Attention! I Stand Corrected... a little
Dec. 6th, 2006 08:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eumeliaRobbie brought to my attention that fact that I let ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hagar_972 get the last word on this post, thus making her the winner of the argument.
Thinking about this further (since I dislike being shown up and made to rethink my positions), I've come to realize that yes, in that argument,hagar_972 did stump me, because her points were correct and presented in a way that really brooked no argument.
It's also due to the fact that on the actual points she and I really do agree, in the majority of the Army “gender is not an issue and differential treatment is nonexistent or frowned upon.” (quoted from this comment), because the a huge, massive and indeed major part of our Army is not the combat soldiers, but us guys who provide everything else for the Combatants.
I had an exceptional service, where I felt I really contributed and was proud to serve my country (this lessened with time, as it often happens when you're disgruntled with who you are and find yourself afraid of the real world because you've been cloistered in the “comfortable” conformity of the military for two years... though that could just be me).
But our unit and other “egalitarian” units are special and despite, as mentioned, “gender is not an issue”, that isn't true in the strictest sense.
hagar_972 is right, I did exaggerate in the aforementioned post, but in a company (and the Army is an economic entity and company) where the higher you go, the more men you get, then they're standing on a glass ceiling. Are there women in the higher ranks, sure, but how did they get there “They were bitches” or a rumor I heard about the Army Spokesperson, who is if I'm not mistaken, the highest ranking woman currently serving in the Army, I heard her called a real Working Girl and yes it was said in English in a Hebrew conversation.
Bitch and Whore, what every strong woman in the world is called when she shows power over men.
Andhagar_972 replies: “Only proves that women are, on average, smarter than men, if you ask me ;) to the fact that there are more male officers than female, yes it does, it proves that they, the women, know that there is no long term future in the Army, unlike the men, who can go on until they retire in the Army.
It smacks of corporate sexism and it goes on beyond the Army into other walks of life.
That's what I wanted to say and to thankhagar_972 for bringing me down a notch.
Thanks m'dear :)
hagar_972 get the last word on this post, thus making her the winner of the argument.Thinking about this further (since I dislike being shown up and made to rethink my positions), I've come to realize that yes, in that argument,
hagar_972 did stump me, because her points were correct and presented in a way that really brooked no argument.It's also due to the fact that on the actual points she and I really do agree, in the majority of the Army “gender is not an issue and differential treatment is nonexistent or frowned upon.” (quoted from this comment), because the a huge, massive and indeed major part of our Army is not the combat soldiers, but us guys who provide everything else for the Combatants.
I had an exceptional service, where I felt I really contributed and was proud to serve my country (this lessened with time, as it often happens when you're disgruntled with who you are and find yourself afraid of the real world because you've been cloistered in the “comfortable” conformity of the military for two years... though that could just be me).
But our unit and other “egalitarian” units are special and despite, as mentioned, “gender is not an issue”, that isn't true in the strictest sense.
hagar_972 is right, I did exaggerate in the aforementioned post, but in a company (and the Army is an economic entity and company) where the higher you go, the more men you get, then they're standing on a glass ceiling. Are there women in the higher ranks, sure, but how did they get there “They were bitches” or a rumor I heard about the Army Spokesperson, who is if I'm not mistaken, the highest ranking woman currently serving in the Army, I heard her called a real Working Girl and yes it was said in English in a Hebrew conversation.Bitch and Whore, what every strong woman in the world is called when she shows power over men.
And
hagar_972 replies: “Only proves that women are, on average, smarter than men, if you ask me ;) to the fact that there are more male officers than female, yes it does, it proves that they, the women, know that there is no long term future in the Army, unlike the men, who can go on until they retire in the Army.It smacks of corporate sexism and it goes on beyond the Army into other walks of life.
That's what I wanted to say and to thank
hagar_972 for bringing me down a notch.Thanks m'dear :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 07:43 pm (UTC)About the higher ranks things... Can't argue about the details: in any large oraganization other than the - ugh, not State Atorney -פרקליטות המדינה, what's that in English? - anyway, in any other large organization, all the Higher Ups are men. (Or so many of them that it's as good as all.) That's definitely a sign of sexism, but pointing just at the IDF is just not correct: there's nothing military about that.
I want to be optimistic and say that that generation grew up when women still didn't have voting rights, but I know damn well that there are enough sexists of both sexes in our generation (and younger people) as well. Millenia of sexual conditioning can't be erased in a generation, or three.
What I originally meant by that comment, by the way, is that women tend to understand that military career is Bad For You: it's good for your pension, and it's really bad for anything else. Being a Military Person is not a Good Thing, in my opinion - and that's the real reason I didn't try for officer's course: medical issues aside, how I suffered in Uvda aside, if i'd have thought that it should be done, I would've at least tried.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 07:57 pm (UTC)That's definitely a sign of sexism, but pointing just at the IDF is just not correct: there's nothing military about that.
Sorry, I don't follow, what is the IDF if not military.
I think one of the problems in Israel is the paternalism that is abundant in every section of our society and the fact that everyone, me included, I accept the fact that I am as much a sheep as the next human, is we accept it as the status quo, no one really goes looking for solutions for the problem, which is (IDF specific and most likely other places, but I once again digress) the inefficacy in of the workers and the red-tape it is bird-nested in. The army has a ton of personnel, both male and female that don't want to be there and that could be of far more use to themselves and society in the private sector. I'm loathe to say this, but I think the Army has to become Professional (ala British, American or Foreign Legion) in order to be efficient. And yes that means longer service for those service, but better conditions, that also means investing in people which means time and money, that means giving the soldiers something they need (jobs, education, health care etc. etc. etc.)
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 08:20 pm (UTC)As for everything else... *shrugs* You're the World Changer. Me, I have a firm My People First stand.
And I think Profesional Army is a really bad idea, by the way, because when you go to war you need MASSES, and you don't get that from a profesional army. And unlike the US, we can't afford the time that an emergency draft takes. We have, like, twenty four hours.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 08:28 pm (UTC)To which I say... *grumble* yeah I know... boo
As for everything else... *shrugs* You're the World Changer. Me, I have a firm My People First stand.
The two are not mutually exclusive :)
And I think Professional Army is a really bad idea, by the way, because when you go to war you need MASSES, and you don't get that from a professional army. And unlike the US, we can't afford the time that an emergency draft takes. We have, like, twenty four hours.
But there is a huge need in an overhaul and big change in attitude to wards the way this institute treats it's people both sadirnikim and miluimnikim. Not to mention the way the total disregard to human life that happens in the שטחים - yeah I know I'm digressing.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 09:11 pm (UTC)At that time there were few, if any, large organizations which could take part in the creation of the country.
The army was given many, many jobs which are not part of the "military" defense of the country. (Nahal, Soldier-Teachers, many construction projects and so on)
The army was seen as the "final step" taken by youths before they became adults. Many an Israeli would be living in poverty/no education/crime were it not for the army "wasting resources" to lift that person up.
The slogan of the Education Corps is (loosely translated) "A nation builds an army builds a nation".
Now, you can say that the army is not efficient, but the army is not meant to be efficient. The army is supposed to defend the state. At the moment, the army is also supposed to be part of the great melting pot of Israeli society.
Many people (including some standing on the above mentioned glass ceiling) agree that the army should be professional.
It doesn't matter - the army will continue to enlist many people, some of whom are counter-productive, till it's basic aims are changed by the government.
If we take, for example, the human rights issue you raised in your last sentence, blaming solders for disregarding human rights, for example, in checkpoints is counterproductive.
You've got an 18 year old boy, who has trained for 9 months to be a lean, mean, fighting machine and is now busy checking that a little old lady's grocery bag doesn't have explosives in it.
Why is the army doing this police action? How does it fit in the definition of what an army does?
The army does what it's told to do. If you make a bear dance, don't blame it for dancing badly.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 09:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 09:25 pm (UTC)The army does what it's told to do. If you make a bear dance, don't blame it for dancing badly.
Is this a rhetorical question, I'm not getting what the counter-point of that statement is.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 09:34 pm (UTC)1. It's general attitude to the soldiers serving.
2. Human rights.
What I'm saying is that neither of these things can change as long as the the army is
1. A general conscript army.
2. Doing non purely military operations.
Since the army decides neither of those two points, the army cannot change by itself.
Change must first come by changing the definition of what the army does, and only then can the problems you raised be solved.
And yes, the army IS aware of these problems.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 09:42 pm (UTC)Who decides?
And yes, the army IS aware of these problems.
I don't doubt that, not one bit.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 10:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 10:03 pm (UTC)Them.
I dislike the government.
A lot.
Really. Much.
Reply?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 10:11 pm (UTC)What can I say?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 10:15 pm (UTC)They did break their promise to you...
Yeah I know, low blow... sorry.
But still dislike them with me? :)
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 12:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 12:45 pm (UTC)Like voting ever changed anything.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 12:49 pm (UTC)~Emma Goldman, anarchist and feminist.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 12:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-07 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 10:08 pm (UTC)I daresay that's the government's(specifically שר הביטחון) job.No?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 10:13 pm (UTC)And as I replied to
I dislike the government.
A lot.
Really. Much.
Reply?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 10:41 pm (UTC)I didn't say I like them, I didn't even say they were doing their job.But that *is* part of their job description- like it or not.Rebuilding the political system is *way* beyond my capabilities.
PS. could you delete the new thread I started by mistake?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 10:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 10:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 10:54 pm (UTC)Yeah, I know that's part of it's job description, part of it's job is also to make sure it's employees get payed (not happening at the moment) and to make sure the citizens are somewhat involved in what's going on. But, alas, it's not that way.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 11:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-06 10:50 pm (UTC)מבקר המדינה לא מסכים
Date: 2006-12-07 06:55 am (UTC)Re: מבקר המדינה לא מסכים
Date: 2006-12-07 08:02 am (UTC)