Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Spriggan on January 23, 2005, 12:47:27 AM
-
yep, SONY is going to be makeing it, with Zemeckis directing (castaway, forest gump). Though the most positive sine for the movie is Neal Gaimen co-wrote the script.
-
Wow, that sounds interesting. You have a link for info about it?
-
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/topnews.php?id=8021
Here's some info on the movie.
-
Unfortunately Beowulf has already been done.
No way any film can top 13th warrior.
-
Beowulf has dragons and beasties. 13th Warrior does not. The two aren't really related or am I missing something?
-
your missing something. ;)
-
13th Warrior had a strong basis in Beowulf, but the nitty-gritty details are plenty different and I think a movie could be good. Especially with a Gaiman script (and because I thought 13th Warrior had a lot of room for improvement).
-
actually, Beowulf HAS been done before (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120604/), and not as a reconception of it. It starred Christopher Lambert of Highlander fame
Also, it looks like there will be another one next year, but this one looks foreign (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402057/)
-
13th Warrior had a strong basis in Beowulf, but the nitty-gritty details are plenty different and I think a movie could be good. Especially with a Gaiman script (and because I thought 13th Warrior had a lot of room for improvement).
Just curious, not looking to get harangued or vehemently disagreed with, I simply want to get your perspective...
In what way did you think 13th Warrior had a lot of room for improvement?
-
Bringing attention back to my question for Fell.
-
I wonder about that too. I don't think 13th Warrior was the best film ever. It just didn't grab me enough. But I did really enjoy it and I thought it was a great film.
-
I admit that I've only seen it once, and I thought that it did have some cool elements. In general, though, I thought that movie was a little one-note. Maybe I just didn't "get it." I'm not saying it was bad, just that it could have been better--some stronger characters, and a little more variety between them; maybe some women. It seemed to me that most of the characters were the same: strong, honorable warriors who glare meaningfully at things.
-
Everyone should glare meaningfully at things as often as possible. I do it to pictures of Jessica Alba, mostly.
-
Ah. I see. You wanted it to have more "romance" elements. ;)
The fact that it didn't have more(any) women warriors in it was one of the high points for me. I can't tell you how sick I am of seeing the cliche "woman warrior" in films and books, fantasy and otherwise. I can handle a woman wizard magically duking it out and winning with a man wizard, maybe even a woman winning a stylized fencing duel with a man, but not a sword-swinger. It just doesn't reflect reality in any way, it's PC but that's all.
And to all you women who object I give the same offer I gave to the women in the literature class where I stated the same opinion: I'm a fairly small example of a male. Fight me. If you win, I'll concede the point.
-
Even though the averages for men/women strength and size are different, a woman who trains and pushes to be a fighter could do it - because most men do not maximise their strength potential. A woman who puts in the effort to do so could still be better than a lot (not all, or most) male fighters.
-
fortunately for us few do, and those that do are usually younger of middle sisters tired of being beaten up by their brawling brothers...
I have noticed that women who do fight are scarier in general, because they do things that guys wouldnt normally do, like go for the eyes.
Going back to the topic of 13th Warrior I liked that there were few women in it, because the beowulf legened has few women in it. The one prominant woman is half monster half woman, Grendels mother. After all the story really is one of Warriors and leadership, and not of romance. For romance you have to wait a few more centuries untill french troubadors invent it.
Yes Beowulfs men are manly vikings, but I think that by focusing on that as opposed to relationships was a good choice. I think your just not getting enough red meat and mead in your diet Fell, watch it again while eating a side of beef with a mug full of mead.
-
No doubt. I agree that a woman who maximised her potential as a fighter could probably defeat most mall-dwelling males. Stories like "King Arthur," and "13th Warrior" or "G.I. Jane" for that matter, are not about mall-dwelling males and inserting "Warrior Princesses" is PC silliness.
And, frankly, if you define "fighter" as someone who makes his living fighting, whether it be a boxer, or a run-of-the-mill marine infantry-man it doesn't matter how much the woman trains and pushes, she's not going to measure up.
Now, I'm not saying a woman who has trained and pushed would be useless on the battlefield. There are a thousand things a "warrior princess" could do to make herself useful on a battlefield. Short range archery, dashing and dodging along stabbing enemy warriors who are otherwise engaged in the kidneys or hamstringing them, etc... But the cold reality is that if she comes face to face with a male warrior she's going to get her skull caved in and if a male warrior sees what she's doing and decides to make her stop he's going to catch her and kill her in short order.
And the other aspect of that is that as she's dashing around trying to make herself useful all the males on her side are going to be distracted with trying to keep her safe and be less-effective themselves. And it doesn't matter how rabidly feminist she is at insisting that they treat her just like a man. It's not going to happen, humans aren't wired that way.
-
mmm... but Kiara Knightly Scar,...
-
I am hesitant to say that men are inherently more skilled fighters...skill in fighting is learned, and perhaps you could say that men have more experience fighting than women.
Strength also factors in, and most men are stronger than women. I think intelligence pays as much of a role as strength, and I wouldn't say that men are generally more intelligent than women. Confidence also plays a part. In this, I think most men are more confident in their fighting abilities than are women. That's in our society.
Skill being equal, I think a confident, intelligent woman would be a match for a strong stupid man.
-
Yeah, Skar, I don't agree with what you're saying here. Your premise is that because men are stronger on the average then women they're automatically better fighters.
when I studied martial arts, I asked once how best to block a powerful attack. My instructor said "don't be there." IE, when strength is brought to bear, sometimes usually your best option is not to respond directly with opposing force but just to move out of the way. Speed and coordination are at least as much a factor as strength and last I checked women aren't significantly behind men in that. Plus there's talent and skill. Even among trained fighters, the woman may have more talent and skill that could more than make up for a simple strength difference.
Sorry, i don't buy your argument.
-
Kije-
I find that to be a reasonable assertion.
Notice that it rules out nearly all of the situations where we find women fighting with/alongside men in fiction. (I can't think of any examples where it doesn't right now but surely there are some)
And the PC woman warrior gag has been done so many times that I greet any situation involving a "woman warrior" with deep suspicion.
What I would like to see is a film that treats the subject reasonably.
-
now, i'll concur that it's over used, and displayed wrong. A woman without some sort of supernatural or enhanced strength trying to block a mighty sword/club/axe blow from someone obviously bigger and much stronger than her should be knocked to the ground, and possibly, like in the RotK, have her bones broken by it. Because that woman doesn't know how to fight, and she'll lose because of it.
-
SE-
That's not my premise. I never said it was because men were stronger. It's a whole slew of factors, including that one.
I was serious when I made that challenge to the women in my literature class and I'm serious now. Still no takers.
Throw a woman into a battle, where most of the men can reasonably be expected to have some idea of what they are doing and she's going to die as soon as someone bothers to take care of the matter. Throw a woman champion up against a man champion and she's going to die.
There were plenty of women in different roles in the military while I was overseas and the principle I'm describing held true, both in hand-to-hand combat (theoretically) and general ability to perform on long, strenuous combat missions.
As for your martial arts axiom I agree with the principle you sited. On a battlefield, however, it doesn't work. Fade away and you've let the guy skewer your buddy.
However, I want to make clear, as I tried to in my previous post, that I am not saying a trained woman would be useless... Oh, just read the applicable post. My description of what a woman could do to make herself useful on a battlefield sounds an awful lot like a woman taking advantage of things other than strength, like you described.
-
mmm... but Kiara Knightly Scar,...
I can't stand that woman's face. I know it's just me but there's something about her upper lip...it looks like shes flexing it all the time, like she thinks that if she flexes her upper lip she'll look more serious or something...that alternately makes me want to punch her in the mouth and laugh derisively.
The rest of her face is fine. But that lip...
And her acting stinks. A confused pretty girl pretending to do things just doesn't work in very many situations.
-
ok, i misread a post about strength. Your "challenge," however, is severely flawed. How many women at BYU have had the sort of training that would allow them to remotely challenge even a woman of their own build who has been through the training you have? You would also be able to beat the males, thus not proving anything about the innately superior fighting ability of men over women.
Note that also most of those movies don't involve women fighting in formation either. Most of the warrior princess stories, with few exceptions, that I know of involve Conan-esque protagonists: Xena, Red Sonja, etc. I think also that your "protect the woman" example is culturally based, and it's easy to imagine many situations where that cultural baggage would not significantly factor.
In short, it's not hard at all for me to realistically imagine a woman who can beat most men she meets in a sword fight.
-
Real life experience in combat zones contradicts your opinion.
I too can imagine a woman who could beat most men she meets in a swordfight. I've neither met one nor even heard of one who even comes close in real life. There are more factors at play than the list we've come up with.
You're right about the challenge thing, it's mostly facetious in this setting. The discussion in the class stemmed primarily from a discussion on women in the military (a whole 'nother can of worms I have no wish to open here) and there were women in the class who were claiming they could do anything a man could do. I had only very recently joined the National Guard, no training to speak of, so the challenge was apropos. Incidentally, I have had almost no training in hand-to-hand fighting. The military does not like to spend money on that kind of thing for intelligence geeks, even when said intelligence geeks participate in combat missions alongside green berets.
As for the cultural baggage I think it's deeper than culture. The Israelis tried it in their military, women infantry units. They finally had to stop because of the effect I alluded to.
However, I don't see anyway to prove whether its cultural or not. I think it's hard-wired. You think it's cultural. Not really an issue.
But back to the strength issue. The advantages conferred by strength, even the strength difference between an ordinary man and an ordinary woman, are far more than just the ability to hit hard.
And no one mentioned endurance, another attribute where women are significantly weaker than men. If you've ever wrestled or participated in a full-speed Martial arts bout you know how big a part endurance plays.
P.S.
I reread and I discover something. I don't have an objection to a woman being presented as a great individual warrior. What I have an objection to is no one taking the time to explain why that particular woman went to the trouble to develop herself in that way. And said woman warrior winning her fights with male warriors who have gone to at least as much trouble as she without being smarter, faster, more confident, and more talented.
-
Thirteenth Warrior did perfectly what it was trying to do, which is--in my estimation--a fine way to measure the worth of a film. It did worldbuilding and society in a way that few action movies even attempt. So, I'm going to agree with Skar and say it didn't, in my opinion, need any sort of improvement.
That doesn't mean, however, that a true-to-text working of Beowulf couldn't be extremely different from 13th Warrior and still be very good. As has been mentioned, the movies would be very different, including such things as supernatural elements.
I actually think the framework is there. Despite Beowulf's general lack of action (if you actually look at it closely, most of it is filled with people talking about great deeds) it could make a very interesting story.
And as for women warriors...well, the average woman placed against the average man would lose. Add equal amounts of training, skill, or talent to either one, and the woman will always lose.
However, there are other factors as well. Put an African man against a European man in a similar contest, and the European will usually lose as well. Place a taller man against a shorter man, and the tall man wins (because of reach.)
Warriors have to compensate for their shortcomings, and find places in the fighting where they can capitalize on strengths. For women, this probably isn't--as Skar has mentioned--going to be on the front lines.
-
However, there are other factors as well. Put an African man against a European man in a similar contest, and the European will usually lose as well. Place a taller man against a shorter man, and the tall man wins (because of reach.)
I'll go with you on the taller shorter bit but...
Which Europeans are you talking about here? The Vikings who still rule the world (see some other thread I remember)? The Celts who stopped the Romans cold? The Germans who eventually conquered Rome and, in modern times nearly ruled the world twice?
Upon what do you base your conclusion?
-
I don't think there's really a disagreement then, aside from the culture/biology thing, which I don't think we can reach a rational conclusion with.
I don't have a problem with extremely talented individuals fighting as an individual. I always have a little bit of a start though when I read about them mixing with men in armies. Maybe that's because I'm not used to htem in real life, maybe it's because I subconsciously don't believe that would work. *shrug*
-
Psychology is part of it, there is a psychological advantage inherent in height and size. Once upon a time size mattered more than it did now in combat as well, but for different reasons than you might think. Usually the taller, stronger warriors were the nobility, they could afford to eat which allowed them to grow stronger and more powerful, they also were able to have enough leisure to seriously train for warfare. Combat was almost wholely muscle driven, bows, swords axes all take strength to wield. The English longbow had something like a 50-60 pound pull. Armor while actually fairly light can be heavy if worn in combat... just ask Skar how light his "light" kevlar felt like after an hour.
To some extent modern warfare has become easier and harder to fight. Without a combat pack and full load our troops are much lighter, and a bullet kills a small or big foe with ease. A big element of combat though involves logistics, there are just some things that a soldier needs, water, food, ammunition, protection and a weapon. The modern infantryman carries 80-120 pounds of gear depending on their mission. Most women cannot do that.
Some can.
On a one on one fight, if the man or woman were equally sized and with melee weapons, then the person with the most training will probably win.
-
The discussion has progressed far beyond my little comments, but I should explain myself anyway--I didn't say I wanted romance or a woman warrior, though it's interesting that you immediately assumed I did. There are plenty of other roles women can fill in society aside from lover and warrior princess--Beowulf has at least one, if not two (it's been a while since I read it) prophetesses, as well as a queen of some kind. They're not terribly active in the story but their presence lends a more complete, rounded feel to the story, and their words offer a counterpoint to the grunting and posturing of the men as they talk about their great deeds (though that point is arguable, since the story itself was presumably written by a man). When I said that 13th Warrior was "one-note," I meant exactly that--it's just a bunch of guys running around and killing things, and that's fine for a while, but I would have liked to see a fuller view of the world they lived in. This would have included more women.
-
Light Kevlar. Hmmmph. When I found out that the darn thing wouldn't stop an AK47 round, only pistol and shrapnel, I quit wearing it unless my "spider-sense" was tingling. Worked pretty well. I had it on every time I came under fire. Once, I put it on, everyone in the convoy followed suit and about two minutes later we surprised some Taliban who were not quite into their ambush positions.
Speaking of psychology and training, I agree with the summation
In a one on one fight, if the man or woman were equally sized and with melee weapons, then the person with the most training will probably win.
If it's agreed that alot of "training" is really just part of growing up. Tree-climbing, stick-swinging, brother punching, general physical confidence, mindset, etc...
I know lots of average "untrained" men and women and were we to pair them up to fight I think the men would all win.
-
The jibe about romance was just a jibe.
I'll admit that when you said there were not enough women characters I immediately thought of King Arthur, having recently seen it, which contains one really annoying and stupid token woman warrior character, which, of course, led to the whole discussion.
I didn't feel a lack in 13th warrior. Thanks for answering my question by the way. My response, aside from the jibe, was not meant to be a response to your answer.
However, I'd like to point out that 13th warrior had 2 prophetesses, a queen, and a maid, all with more than passing roles. They weren't the main characters but neither were the women in Beowulf.
-
Well, like I said, it's been forever since I saw it, and I've only seen it once. The impression I took away (of steely men with their steely swords) may easily have been wrong.
-
It's an interesting question from a feminist perspective: how do you do a better job of representing women in a story like this, without it becoming completely unbelievable? And if you expand the roles of the priestesses or queens, it changes the nature of the story sometimes, from action to more of a drama, perhaps, because you wouldn't usually have the women out in the battles.
If you've ever read any of Tamora Pierce's Alanna books, that's a good example of a woman warrior done well--at the beginning of the story, she's 11 years old and wants to become a knight, and switches places with her twin brother, who wants to become a magician. They go off to their respective schools, and the first two books of four delve into Alanna's challenge to keep up in her training, because she's so much smaller than her classmates. She's always the brunt of the bully, who breaks her arm once and nearly kills her another time. Pierce eventually solves it not only with Alanna working waaaay overtime to become stronger and have better reflexes, but also in a kind of Deus ex way, that because Alanna is smiled upon by the Goddess of the story, she is gifted with a magical sword (which actually doesn't live up to its promise, in my opinion, because Pierce is on a crusade to write about "women and girls who kick butt") and makes friends in odd places, who back her up in tight spots. Eventually, though, she becomes the woman warrior that has become what Skar now refers to as the stereotype.
I've talked about this before, how I think that this kind of weakens a true feminism (and by that I mean a feminism that promotes the quality and ability of women, not what some refer to as radical feminism). The feminism of the 70s and 80s often told women that to have power, they had to become men--a perfect example of which is the woman warrior that's become so prevalent in fantasy and historical storytelling. There's so much that can be emphasized about the strength of women in arenas other than physical strength, it baffles me why we have to insist upon women as warriors so often.
Yet--I do like to see a girl kick butt every now and then. I like it when it's done well and believably. I don't like it when it's overused, because sometimes it compromises the other roles in which women have great strength and talent.
I don't know if any of that makes sense. I say, if it's believable, go for it. I haven't seen King Arthur, so I don't know if I agree or not with Skar's opinion of it. In fact, I haven't seen the 13th Warrior, either. It's rather sad. Ever since I've been in grad school, my movie nights have gone down to practically nothing.
-
Both characters were represented in the movie though... and fairly well
The preistess is the old crone, who Beowulf asks about the symbol of the vendal. There is a queen, and she has a small part, in addition there is the norse woman who teaches Ibn Fatlan about how to fit in, in the culture.. Its hard to demonstrate a bigger womans role than that in the legend (and movie) of Beowulf because the people who do all the action are outsiders, and not part of the community, they dont travel with women, and they are all warriors. In fact their only purpose is to fight and defeat the vendel (grendel).
-
Boo. I go out to roleplaying and everyone has a interesting discussion! Jerks.
Skar, you have mentioned a cultural problem. Namely that male soldiers would leap to the aid of female comrades, getting themselves killed (this is the official explanation for no women in frontline units in the British army). I would point out that the Scythians had entire portions of their army being women. Including a light cavalry unit that used axes and was named the 'head hunters'. This, like slavery, is something that affects modern day people differently. To the romans, slavery was correct, it simply made sense. To us, its an abomination.
Though I will grant a couple points - firstly that protecting women is probably hard-coded in as part of the family raising behaviour patterns in humans, and that the cultures we are talking about - Romans, Celts, Vikings - probably had similar ethics on the issue to modern day soldiers.
Also, consider this: You were part of the US military, where a significant part of your time is spent training, being instructed on how to respond in combat situations, practicing with your weapons and so forth. I doubt the vikings spent nearly as much time. I am willing to bet that they did a few basic routines, maybe trained a bit on the longboats, but nothing close to modern military standards. Since their opponents most likely did the same, this meant that in combat the Vikings had the advantage of strength and endurance, having spent all that time hauling crap around on the longboats. Ergo, they won a lot. But if you have a 'warrior princess' who spends most of her time training, she could have a big advantage of training over her enemies. Someone who is smaller and weaker, but can swing her sword half again as fast and more accurately than you, is going to kick your ass. Practice makes perfect.
EUOL makes no sense with his 'African man beats European man' comment. That is simply the same as saying 'Europeans are smarter than Africans'. Say that, watch people fall over themselves flaming you. Though there is the fact that Africans tend to intimidate whites, especially in combat situations. And intimidated enemies are at a major disadvantage...
-
EUOL makes no sense with his 'African man beats European man' comment
Indeed I too would like a little supporting data for that one... it sounds ...
unsubstantiated...
-
I like your take on it, Stacer. In order for women to be strong and have power, they don't have to become men. My wife has told me several times that she's tired of stories about women trying to be like men, as, I suppose, am I.
Now, I'd disagree that this Alanna character turns into the stereotype I've been talking about, (from your description anyway, I've never read the books). Given reason and background for her becoming a warrior is what I want to see, as opposed to "well, she was there and she picked up a sword and now she's a match for any old male."
Working enough overtime to try and match the males in strength, who I presume were attempting to become stronger as well, would have caused some pretty startling changes in her physiology that would have helped her fit in with the men. Shrinking breasts, no more menstruation, etc... Did Pierce go into that? As for the reflexes, practicing overtime to get better reflexes than the males in compensation for the fact that she's not as strong and probably never will be is totally believable. Developing reflexes just takes practice.
And in the end I too like to see girls kick butt...believably.
-
Though there is the fact that Africans tend to intimidate whites, especially in combat situations. And intimidated enemies are at a major disadvantage...
I have read a book or two(literally) concerning the British army in Africa and while their winning consistently had a great deal to do with technological disparity I don't remember getting the impression that they were particularly intimidated by the Africans. The reverse seems to be evident in described feelings (suspect for who would admit to being intimidated by a savage) but also in the outcome of all those battles.
The intimidation of whites by blacks nowadays, IMO can be chalked up to A:fear of somehow being racist on the part of the whites and B:suburban whitey encountering people who he thinks are probably criminals and likely to resort to violence. Not at all the same thing happens when both parties are expecting to resort to violence, as in combat.
-
Now, I'd disagree that this Alanna character turns into the stereotype I've been talking about, (from your description anyway, I've never read the books). Given reason and background for her becoming a warrior is what I want to see, as opposed to "well, she was there and she picked up a sword and now she's a match for any old male."
That's true. It really does build it up believeably.
Working enough overtime to try and match the males in strength, who I presume were attempting to become stronger as well, would have caused some pretty startling changes in her physiology that would have helped her fit in with the men. Shrinking breasts, no more menstruation, etc... Did Pierce go into that?
Well, she gets her period in the story, and breasts, and she ends up wrapping herself flat and trying to disguise it, but the thing is that she couldn't have developed too much, or it'd be plain obvious. A girl like me, for example, with curves, really just couldn't be taken for a boy. So she had some physiological advantages, in that she probably had delayed development. Still had to deal with womanly issues, but conveniently didn't have it as obviously as another girl might. And Pierce does always describe her as small, so the amount of physical work probably would keep her tiny.
-
I'll go with you on the taller shorter bit but...
Which Europeans are you talking about here? The Vikings who still rule the world (see some other thread I remember)? The Celts who stopped the Romans cold? The Germans who eventually conquered Rome and, in modern times nearly ruled the world twice?
Upon what do you base your conclusion?
Well I know when it comes to running that statement is true. People of African decent have a different calf muscle the adverage European. There was an article in Science magaize that was about this last summer (I read it during one of my many waits at the mechanics becsaue of my Van).
-
I've heard of that as well but I don't think it follows for running, jumping sure, sprinting maybe, but running is cardiovascularly intensive, not leg muscle intensive. I am, however, reminded of the habit the Zulus had of stealing marches on the British by routinely running, I say again, running, 50 miles a day.
Doesn't apply to EUOL's, all things being equal stand up fight, though.
-
I read the first of the Alanna books in fifth grade, and thought it was pretty good. I quickly forgot who it was that wrote them, however, and never found the rest to read them. Don't know if I will at this point, but it's interesting to hear about the series.
In my earlier post talking about the stereotyped roles of women, I almost wrote "lover and tomboy (a woman who acts like a man)" but didn't because I couldn't find a good way of saying it; leave it to me to ignore a cool topic of discussion just for the sake of phrasing. Thanks for bringing it back up, Stacer.
The dual roles of lover and tomboy are interesting in that they are the easiest ways for men to relate to women, so we tend to think of them in those terms and force them into those archetypes in our writing. Trinity in the Matrix is a great example of this: she has no feminine qualities, and could be easily replaced with a man in every scene where she doesn't kiss Neo. She's the "ideal" partner for a daydreaming adolescent male because she's hot, but when you're not making out with her she beats up bad guys instead of getting all girly.
The other traditional role of woman in literature is that of the oracle: once again, prevalent in both The Matrix and Beowulf. The oracle (or the witch, if she's evil; same difference) represents the opposite of the lover and the tomboy--she is the woman that man can't relate to. She's mysterious, she knows things and does things and thinks things that are entirely alien to men, and is essentially a figure of both fear and honor.
Name virtually any old story, or any modern action movie, and the women in it are likely to fall into one or more of these roles. This began to change, at least in Europe, with the advent of the fairy tale as a storytelling medium ruled largely by women--here we start to see women and girls in active roles that did not require them to please, become, or mystify men.
-
I'll go with you on the taller shorter bit but...
Which Europeans are you talking about here? The Vikings who still rule the world (see some other thread I remember)? The Celts who stopped the Romans cold? The Germans who eventually conquered Rome and, in modern times nearly ruled the world twice?
Upon what do you base your conclusion?
I was simply referring to the African race's increased amount of fast twitch muscle fiber, which tends to make them better athletes. This may or may not actually make them better warriors, but it would probably give them an advantage if all other things but race were equal.
There are a lot of studies about it. I did a search for "black" and "Fast Muscle Fiber" and got a ton of results. Here's one:
http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php
-
This began to change, at least in Europe, with the advent of the fairy tale as a storytelling medium ruled largely by women--here we start to see women and girls in active roles that did not require them to please, become, or mystify men.
I'm interested in testing this out in my folklore class this semester, Fell. Of course, that will depend on whether we cover legend as well as folklore, I suppose. But I'd say folklore has roots that go back much deeper than even Beowulf, orally. Traditionally, from what I know from reading a book called From the Beast to the Blonde, it was the seat of woman power in tale-telling. A lot of the tales with powerful female characters were edited out of the folk canon, however, when men began dominating the folk tale scene--the Grimms, Perrault, etc. There are quite a few collections out there now that had been overlooked in the Grimm heyday because their female authorship rendered them less reliable, perhaps. What used to be controlled by the grandmother around the fire, the nurse or the aunt, that sort of thing, began to be controlled by men who published. This would be about the same time that fairy and folk tales began to be considered mainly children's literature, as well--because if it had to do with women, it was necessarily, in their minds, a child-like thing.
-
Back to the women in combat issue, here's an interesting article: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/01/26/us_women_get_closer_to/
What I'm curious about is, this law that bans women being in support units close to the front--does that include medical support? Because historically women have supported in medical units near the front for years--makes me think of MASH units, that sort of thing. Does that still happen, or are those sorts of units supposed to be all-male now?
-
It's an interesting question from a feminist perspective: how do you do a better job of representing women in a story like this, without it becoming completely unbelievable?
Let me start my comment by saying this: I don't think I'm "better" inherently than women. I think I'm better inherently than most people, but that's all people, and a result of ego, not gender. Also, I know many women who are better at a great many things. While I think gender has a lot of play in societal roles and capability, I believe this difference has been exaggerated historically. So.. basically, I'm not sexist
Also, I like and respect Stacy. I'm not trying to make her mad, I'm being totally serious, because the following question is something I'm completely mystified by in most strains of feminism.
But why is it a REQUIREMENT that women be represented in all stories? Why, specifically, do women need more representation in this particular story? I don't see any cause for it. On the other hand, you could also write a story where men don't need to be represented.
It doesn't seem self-evident to me that the genders being equal means that in every story both genders need to have a strong representation.
-
I'm not saying that. Stories like Master and Commander, for example, are fine the way they are, and there is only one woman in the ENTIRE MOVIE that even gets passing screen time. No women on shipboard, and the entire story involves the ship's voyage, I can see that. But it's very hard for me to identify with a movie if it seems obvious that women are in that world, but not included in the story. Makes it hard for me to believe the story, I guess, or at least hard to care about it? I don't know how to explain it. Anyone else better at explaining it than me?
-
MASH was entirely misleading when it came to the military. I know it has been hailed as "great" and so forth by many folks but the fact remains that it was a thinly veiled(Korea-VietNam, whatever) critique of the VietNam war by and for liberals who opposed it. And everything about the show was aimed in that direction, not only to say that VietNam was bad but simply to damage the US Military in as many ways as possible.
I personally am opposed to women in the military period, in support units or anywhere else OCONUS(Outside the Continental US). Jessica Lynch is a prime example of why. She was in a "support" unit. The only people who ever said (I don't think they really believed it, it was just politically expedient) women would be safe and capable of accomplishing the mission in "support" units as opposed to combat units were the people who had political axes to grind over the issue. And the danger to support units was just as high in WWI and WWII and Korea and VietNam as it is now. War has always been war and soldiers have always been fair game. The Israelis are a modern army who had a deliberate policy of female combat units. They did it the smart way too, not comingling male and female but with all female units. They found it was unworkable because of the effect I described in a previous post, that Eric described as cultural baggage. Whether it's cultural or not is immaterial in our reality. It's real and it gets more people killed and significantly lessens combat effectiveness.
As for the statement that females have been doing just fine in combat in Iraq, show me where and tell me how. I didn't see it in Iraq and I didn't see it in Afghanistan. Being exposed to danger is nothing like seeking out the enemy and engaging in combat.
Stacer(I'm not attacking you, you're just the only female in the conversation), can you honestly say you would be able to remain at peak effectiveness on a two week field mission where showers and toilets are totally unavailable, 16 hour days of frantic activity and two hour watches in the middle of the night are the norm, sweat and filthiness are all you can expect, that started a day or two before your period was due?
''They are able to bond with men or pick up and shoot an automatic weapon when that is necessary. They have no problem living hard in the field," Manning said. ''All those old excuses for why women can't be in combat are falling by the wayside."
As I said, I never saw women "living hard in the field." They lived harder than in the big air-bases out at the firebases but living "in the field" is as far from living at a firebase as living at a firebase is from living at home in the States.
As for picking up an automatic weapon, none of the women I ever trained with ever shot more than marksman, the lowest possible passing score on the rifle-range and half of those women had drill instructors or their male supervisors shooting down their targets from the next lane over. (they do this to avoid the vicious political flap that would arise from 50% female failure rates on the shooting range) I'm sure there are women out there who can shoot, it's just not the norm. How many women do you know who could drag a male soldier in full combat gear out of the line of fire? I never met any overseas. The women I worked with, back at the main air-base couldn't even lift a 240 machine gun.
Then you've got the whole Army Physical Fitness Test. It is designed to test whether a person is capable of performing in combat situations. The female standard is much lower than that for the males. Why? So they can pass, thereby accomplishing political/activist goals.
I will say this. If there had been a female on my team, who could pass the male PT test with 80% or higher (our internal standard), who could pass the marksmanship test, who overcame, somehow, the whole menstruation problem, who overcame the whole uncleanliness leading to infection problem, who had proven herself as mentally capable of performing the work and performing under stress as we all did (before the teams were formed), who could resist the temptation to play romantic head-games (the kind described in that article Stacer linked to), and (I'm not kidding here) could resist the temptation to cry when being forcefully rebuked, she would have done fine, there would have been no problems. But any one of those things I listed is, for obvious reasons, a deal breaker. I don't see that very many of those problems have been solved.
*Sorry for the length of this post.
-
Stacer(I'm not attacking you, you're just the only female in the conversation), can you honestly say you would be able to remain at peak effectiveness on a two week field mission where showers and toilets are totally unavailable, 16 hour days of frantic activity and two hour watches in the middle of the night are the norm, sweat and filthiness are all you can expect, that started a day or two before your period was due?
I never said I could. I've never had the health that would allow me to. I considered going to the Air Force Academy straight out of high school--my uncle taught there at the time--but decided against it for a variety of reasons, including disinterest and bad health (allergies and severe asthma).
I actually don't disagree with you on the combat thing. I just posted the article (of which I only read the first page) because it was interesting that the issue came up when we were discussing it here.
BUT--I was sincere about the support unit thing, and you didn't answer my question directly. Were there women in MASH units, in medical units in WWI and II, Korea, Vietnam, that sort of thing? Because the article says women have been outlawed from that for the last 10 years or so, but I was pretty sure that women nurses have been near the front in times past.
But I also believe that if a woman does have the health and stamina for it, her gender shouldn't be a bar to serving where she is capable. I don't honestly like the idea of mixed-gender combat units, though, and tend to think that if it were me, at least, I'd rather be in a support unit. And really, I'd rather be waaay far away from the front lines, too.
And then, of course, there's the question of the way warfare is changing with this current war--that there is no front. Which brings up complications that I'm not qualified to speak to.
-
I never said I could. I've never had the health that would allow me to. I considered going to the Air Force Academy straight out of high school--my uncle taught there at the time--but decided against it for a variety of reasons, including disinterest and bad health (allergies and severe asthma).
I should have been more clear. Do you know any women at all who would be able to do what I describe under the conditions I describe? It seems to me that female anatomy precludes it. Am I wrong?
BUT--I was sincere about the support unit thing, and you didn't answer my question directly. Were there women in MASH units, in medical units in WWI and II, Korea, Vietnam, that sort of thing? Because the article says women have been outlawed from that for the last 10 years or so, but I was pretty sure that women nurses have been near the front in times past.
Ah. Sorry. I don't know. All I can say is that I believe women in nursing roles and so on near the front, up until, maybe, VietNam were *mostly* in organizations such as the Red Cross, ergo, not soldiers. With the current brand of enemy that would make no difference at all. It did then.
But I also believe that if a woman does have the health and stamina for it, her gender shouldn't be a bar to serving where she is capable. I don't honestly like the idea of mixed-gender combat units, though, and tend to think that if it were me, at least, I'd rather be in a support unit. And really, I'd rather be waaay far away from the front lines, too.
And that is my question. With your intimate knowledge of female anatomy and psychology in general (I recognize that just being a woman does not make you an expert on all women, but certainly more so than I) is it reasonable to suppose that there are enough women who can overcome every one of those problems I listed to make fiddling with the organization that defends our lives and freedom worth it?
-
I dunno. I mean, I know lots of women that have the ability to do a lot of things physically that I'll never hope to do, like my roommate the marathoner. And I know some women who aren't nearly as emotional as I am--though I don't think you'll find too many women nowadays who *will* break down and cry for being yelled at. More than likely they'd give what they got or go stone silent--I don't really know any criers in my circle of friends, except one girl who's a little on the weird side anyway.
So, I think it's possible, but I am no expert on whether it's a widespread possibility. Most women I know would never have a desire to be in the military in the first place.
-
All I can say is that I believe women in nursing roles and so on near the front, up until, maybe, VietNam were *mostly* in organizations such as the Red Cross
You belive wrongly,... from WWII to the current day those nurses were members of the united states military and not the red cross.
-
Roger.
Good to know.
Kind of irresponsible to create soldiers who are at a distinct disadvantage in combat ain't it. Sigh...
-
not when you cant compell enough men to want to be nurses.
-
No need for nurses to be soldiers, though. Take the men who do want to be nurses and make them combat medics and keep the civilian/contractor nurses in the rear behind concertina and men with guns.