think the war is effective, morally right, or wrong, they were still facing the same mortal consequences that heroes in World War II faced.
Another interesting part of the discussion was the disagreement between the two about the nature of combat. The platoon leader felt that combat was actively engaging the enemy, hunting them down, and killing them. The female soldier felt that if someone is shooting at you, bullets are flying overhead, and your life is in danger, then you are in combat. Both presented interesting arguments to back up their opinions and I will have to say I have mixed feelings on the issue. There is obviously a difference between briefing flight crews on potential targets and then hunting down insurgents and killing them, but if both come under fire it is hard to say that is not combat.
Also, the platoon leader cleared up a lot of issues I had with the subject of women in the military when he talked about the psychological aspects of witnessing a female soldier become a casualty. He said that the sex of the soldier had no effect on how he viewed the casualty. This is probably because, being an officer, he has been through rigid training in how to deal with situations like that and he also seems like he is a pretty level headed guy. However, he brought up some interesting counterpoints. Some men, in fact he insinuated that a large portion of soldiers, would react differently or extremely negatively to women casualties. He and the cadet both said that some male soldiers tend to be overprotective of their female counterparts, and so that raises the question of whether or not female soldiers could lead to a detrimental effect on the unit as a whole. Furthermore he agreed that there is a perception that insurgents could target women more because they may believe they would be easier targets or would cause more psychological harm to the unit. I guess my feelings toward that issue is that if a strong enough correlation can be made that the presence female casualties are extremely detrimental to the strength of a military unit as a whole, then it is not practical to have them serve a combat role. On the other hand, while the idea of the front lines are changing on the battle field and training programs could overcome stereotypical responses to female casualties by male soldiers, then women should be allowed into combat roles in the military if they are able to undergo the same training as men. All in all, after the discussion by the two soldiers I feel more confident about the role of women in the military and I even feel that able-bodied females should be allowed into combat roles.
I really liked that his presentation really showed how life really is in Iraq, the news only shows you so much and it never shows us of little kids dying in the streets or how terrible the conditions are for the Iraqi people. Usually I have a hard time keeping focus in class because of my long-time issue with A.D.D. but they had my attention, which is really a good thing.
It bothers me that women cant move up in the military but are given equal pay with men. Something should obviously be done about this. I mean why can’t a woman be in combat? Aren’t they in combat when their truck gets blown up? Aren’t they in combat when they go on humanitarian trips and someone shoots at them? But then if they opened up the daft I’m not going to lie, I would probably shoot myself in the leg or move to Canada. I’m in no way made for the military; my parents would also say so.
The whole Imus thing for me is yes there’s the whole double standard and since he’s not African-American its like he has no right to say the things that he said. But here’s my thinking, he might be a rude and crude man but that’s the way he is. Not everyone on this planet is going to like him and like what he says. I mean not everyone likes Howard Stern but he’s still around doing his thing, being crude and rude. They both like making money off of it. He’s a human being and he may not be sorry for the whole comment that was said, but people make mistakes and I know for a fact I say things that are mean and offensive sometimes and I don’t really realize it until someone is upset by it later. No I’m not sitting here standing up for him, I’m just sitting here typing what pops into my head, I mean that’s the reason for the blog right?
sorry my blog was so late, getting the research paper done consuming my entire brain :D
Post a Comment