The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Challenging a paradigm https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9989 |
Page 1 of 1 |
Author: | Micheal [ Wed May 22, 2013 8:15 am ] |
Post subject: | Challenging a paradigm |
Interesting read. http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-art ... on-hurley/ When I was sixteen, I wrote an essay about why women should remain barred from combat in the U.S. military. I found it recently while going through some old papers. My argument for why women shouldn’t be in combat was because war was terrible, and families were important, and with all these men dying in war, why would we want women to die, too? That was my entire argument. “Women shouldn’t go to war because, like men do now, they would die there.” I got an “A.” section-break Valkyrie, art by anndr Valkyrie, art by anndr I often tell people that I’m the biggest self-aware misogynist I know. I was writing a scene last night between a woman general and the man she helped put on the throne. I started writing in some romantic tension, and realized how lazy that was. There are other kinds of tension. I made a passing reference to sexual slavery, which I had to cut. I nearly had him use a gendered slur against her. I growled at the screen. He wanted to help save her child… no. Her brother? Ok. She was going to betray him. OK. He had some wives who died… ug. No. Close advisors? Friends? Maybe somebody just… left him? Even writing about societies where there is very little sexual violence, or no sexual violence against women, I find myself writing in the same tired tropes and motivations. “Well, this is a bad guy, and I need something traumatic to happen to this heroine, so I’ll have him rape her.” That was an actual thing I did in the first draft of my first book, which features a violent society where women outnumber men 25-1. Because, of course, it’s What You Do. I actually watched a TV show recently that was supposedly about this traumatic experience a young girl went through, but was, in fact, simply tossed in so that the two male characters in the show could fight over it, and argue about which of them was at fault because of what happened to her. It was the most flagrant erasure of a female character and her experiences that I’d seen in some time. She’s literally in the room with them while they fight about it, revealing all these character things about them while she sort of fades into the background. We forget what the story’s about. We erase women in our stories who, in our own lives, are powerful, forthright, intelligent, terrifying people. Women stab and maim and kill and lead and manage and own and run. We know that. We experience it every day. We see it. But this is our narrative: two men fighting loudly in a room, and a woman snuffling in a corner. section-break The trouble is, it’s often hard to sort out what we actually experienced from what we’re told we experienced, or what we should have experienced. What is “realism”? What is “truth”? People tell me that the truth is what they’ve experienced. But the trouble is, it’s often hard to sort out what we actually experienced from what we’re told we experienced, or what we should have experienced. We’re social creatures, and fallible. In disaster situations, the average person will ask for about four other opinions before forming their own, before taking action. You can train people to respond quickly in these types of situations through vigorous training (such as in the military), but for the most part, about 70% of human beings like to just go along with their everyday routine. We like our narrative. It takes overwhelming evidence and – more importantly – the words of many, many, many people around us, for us to take action. You see this all the time in big cities. It’s why people can get into fistfights and assault others on busy sidewalks. It’s why people are killed in broad daylight, and homes are broken into even in areas with lots of foot traffic. Most people actually ignore things out of the ordinary. Or, worse, hope that someone else will take care of it. I remember being on the train in Chicago in a car with about a dozen other people. On the other side of the car, a man suddenly fell off his seat. Just… toppled over into the aisle. He started convulsing. There were three people between me and him. But nobody said anything. Nobody did anything. I stood up, “Sir?” I said, and started toward him. And that’s when everyone started to move. I called for someone at the back to push the operator alert button, to tell the train driver to call for an ambulance at the next stop. After I moved, there were suddenly three or four other people with me, coming to the man’s aid. But somebody had to move first. I stood in a crowded, standing-room only train on another day and watched a young woman standing near the door close her eyes and drop her papers and binder onto the floor. She was packed tight, surrounded by other people, and no one said anything. Her body began to go limp. “Are you OK!?” I said loudly, leaning toward her, and then other people were looking, and she was sagging, and the buzz started, and somebody called up from the front of the car that he was a doctor, and someone gave up their seat, and people moved, moved, moved. Somebody needs to be the person who says something is wrong. We can’t pretend we don’t see it. Because people have been murdered and assaulted on street corners where hundreds of people milled around, pretending everything was normal. But pretending it was normal didn’t make it so. Somebody has to point it out. Somebody has to get folks to move. Somebody has to act. section-break I shot my first gun at my boyfriend’s house in high school: first a rifle, then a sawed-off shotgun. I have since gotten to be pretty decent with a Glock, still terrible with a rifle, and had the opportunity to shoot an AK-47, the gun of choice for revolutionary armies around the world, particularly in the 80’s. I knocked over my first 200 lb. punching bag with my fist when I was 24. The punch meant more. Anyone could shoot a gun. But now I knew how to hit things properly in the face. Hard. Art by Michael Komarck Art by Michael Komarck The women in my family were hardworking matriarchs. But the stories I saw on TV and movies and even in many books said they were anomalies. Growing up, I learned that women fulfilled certain types of roles and did certain types of things. It wasn’t that I didn’t have great role models. The women in my family were hardworking matriarchs. But the stories I saw on TV and movies and even in many books said they were anomalies. They were furry, non-cannibalistic llamas. So rare. But the stories were all wrong. I spent two years in South Africa and another decade once I returned to the states finding out about all the women who fought. Women fought in every revolutionary army, I found, and those armies were often composed of fighting forces that were 20-30% women. But when we say “revolutionary army” what do we think of? What image does it conjure? Does the force in your mind include three women and seven men? Six women and fourteen men? Women not only made bombs and guns in WWII – they picked up guns and drove tanks and flew airplanes. The civil war, the revolutionary war – point me to a war and I can point to an instance where a women picked up a hat and a gun and went off to join it. And yes, Shaka Zulu employed female fighters as well. But when we say “Shaka Zulu’s fighters” what image do we conjure in our minds? Do we think of these women? Or are they the ones we don’t see? The ones who, if we included them in our stories, people would say weren’t “realistic”? Of course, we do talk about women who ran with Shaka Zulu. When I Google “women who fought for Shaka Zulu” I learn all about his “harem of 1200 women.” And his mother, of course. And this line was very popular: “Women, cattle and slaves.” One breath. It’s easy to think women never fought, never led, when we are never seen. section-break Art by Michael Komarck Art by Michael Komarck What does it matter, if we tell the same old stories? If we share the same old lies? If women fight, and women lead, and women hold up half the sky, what do stories matter to the truth? We won’t change the truth by writing people out of it. Will we? Stories tell us who we are. What we’re capable of. When we go out looking for stories we are, I think, in many ways going in search of ourselves, trying to find understanding of our lives, and the people around us. Stories, and language tell us what’s important. If women are “*****” and “****” and “whores” and the people we’re killing are “gooks” and “japs” and “rag heads” then they aren’t really people, are they? It makes them easier to erase. Easier to kill. To disregard. To un-see. But the moment we re-imagine the world as a buzzing hive of individuals with a variety of genders and complicated sexes and unique, passionate narratives that have yet to be told – it makes them harder to ignore. They are no longer, “women and cattle and slaves” but active players in their own stories. And ours. Because when we choose to write stories, it’s not just an individual story we’re telling. It’s theirs. And yours. And ours. We all exist together. It all happens here. It’s muddy and complex and often tragic and terrifying. But ignoring half of it, and pretending there’s only one way a woman lives or has ever lived – in relation to the men that surround her – is not a single act of erasure, but a political erasure. Populating a world with men, with male heroes, male people, and their “women cattle and slaves” is a political act. You are making a conscious choice to erase half the world. God's War by Kameron Hurley Buy God’s War by Kameron Hurley: book/eBook As storytellers, there are more interesting choices we can make. I can tell you all day that llamas have scales. I can draw you pictures. I can rewrite history. But I am a single storyteller, and my lies don’t become narrative unless you agree with me. Unless you write just like me. Unless you, too, buy my lazy narrative and perpetuate it. You must be complicit in this erasure for it to happen. You, me, all of us. Don’t let it happen. Don’t be lazy. The llamas will thank you. Real human people will, too. title artist Jason Chan Cameron Hurley Kameron Hurley is a Very Serious Writer who currently hacks out a living as a marketing and advertising scribe in Ohio. She spent much of her roaring 20s traveling, pretending to learn how to box, and trying not to die spectacularly. Along the way, she justified her nomadic lifestyle by picking up degrees in history from the University of Alaska and the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal. Today she lives a comparatively boring life sustained by Coke Zero, Chipotle, low-carb cooking, and lots of words. She continues to work hard at not dying. |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Wed May 22, 2013 9:58 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I don't think it's an either or situation. I don't think I have to be either be completely okay with women in combat or think women are expletives and whores. Things which are different cannot be the same. Men and women are different, physically, biologically, mentally, socially. I have issues with women serving in combat not because I don't think they are worthy individuals, but because they are worthy of being spared from it, especially when most of are our fighting is against an ideology that sees them quite different. Too me that's what true chivalry is: not limiting women because they can't, but protecting them because they are better than it. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way. At the end of the day, I'm not totally torn up about the prospect either, so as they know what they want to do and understand the risks. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed May 22, 2013 10:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
You'll respect women more by letting each of them do what they decide they want to do, including fight. |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Thu May 23, 2013 6:32 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Challenging a paradigm |
I understand that, Elmo. At the same time I'm still not comfortable with it. I guess I'd just rather didn't have to. Also I resent the articles implication that I'm a hater of women for feeling that way. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu May 23, 2013 9:21 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Challenging a paradigm |
There are arguments for and against women in various combat positions. None of them, however, are written in this article, which is written by a complete fool. No, we don't think of a bunch of women when we think "revolutionary army" because for the most part they didn't perform as actual infantry. When women have done so, like in the Soviet Union in WWII was out of desperation. When we hear about "200,000 troops" today, we think of "guys with rifles" or maybe driving tanks or in helicopters and jets. No one imagines the water purification, laundry and bath, mortuary affairs, or for the most part even the combat engineers, male or female. Obviously there's a big history of not seeing unglamorous support personnel as people either . |
Author: | RangerDave [ Thu May 23, 2013 10:48 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Michael - Just fyi, it would be helpful to put the article text in quotes. I thought at first that you were recounting your own writing experiences. |
Author: | RangerDave [ Thu May 23, 2013 11:07 am ] |
Post subject: | |
What are you disputing here, DE - the claim that significant numbers of women have been active combatants over the course of history, the idea that women generally get erased/ignored in our cultural narratives and storytelling, particularly when the narrative/story has a military context, or is there something else? |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu May 23, 2013 12:54 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
RangerDave wrote: What are you disputing here, DE - the claim that significant numbers of women have been active combatants over the course of history, the idea that women generally get erased/ignored in our cultural narratives and storytelling, particularly when the narrative/story has a military context, or is there something else? Well, first the claim that women have been "active combatants" in significant numbers. Generally, they haven't. They have sometimes been combatants. However women, in most of history, did not have the strength or lung capacity to be a good investment compared to a male warrior, and when populations were lower, childbirth dangerous, and birthrate important, women for the most part had to be at home. A society could absorb male casualties much more easily than female. As for women getting "erased" or "ignored" in our military storytelling, they only get "ignored" in the sense that we don't go out of our way to have "women's military history" month that especially celebrates them. That's because they mostly were in supporting roles, and the men in supporting roles don't get a lot of glamor either. Women who do make notable contributions generally do get recognized, such as Clara Barton. In some cases, such as Betsy Ross, or the more recent Jessica Lynch, their stories have actually been exaggerated. In the cases of revolutionary armies, these forces are frequently irregular in the first place, and move in and out of society to avoid being destroyed by a more powerful enemy. Society supports them; that's how they survive. It's easy to count 20-30% women because those women are everyday women surreptitiously supporting the revolutionary arm, just as many men do. The Viet Cong are a good example. There are a few examples of rare female fighters (Apache, for example) but for the most part the women laid booby traps, or acted as nurses, brought supplies, etc. They were part of the force, but the idea that they regularly carried rifles alongside the men are fictional. When she claims we don't picture "14 men and 6 women" in a revolutionary army, that's because we picture 20 guys with rifles, not the guys bringing them more bullets, cooking their chow, or carrying the wounded away. It's the same thing in the American revolution. There were some women fighters, but mostly they did supporting activities. The ones who were fighters are generally known by name, precisely because they were so unusual. As for her claims, again, they gloss over reality. Shaka Zulu had a harem of some 1200 women, true, but they were not some sort of fighting unit. The reason they come up in a google of "women who fought for Shaka Zulu" is that they were taken from a clan he destroyed; the Butezeli. They "fought with him" in the sense of their clan fighting against him, not alongside him. She googled this up real quick and doesn't really understand what she's talking about. Same with shooting guns and punching things. Lots of women can do this. She seems to think this makes her special somehow. Lots of men don't shoot or punch things. |
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Fri May 24, 2013 2:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Challenging a paradigm |
Rorinthas wrote: I understand that, Elmo. At the same time I'm still not comfortable with it. I guess I'd just rather didn't have to. Also I resent the articles implication that I'm a hater of women for feeling that way. I used to be there and the nature of man I find is to protect women so there is a part of me that still wants to be there. No implication of hating women, perhaps of putting them on a pedestal, or a pedal-stool as known in some IT subsets in the UK. |
Author: | Micheal [ Fri May 24, 2013 2:10 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
RangerDave wrote: Michael - Just fyi, it would be helpful to put the article text in quotes. I thought at first that you were recounting your own writing experiences. Good point RD, thank you. No, the work is not mine. I just found it interesting, and a little naive. I wanted to see what the rest of you thought. |
Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |