In order to understand the rhetoric about women in direct combat, I want to address the verbiage used to define what "direct combat" is, how "risk" is applied to the occupational specialties within the military branches, and whether or not these are adequately applied in a neutral manner.
As I developed my course discussion document, I realized that those who make the cases for and against women in direct combat take a political stand or a "boots on the ground" stand. Within even those conversations, there are overt and covert definitions applied by commanders down to squad leaders as they attempt to determine what, or where, the line is drawn. Terms like "collocated," "unit-level," "readiness," and "mission" may create pigeon holes or loopholes, depending on the level at which the dialogues are taking place.
Through dissection of the language, the ethical and societal implications should be apparent. However, I want to keep the main focus on how the rhetorical aspects of full integration hinder or help in placing women in what the military (and society?) consider male combat roles.
Lancia - interesting! My feedback will reflect that I am still not 100% certain about this assignment and am trying to clarify through your post. :) So, your overall argument within this dialectic is how specific language prevents (?) women from being accepted/comfortable/included in what is traditionally a male-dominated environment. Is that right? And you will use the use of this specific vocabulary to explore how that environment is either helping or hindering this inclusion?
ReplyDeleteThanks for agreeing to postpone your presentation until next week. I know you worked hard on it, but sharing it next week will give you the chance to make connections to both Renaissance and Enlightenment thinking that could relate to women in combat well. That may be useful for your presentation as well. Be mindful not to have too many voices in this dialectic, however. You might show more by going in depth than by demonstrating breadth. I look forward, Lancia, to seeing what you come up with!
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting topic. I remember when I was in ROTC in college I kept looking up AFSCs that I was interested in and they turned out to be positions that women couldn't apply to, such as ALO. So for me it's difficult to find that line between these special forces positions and the direct combat that women face in their everyday positions when they are deployed.
ReplyDelete