Friday, December 16, 2005
Social progress has arrived now that we have women in the armed forces and homosexuals in the armed forces it is now time to bring children into combat. The problem is real. While the armed forces hotly denies that it discriminates against children, recent surveys indicate that there are no field officers younger than 12 years of age. Even the higher enlisted ranks are closed to children. Advocates for children’s rights explain that the short fall is due to prejudicial recruiting and the application of physical and mental standards that reflect the requirement of outmoded forms of combat. In ancient times strength and size may have been important in warfare. Perhaps a child of six would have trouble handling a war horse, though why not breed a smaller horse for them? But today’s warfare is not a matter of size and muscle, which children have plenty of anyway. War is automatic - push button, computers, etc. Anyone who has watched kids in a video arcade knows that a kid can run a missile complex. Excluding them is just a way for white, Anglo-Saxon males to protect themselves from competition.
Today, entry into important career fields, like the armed forces, requires being able to do a large number of chin-ups or situps over a short period of time. This is ridiculous. Studies show that, in real combat, soldiers don’t stop to do chin-ups. They are too busy shooting guns which only takes one finger. These requirements are aimed at one thing - to unfairly keep children out of the armed forces and thereby prohibiting them to serve their country. Critics on putting children into combat predictably disagree - arguing that children lack the aggressiveness and psychological readiness for ground combat. That is nonsense. Have you ever watched little boys in the playground - they are positively ferocious - they are always playing soldiers, Power Rangers, Cowboys vs First Nations (or Aboriginals). Little girls would be just as aggressive if our oppressive patriarchal society wouldn’t teach them that little girls are not supposed to kill. If we start teaching early enough, little girls will want to kill too.
The "children in combat movement" insist that the issue of physical size and strength is a red-herring. Child right’s advocates agree that some weaponry, artillery and pistols are to large for children to use comfortably and that children might have trouble with heavy backpacks. But the solution to this is to make smaller size guns, pistols and rifles for children. Heavy backpacks are just incumbrances in combat anyway. It makes more sense to leave them in the camp.
The real issue, both advocates and critics agree, is career opportunity. In view of the child right’s advocates, the army is dominated by older men who attach disproportionate importance to war and fighting at the expense of less destructive, socially progressive goals. These men continue to skew promotion criteria to further hostility and aggression on those career tracks that involve combat. Until children are allowed into combat jobs, they will be short changed in promotion to higher ranks. Some say to change the system so that it attaches equal importance to things children do - like delivering newspapers. Unfortunately, structural discrimination is so deeply embedded and systemic in the armed forces that the only way to remedy the injustice is to open all career fields equally to children and institute an aggressive program of affirmative action to make up for past unfairness. When women came into the army, critics said new bathrooms were expensive. Well, bathrooms went in and civilization didn’t end. How much will it cost to install a few sandboxes - children are people too, they have rights and needs and feelings like anyone else.
Next week, the rights of dogs and cats in the military.
Today, entry into important career fields, like the armed forces, requires being able to do a large number of chin-ups or situps over a short period of time. This is ridiculous. Studies show that, in real combat, soldiers don’t stop to do chin-ups. They are too busy shooting guns which only takes one finger. These requirements are aimed at one thing - to unfairly keep children out of the armed forces and thereby prohibiting them to serve their country. Critics on putting children into combat predictably disagree - arguing that children lack the aggressiveness and psychological readiness for ground combat. That is nonsense. Have you ever watched little boys in the playground - they are positively ferocious - they are always playing soldiers, Power Rangers, Cowboys vs First Nations (or Aboriginals). Little girls would be just as aggressive if our oppressive patriarchal society wouldn’t teach them that little girls are not supposed to kill. If we start teaching early enough, little girls will want to kill too.
The "children in combat movement" insist that the issue of physical size and strength is a red-herring. Child right’s advocates agree that some weaponry, artillery and pistols are to large for children to use comfortably and that children might have trouble with heavy backpacks. But the solution to this is to make smaller size guns, pistols and rifles for children. Heavy backpacks are just incumbrances in combat anyway. It makes more sense to leave them in the camp.
The real issue, both advocates and critics agree, is career opportunity. In view of the child right’s advocates, the army is dominated by older men who attach disproportionate importance to war and fighting at the expense of less destructive, socially progressive goals. These men continue to skew promotion criteria to further hostility and aggression on those career tracks that involve combat. Until children are allowed into combat jobs, they will be short changed in promotion to higher ranks. Some say to change the system so that it attaches equal importance to things children do - like delivering newspapers. Unfortunately, structural discrimination is so deeply embedded and systemic in the armed forces that the only way to remedy the injustice is to open all career fields equally to children and institute an aggressive program of affirmative action to make up for past unfairness. When women came into the army, critics said new bathrooms were expensive. Well, bathrooms went in and civilization didn’t end. How much will it cost to install a few sandboxes - children are people too, they have rights and needs and feelings like anyone else.
Next week, the rights of dogs and cats in the military.