Rememberance Day
Jayne Kulikauskas
The spin on Rememberance Day in one of the Toronto papers was a "where
are they now" article about veterans in a nursing home. And since
women have to get equal time, there was an entire companion article
about how noble and wonderful it was that the veterans' wives visit
them in the nursing home. This reasonably could have been expressed
as a paragraph in the other article, but then the Rememberance Day
feature would have been focussing on men and that is apparently a
taboo.
This whole "equal time" approach is especially inappropriate for this
occasion. It was mostly men who went to war and even the women in the
armed forces were kept from combat as much as possible. It was mostly
men who faced the stink and noise and horror. It was mostly men who
were killed or maimed in body or spirit. It is mostly men and
characteristic masculine behaviour to whom we owe our current
freedom. Why can't we talk about men more than women on even one day
of the year? Can't we have a day to celebrate men and manliness
without having to qualify it with a "of course women are important
too"?
I remember and appreciate that many men risked and gave their lives to
protect our country. I am grateful for their courage, strength and
sense of duty. They were men who were behaving as men typically
behave, as heroes. And I am going to keep on remembering it, in the
face of media that either portrays men negatively or matches any good
said about men with saying something good about women.
--
Jayne
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Jayne, I suggest you talk to some military wives and military wives'
groups (which have been around since time immemorial and have nothing to
do with feminism) before you make another post like this one.
My mother is the wife of a disabled Marine, and I know a fair number of
military wives.
You've done them all a terrible disservice, and I expect that if you
were to speak these thoughts to any military husbands, they would shoot
you down fast.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
ni...@databasix.com
Some are tempted to think of life in cyberspace as insignificant,
as escape or meaningless diversion. It is not. Our experiences there
are serious play. We belittle them at our risk. Sherry Turkle
Jayne Kulikauskas
Why? I didn't say there was anything wrong with military wives. I just said
that I didn't want to give them equal billing with soldiers on Remembrance
Day. There are hundreds of other days in a year to talk about how great
military wives are. Why can't we talk about the heroism of soldiers
without a companion article about women?
--
Jayne
Peter J Ross
Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps the military husbands are more willing to give their wives
equal billing than you are. Perhaps they love and admire their wives.
>There are hundreds of other days in a year to talk about how great
> military wives are. Why can't we talk about the heroism of soldiers
> without a companion article about women?
THe article that annoyed you appeared in one local paper.
War veterans are commemorated in the press every year. One article in
one local paper about the loyal wives of surviving war veterans hardly
constitutes an attack on men.
And the wives in question are hardly militant feminists.
--
PJR :-)
Rhonda Lea Kirk
I didn't say you did.
> I
> just said that I didn't want to give them equal billing with soldiers
> on Remembrance Day.
But they deserve it, as do all those--male and female--who have suffered
through the horror of war.
> There are hundreds of other days in a year to
> talk about how great military wives are.
There are hundreds of other days to talk about how great soldiers are,
too, Jayne.
And we should. Regardless of how we feel about the way our governments
use our young people to further political agendas, soldiers have always
fought for those who remain at home, and they deserve remembrance every
single day of the year, along with the wives who support them (suffering
in silence, which is pretty much the credo of the military wife).
> Why can't we talk about the
> heroism of soldiers without a companion article about women?
Ask a soldier. He'll explain it to you.
It's all well and good to attribute the "equal time" thing to
politically correct feminism--in most cases. I do not agree this is such
a case.
There's a lot more to "remembrance" than what happened in combat, and
you have misunderstood the origin and purpose of "Remembrance Day."
Moreover, your understanding of who suffers in war is flawed.
Jayne Kulikauskas
> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:39:08 -0500, Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
[...]
>>> Jayne, I suggest you talk to some military wives and military wives'
>>> groups (which have been around since time immemorial and have
>>> nothing to do with feminism) before you make another post like this
>>> one.
>>>
>>> My mother is the wife of a disabled Marine, and I know a fair number
>>> of military wives.
>>>
>>> You've done them all a terrible disservice, and I expect that if you
>>> were to speak these thoughts to any military husbands, they would
>>> shoot you down fast.
>>
>> Why? I didn't say there was anything wrong with military wives.
>
> I didn't say you did.
>
>> I
>> just said that I didn't want to give them equal billing with soldiers
>> on Remembrance Day.
>
> But they deserve it, as do all those--male and female--who have suffered
> through the horror of war.
The contribution of soldiers (and these are primarily men) is unique. I
see nothing wrong with sometimes focussing on that contribution alone.
>> There are hundreds of other days in a year to
>> talk about how great military wives are.
>
> There are hundreds of other days to talk about how great soldiers are,
> too, Jayne.
>
> And we should. Regardless of how we feel about the way our governments
> use our young people to further political agendas, soldiers have always
> fought for those who remain at home, and they deserve remembrance every
> single day of the year, along with the wives who support them (suffering
> in silence, which is pretty much the credo of the military wife).
While I know that military wives face challenges, I find it hard to see
them as equivalent to risking and losing one's life and watching one's
comrades die.
>> Why can't we talk about the
>> heroism of soldiers without a companion article about women?
>
> Ask a soldier. He'll explain it to you.
Maybe that is what I need to do.
> It's all well and good to attribute the "equal time" thing to
> politically correct feminism--in most cases. I do not agree this is such
> a case.
I cannot rule out the possibility that I am being overly sensitive because
I am fed up with politically correct feminism.
> There's a lot more to "remembrance" than what happened in combat, and
> you have misunderstood the origin and purpose of "Remembrance Day."
> Moreover, your understanding of who suffers in war is flawed.
I do not have a lot of personal experience to draw on. (For which I am
very thankful.) I have served in the Canadian Forces Reserves but never
been in combat. I have never had a husband or father away at war. I don't
know enough about this to insist that I am right, but I am not convinced by
your claims either.
--
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
> In soc.men.moderated on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:23:13 -0500, Jayne
> Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:39:08 -0500, Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>
>>> My mother is the wife of a disabled Marine, and I know a fair number of
>>> military wives.
>>>
>>> You've done them all a terrible disservice, and I expect that if you
>>> were to speak these thoughts to any military husbands, they would shoot
>>> you down fast.
>>
>> Why? I didn't say there was anything wrong with military wives. I just said
>> that I didn't want to give them equal billing with soldiers on Remembrance
>> Day.
>
> Perhaps the military husbands are more willing to give their wives
> equal billing than you are. Perhaps they love and admire their wives.
It wouldn't surprise me. Men often do feel that way about their wives.
>>There are hundreds of other days in a year to talk about how great
>> military wives are. Why can't we talk about the heroism of soldiers
>> without a companion article about women?
>
> THe article that annoyed you appeared in one local paper.
>
> War veterans are commemorated in the press every year. One article in
> one local paper about the loyal wives of surviving war veterans hardly
> constitutes an attack on men.
An article about brave soldiers hardly constitutes an attack on women and
yet I have the impression that it is often treated as one.
> And the wives in question are hardly militant feminists.
Good for them. Seriously, I think it is wonderful these women are loyal
and supportive to their husbands.
--
Jayne
Peter J Ross
Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:23:48 +0000, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> In soc.men.moderated on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:23:13 -0500, Jayne
>> Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 07:39:08 -0500, Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>>
>>>> My mother is the wife of a disabled Marine, and I know a fair number of
>>>> military wives.
>>>>
>>>> You've done them all a terrible disservice, and I expect that if you
>>>> were to speak these thoughts to any military husbands, they would shoot
>>>> you down fast.
>>>
>>> Why? I didn't say there was anything wrong with military wives. I just said
>>> that I didn't want to give them equal billing with soldiers on Remembrance
>>> Day.
>>
>> Perhaps the military husbands are more willing to give their wives
>> equal billing than you are. Perhaps they love and admire their wives.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me. Men often do feel that way about their wives.
So where's the problem? Nobody is proposing a law requiring veterans'
wives to be given as much newspaper space as veterans. All that's
happened is that one newspaper has run a human interest story that
some readers of the paper might find interesting.
>>>There are hundreds of other days in a year to talk about how great
>>> military wives are. Why can't we talk about the heroism of soldiers
>>> without a companion article about women?
>>
>> THe article that annoyed you appeared in one local paper.
>>
>> War veterans are commemorated in the press every year. One article in
>> one local paper about the loyal wives of surviving war veterans hardly
>> constitutes an attack on men.
>
> An article about brave soldiers hardly constitutes an attack on women and
> yet I have the impression that it is often treated as one.
How have you formed such an impression?
>> And the wives in question are hardly militant feminists.
>
> Good for them. Seriously, I think it is wonderful these women are loyal
> and supportive to their husbands.
It's good that you and I sometimes agree.
--
PJR :-)
Jayne Kulikauskas
> In soc.men.moderated on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:43:20 -0500, Jayne
> Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> It wouldn't surprise me. Men often do feel that way about their wives.
>
> So where's the problem? Nobody is proposing a law requiring veterans'
> wives to be given as much newspaper space as veterans. All that's
> happened is that one newspaper has run a human interest story that
> some readers of the paper might find interesting.
Because this isn't "all that's happened". The fact that fighting and dying
for one's country is primarily a role filled by men is constantly being
obscured. It is not politically correct to acknowledge the heroism and
sacrifice of men unless we throw in a sop to women.
It is possible that in the case of this particular article I was wrong and
it was not part of this greater trend. I am nevertheless convinced the
trend exists and is very wrong.
[...]
>> An article about brave soldiers hardly constitutes an attack on women and
>> yet I have the impression that it is often treated as one.
>
> How have you formed such an impression?
I think that the Viet Nam War Memorial in the United States is a good
illustration of what happens when people try to acknowledge the bravery of
soldiers. It honours the over US 58,000 service people killed in the
conflict. This was felt to be inadequate to commemorate that 8 women were
among those killed. A separate memorial was erected for these women.
However, some still thought this inadequate, so another memorial which
involved commemorating each of the eight women separately was made.
Of course I am sorry those eight women died, but I am also sorry that tens
of thousands of men died. Why make so much more fuss about the deaths of
the women?
--
Jayne
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:37:41 +0000, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> In soc.men.moderated on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:43:20 -0500, Jayne
>> Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>> It wouldn't surprise me. Men often do feel that way about their
>>> wives.
>>
>> So where's the problem? Nobody is proposing a law requiring veterans'
>> wives to be given as much newspaper space as veterans. All that's
>> happened is that one newspaper has run a human interest story that
>> some readers of the paper might find interesting.
>
> Because this isn't "all that's happened". The fact that fighting and
> dying for one's country is primarily a role filled by men is
> constantly being obscured. It is not politically correct to
> acknowledge the heroism and sacrifice of men unless we throw in a sop
> to women.
Is the supply clerk who never sees action "heroic and sacrificing,"
Jane?
Think carefully about your answer. After all, he is still a veteran,
even if he spent the entire war behind the lines.
But in all wars, there have been women near the lines--nurses come to
mind. Does "Hot Lips" Houlihan strike you as heroic and sacrificing?
Until everyone wraps their minds around the idea that it is
*individuals*, regardless of sex, who are heros and who make sacrifices,
they'll still be sexist pigs, one way or another.
But if that idea is too difficult, ask a disabled vet if his wife is a
hero and has made sacrifices, Jane. Tell me what he says.
> It is possible that in the case of this particular article I was
> wrong and it was not part of this greater trend. I am nevertheless
> convinced the trend exists and is very wrong.
What about your trend, Jane?
Don't you think that's wrong?
> [...]
>>> An article about brave soldiers hardly constitutes an attack on
>>> women and yet I have the impression that it is often treated as one.
>>
>> How have you formed such an impression?
>
> I think that the Viet Nam War Memorial in the United States is a good
> illustration of what happens when people try to acknowledge the
> bravery of soldiers. It honours the over US 58,000 service people
> killed in the conflict. This was felt to be inadequate to
> commemorate that 8 women were among those killed. A separate
> memorial was erected for these women. However, some still thought
> this inadequate, so another memorial which involved commemorating
> each of the eight women separately was made.
>
> Of course I am sorry those eight women died, but I am also sorry that
> tens of thousands of men died. Why make so much more fuss about the
> deaths of the women?
Because the death of women in combat is unusual, as evidenced by the
fact that only 8 women died.
This has nothing to do with sexism, btw. It's a thing that people do
that doesn't make sense to some of us, but it happens all the time.
How often do you read a human interest story about someone who is born,
grows up, gives his parents little trouble, marries, has children and
dies at a reasonably advanced age after living a reasonably trouble-free
life? This is average, Jane (or at least was, at one time), so no one
really cares.
Now compare that with all the stories of recovered heroin addicts who
become school teachers or otherwise become "normal" after a very bad
early start.
Face it, dead women in war are more interesting than dead men in war
because there are so few of them, not because they're women. You can put
a face on 8 women. You can't put a face on 58,000 men in quite the same
way, but you can bet that the stories of many more than 8 dead Viet Nam
fatalities have been told. Should we have drawn the line at 8 because
there were only 8 women to balance them out? Is it all about the
numbers?
Didn't think so.
Don't be a reverse sexist. It's as unappealing as being a "male
chauvinist pig" or a "feminazi."
Jayne Kulikauskas
> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
[...]
>> Because this isn't "all that's happened". The fact that fighting and
>> dying for one's country is primarily a role filled by men is
>> constantly being obscured. It is not politically correct to
>> acknowledge the heroism and sacrifice of men unless we throw in a sop
>> to women.
>
> Is the supply clerk who never sees action "heroic and sacrificing,"
> Jane?
>
> Think carefully about your answer. After all, he is still a veteran,
> even if he spent the entire war behind the lines.
>
> But in all wars, there have been women near the lines--nurses come to
> mind. Does "Hot Lips" Houlihan strike you as heroic and sacrificing?
>
> Until everyone wraps their minds around the idea that it is
> *individuals*, regardless of sex, who are heros and who make sacrifices,
> they'll still be sexist pigs, one way or another.
What is wrong with saying that the overwhelming majority of people who are
war heroes are men? This is true in spite of some men not being war heroes
and the rare instances of women who are war heroes. It is true even though
people are individuals. Why is it sexist to make true generalizations
about the sexes? What is so virtuous about pretending these statistical
patterns do not exist?
> But if that idea is too difficult, ask a disabled vet if his wife is a
> hero and has made sacrifices, Jane. Tell me what he says.
I am 100% for women standing by their men. I have no problem with praising
loyal wives and recognizing their challenges and sacrifices. I'm sure they
have been very courageous in their own way, but it is not the same as being
a war hero. I just cannot understand saying what they have done is
equivalent to soldiers daily facing the loss of comrades, limbs and lives
under conditions of mind-destroying horror.
>>> How have you formed such an impression?
>>
>> I think that the Viet Nam War Memorial in the United States is a good
>> illustration of what happens when people try to acknowledge the
>> bravery of soldiers. It honours the over US 58,000 service people
>> killed in the conflict. This was felt to be inadequate to
>> commemorate that 8 women were among those killed. A separate
>> memorial was erected for these women. However, some still thought
>> this inadequate, so another memorial which involved commemorating
>> each of the eight women separately was made.
>>
>> Of course I am sorry those eight women died, but I am also sorry that
>> tens of thousands of men died. Why make so much more fuss about the
>> deaths of the women?
>
> Because the death of women in combat is unusual, as evidenced by the
> fact that only 8 women died.
Only one of those 8 deaths was from combat, a nurse who died from shrapnel
wounds. Most of the 8 women died in transport accidents.
> This has nothing to do with sexism, btw. It's a thing that people do
> that doesn't make sense to some of us, but it happens all the time.
>
> How often do you read a human interest story about someone who is born,
> grows up, gives his parents little trouble, marries, has children and
> dies at a reasonably advanced age after living a reasonably trouble-free
> life? This is average, Jane (or at least was, at one time), so no one
> really cares.
Well I object to the deaths of men in war being considered average and just
taken for granted.
> Now compare that with all the stories of recovered heroin addicts who
> become school teachers or otherwise become "normal" after a very bad
> early start.
>
> Face it, dead women in war are more interesting than dead men in war
> because there are so few of them, not because they're women. You can put
> a face on 8 women.
This is probably a factor but there is also an element of a reaction that
the death and suffering of women is somehow more deserving of compassion
than that of men.
> You can't put a face on 58,000 men in quite the same
> way, but you can bet that the stories of many more than 8 dead Viet Nam
> fatalities have been told. Should we have drawn the line at 8 because
> there were only 8 women to balance them out? Is it all about the
> numbers?
>
> Didn't think so.
Just because it isn't all about numbers doesn't mean we shouldn't think
about the numbers at all.
> Don't be a reverse sexist. It's as unappealing as being a "male
> chauvinist pig" or a "feminazi."
I do not see anything sexist, reverse or otherwise, about wanting to
recognize the contribution to society made by the heroism of soldiers while
acknowledging that the majority who have served with such heroism are men.
I do not see anything sexist about wanting to be free to say good things
about men without being obliged to accompany it with a positive comment
about women.
--
Jayne
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Okay, so now we're down to "every man who goes to war is a war hero,
regardless of whether he saw combat or not" but "any woman who goes to
war but dies in any way but actual combat is not."
Not every man who goes to war sees combat, not every man who sees combat
is a war hero. And, according to you, not every man who dies in war is a
war hero, because some of those guys die in transport accidents and from
disease too--just like those women.
Who in the hell are we honoring on Remembrance Day, Jayne? War heros? Or
all the damn people who made a contribution to the war effort?
As for your idea about making generalizations about the sexes, how about
this one: "Most perpetrators of domestic violence are men." How do you
feel about generalizations now? In point of fact, I don't happen to
believe that particular generalization--which is why I picked
it--because I define domestic violence as /any/ kind of abuse--mental,
physical, emotional or verbal--so I do not believe that men have the
corner on the abuse market. But when you run around making
generalizations, this is the utter shite you end up with.
I do not disagree with the general principle that the media feels some
bizarre need to "balance things out" between various groups who are
traditionally at odds, whether it be men and women, blacks and whites,
Arabs and Israelis and so on. That's a given. But in this instance, you
took a leap across a wide canyon, and much like Evel over the Snake
River, you didn't make the landing.
I'm not going to address some of the stuff you wrote above, because it's
absurd--grasping for straws--but I am going to tell you one more time
that article about the women who stayed home and held it together while
their men were gone does not mean what you want it to mean.
I can understand the frustration I see with your posts elsewhere,
because I feel the same frustration--you don't address the issue, you
swerve, you veer, you evade, you avoid. It's not possible to have a
discussion with someone who does that.
Viking
<jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Until everyone wraps their minds around the idea that it is
>> *individuals*, regardless of sex, who are heros and who make sacrifices,
>> they'll still be sexist pigs, one way or another.
>
>What is wrong with saying that the overwhelming majority of people who are
>war heroes are men? This is true in spite of some men not being war heroes
>and the rare instances of women who are war heroes. It is true even though
>people are individuals. Why is it sexist to make true generalizations
>about the sexes? What is so virtuous about pretending these statistical
>patterns do not exist?
Good for you, Jayne. You're absolutely right.
Jayne Kulikauskas
> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
[...]
>> I do not see anything sexist, reverse or otherwise, about wanting to
>> recognize the contribution to society made by the heroism of soldiers
>> while acknowledging that the majority who have served with such
>> heroism are men. I do not see anything sexist about wanting to be
>> free to say good things about men without being obliged to accompany
>> it with a positive comment about women.
>
> Okay, so now we're down to "every man who goes to war is a war hero,
> regardless of whether he saw combat or not" but "any woman who goes to
> war but dies in any way but actual combat is not."
If you are claiming that this is my position, then you have apparently
misunderstood me.
> Not every man who goes to war sees combat, not every man who sees combat
> is a war hero. And, according to you, not every man who dies in war is a
> war hero, because some of those guys die in transport accidents and from
> disease too--just like those women.
>
> Who in the hell are we honoring on Remembrance Day, Jayne? War heros? Or
> all the damn people who made a contribution to the war effort?
It would like to honour both. I would like to be able to say, without being
labelled a sexist, that most of the war heroes were men while women almost
always made other contributions to the war effort. And it would be nice to
be able to talk about male war heroes without being obliged to mention
women's contributions.
> As for your idea about making generalizations about the sexes, how about
> this one: "Most perpetrators of domestic violence are men." How do you
> feel about generalizations now?
As I recall, I speicfied true generalizations. This does not qualify.
> In point of fact, I don't happen to
> believe that particular generalization--which is why I picked
> it--because I define domestic violence as /any/ kind of abuse--mental,
> physical, emotional or verbal--so I do not believe that men have the
> corner on the abuse market. But when you run around making
> generalizations, this is the utter shite you end up with.
I checked. My exact words were: "Why is it sexist to make true
generalizations about the sexes?" Making false generalizations is wrong
*because they are false*. This does not mean that we ought never to make
generalizations. Do you have a problem with saying that, in general, men
are taller than women?
> I do not disagree with the general principle that the media feels some
> bizarre need to "balance things out" between various groups who are
> traditionally at odds, whether it be men and women, blacks and whites,
> Arabs and Israelis and so on. That's a given. But in this instance, you
> took a leap across a wide canyon, and much like Evel over the Snake
> River, you didn't make the landing.
>
> I'm not going to address some of the stuff you wrote above, because it's
> absurd--grasping for straws--but I am going to tell you one more time
> that article about the women who stayed home and held it together while
> their men were gone does not mean what you want it to mean.
I wonder how you can be so sure since you didn't read the article. Usually
a person who has read an article has a better sense of what it said that a
person who has not.
> I can understand the frustration I see with your posts elsewhere,
> because I feel the same frustration--you don't address the issue, you
> swerve, you veer, you evade, you avoid. It's not possible to have a
> discussion with someone who does that.
Since you apparently wish to change the subject to my writing style, this
may indicate that you recognize that you are making a very weak argument.
--
Jayne
Chris Barnes
> Why? I didn't say there was anything wrong with military wives. I just said
> that I didn't want to give them equal billing with soldiers on Remembrance
> Day. There are hundreds of other days in a year to talk about how great
> military wives are. Why can't we talk about the heroism of soldiers
> without a companion article about women?
On our homeschool forum you asked us to comment. So I will.
Jayne - you deeply offended both the wives of soldiers as well as the
soldiers themselves. You showed an incredible lack of understanding of
what it is to be a soldier and a soldier's wife.
I'll even make this personal:
As a former Navy sailor - you offended ME and you offended my wife.
And the offense is not just that you said it; it's that you believe it.
You need to seriously re-evaluate your beliefs.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
ch...@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay."
Jayne Kulikauskas
> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
>> Why? I didn't say there was anything wrong with military wives. I just said
>> that I didn't want to give them equal billing with soldiers on Remembrance
>> Day. There are hundreds of other days in a year to talk about how great
>> military wives are. Why can't we talk about the heroism of soldiers
>> without a companion article about women?
>
> On our homeschool forum you asked us to comment. So I will.
>
> Jayne - you deeply offended both the wives of soldiers as well as the
> soldiers themselves. You showed an incredible lack of understanding of
> what it is to be a soldier and a soldier's wife.
>
> I'll even make this personal:
> As a former Navy sailor - you offended ME and you offended my wife.
>
> And the offense is not just that you said it; it's that you believe it.
> You need to seriously re-evaluate your beliefs.
I apologize for my lack of understanding and for giving offense.
--
Jayne
Mark Borgerson
jayne.ku...@gmail.com says...
There are a few things we should clarify on this subject:
1. Remembrance Day in Canada is a bit different from Veterans Day in
the US. While the Canadian holiday is dedicated to veterans who died
in time of war , the US holiday is dedicated to all veterans, both
living and dead.
2. As a journalist doing a story for Remembrance Day, your sources
are pretty limited. It's difficult to get first-hand accounts of
the life and death of a soldier or sailor. It can be difficult to
track down unit members who knew the deceased vet, and you, obviously,
can't interview the veteran himself. That leaves the journalist
with family members as the primary source of information. Whether
the resulting story is about the veteran or about the family is
both a matter of reader perception and journalistic spin.
3. US journalists doing stories for Veterans Day can interview living
veterans. However, when they do, they usually find out that the
veterans are very reluctant to talk about the details of their wartime
experiences and are particularly reluctant to discuss fallen comrades.
My father never named any of the men in his unit who died when he
served with the OSS in Burma in WWII. He discussed only very briefly
the day-to-day life behind Japanese lines. Getting enough information
from him or his comrades would be like pulling hen's teeth. The only
journalists to get much information were men who actually served there
or in similar circumstances. There aren't a lot of those left with
WWII experience.
4. Today, it's hard to find living vets from WWII. It's easier to
find Vietnam era vets here in the US, but their stories are often
pretty grim---both in their wartime experiences and in their perception
of the public reaction when they returned from the war. As a result,
you don't see many feel-good stories about Vietnam era vets. For
each surviving WWII veteran, there are probably 3 to 5 family members
to interview (wives, children, brothers and sisters). Of course you
may have these same people to interview about deceased vets.
5. Less than 10% of the US population are veterans.
and only about 20% of the surviving veterans served in WWII.
A WWII vet who served at age 18 in 1944 would be 81 years old
now. That's an age group where it is probably a lot easier to
interview a surviving spouse, brother, or sister than the veteran
himself.
Mark Borgerson
Viking
to say than you're "deeply offended" without arguing rationally, you
might as well not say it at all.
Peter J Ross
<no...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote:
> Oh come off it, fool.
If I called somebody a "fool" for disagreeing with me, I'd expect my
post to be rejected in a moderated newsgroup.
> Jayne is right. And if you have nothing better
> to say than you're "deeply offended" without arguing rationally, you
> might as well not say it at all.
If you have nothing better to say than "Jayne is right" without
supporting your assertion, you might as well not say "Jayne is right"
at all.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:37:41 +0000, Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> In soc.men.moderated on Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:43:20 -0500, Jayne
>> Kulikauskas <jayne.ku...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>> It wouldn't surprise me. Men often do feel that way about their wives.
>>
>> So where's the problem? Nobody is proposing a law requiring veterans'
>> wives to be given as much newspaper space as veterans. All that's
>> happened is that one newspaper has run a human interest story that
>> some readers of the paper might find interesting.
>
> Because this isn't "all that's happened". The fact that fighting and dying
> for one's country is primarily a role filled by men is constantly being
> obscured.
I haven't read any claims that it's a role primarily or comparably
filled by women.
There are other sacrifices than the sacrifice of one's life "for King
and Country".
For instance, I can imagine that remaining loyal to a husband who was
away fighting a war could involve some sacrifice - and a particularly
unpleasant kind of pain every time the postman arrived, potentially
bringing a notice of death. Soldier's wives deserve credit for their
virtues too.
> It is not politically correct to acknowledge the heroism and
> sacrifice of men unless we throw in a sop to women.
Why is the wife waiting at home, terrified but patient, not heroic?
> It is possible that in the case of this particular article I was wrong and
> it was not part of this greater trend. I am nevertheless convinced the
> trend exists and is very wrong.
I see a trend for both men and women, both comabatants and
non-combatants, both the too-old and the too-young to fight, to be
mentioned in newspapers and books. Why is this wrong? Is Homer wrong
to give Hector's wife Andromache and their baby one of the biggest
scenes in the Iliad?
"Human interest stories" seem to me not to changed much since the
beginning of history.
> [...]
>>> An article about brave soldiers hardly constitutes an attack on women and
>>> yet I have the impression that it is often treated as one.
>>
>> How have you formed such an impression?
>
> I think that the Viet Nam War Memorial in the United States is a good
> illustration of what happens when people try to acknowledge the bravery of
> soldiers. It honours the over US 58,000 service people killed in the
> conflict. This was felt to be inadequate to commemorate that 8 women were
> among those killed. A separate memorial was erected for these women.
> However, some still thought this inadequate, so another memorial which
> involved commemorating each of the eight women separately was made.
So is your argument that the 58,000 men should be honoured more, or
that the eight women should be honoured less?
I was unaware that *any* American women were killed in Vietnam. Thanks
for drawing their bravery and sacrifice to my attention.
> Of course I am sorry those eight women died, but I am also sorry that tens
> of thousands of men died. Why make so much more fuss about the deaths of
> the women?
I don't see the "fuss" you see. For most people in 2007, I don't think
the "men v. women" issue is important. Most of us see people as
people, unless the reproductive urge is involved.
--
PJR :-)
Rhonda Lea Kirk
He isn't required to argue it rationally, nor is he a fool. He is a
military husband and a vet, and he has earned the right to be offended.
Show some respect.
rl