An open letter to James Howard Kunstler

[solarbird]

I wrote this letter in response to Mr. Kunstler's Daily Grunt of 19 March - currently here, will presumably be moved here when he posts another one - wherein he says that women should not be serving in Iraq, or, really, in the military at all, outside of a few specialised segregated units, because female soldiers entice male soldiers to "harass" them, wherein "rape" is included as a form of "harassment.")

---

Dear Mr. Kunstler,

Somehow it keeps coming back to the same thing. Men hurt women, violently. Men then react by blaming women for the actions of the men, and punishing the women.

In the Islamic fundamentalist world, it's the "uncontrollable lust" of men supposedly triggered by seeing a woman's face, resulting in women being sentenced to death for being raped; here, in your column, it's sexual violence, resulting in soldiers being kicked out of their careers for being raped. (And, as an aside, rape isn't just "harassment." Nice reductionism there.)

It's just always so amazing how the answer comes back not to, "men should stop assaulting women," but "women should be kicked out - for their own good, of course." In the Islamist world, it's kicked out of society entirely. In your column, it's of most of the Army. In both cases, women are punished for the bad behaviour of men. In both cases, it's "women shouldn't be making these decisions; we men should be making it for them." Other than degree - which I'll concede does matter at some levels - there really is no difference here.

As for the importance of women in the armed services, even in these theoconservative-driven demifascist times, the Army doesn't agree with you. Women aren't extra. We're not "experiments in social relations." We're people - and not lessor, and not, as you assert, unsuited for critical roles. Women in the Army in particular - and I know several - are called soldiers, and in particular, are called critical to the mission, whatever that mission happens to be. Read up on what the Army said a few years ago when something like you're supporting got floated by social conservatives in the Republican congress. You'll find that what they said can be summed up as, "sure, if you want the Army to collapse tomorrow."

If you want to talk about reality, and talk about what "experience is proving," talk about that. Talk about what the Army said when it was asked - asked! - by social conservatives to do exactly what you're suggesting. They had all the political cover they'd need - and they said, oh christ no.

I've been reading your columns for several years now. I'm really sorry it turns out you have this roiling around underneath your skin. How unfortunate.

Sincerely,
-- solarbird

---

I signed my real name to his copy, of course. Oh, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I've corrected a typo and formatted it as an open letter for livejournal instead of a note in plaintext email.

Comments

[mysticalforest.livejournal.com]

Very well said!

[starfallz.livejournal.com]

Well done. :)

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Kunstler is really a cultural conservative in many ways, and this is hardly the first time this side of him has come to the fore. Along with his ridiculous predictions of imminent economic collapse, that really adds to his persona as a crank. It's too bad, because a lot of what he has to say is worthy of being heard.

[solarbird]

Yes. His criticisms of architecture traditionally have had some merit, tho' as a polemicist, he does naturally take it a bit far. But he has a real predilection to go in for ZOMG END OF THE WORLD bullshit, and worse, he sometimes does things with numbers that aren't justifiable - and which, when you try to pin him down, you don't get answered coherently.

I find it rather unfortunate that he's involved with the peak oil issue at this time, because it's a serious issue of major consequence - and that doesn't need people throwing out bullshit terror alerts.

[denelian.livejournal.com]

you don't know me, but i have been reading your LJ for a while now - because of posts just like this.
keep on with the keeping on. us radicals need to scream on the same note :)

(and why is wanting everyone to be treated equally radical, anyway? i am sooooo getting to old for this shite)

[solarbird]

Hiya!

[denelian.livejournal.com]

hiya back!

[wytwolf.livejournal.com]

His little "grunt" had no real fact to support his wild ideas. Reading stuff like that makes my blood boil, but I'm horrible with words and even worse with arguments, so I never say much. I'm glad you spoke your mind.

Btw, I love all of your posts on news and such. Thanks for sharing!

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Very, very good letter.

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

DV

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Of course, if we lose this war, the prestige of Islamic fundamentalism, and all the ideas associated with it, will be on the rise worldwide. This means that the status of women will drop in most countries.

[solarbird]

Of course, if we lose this war
Which is almost orthoginal to the point. The military says that he's wrong on this in every respect. Removing women soldiers would not help in any conceivable way.

But more particularly, this war has been a huge negative across the world for all the ideas we're supposed to be representing. Support for democratic reforms (in polling) has dropped throughout the Muslim world (1.1 billion people) and things like that are more important in the long run than any individual battle. It is my opinion that the Iraq war has been so completely bolluxed (as I sadly rather predicted it would be, in more or less the way I predicted it would be) that it has become a dramatic negative - a dramatic negative - for the modernist side.

I have more on this but I have to get to class.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

It is my opinion that the Iraq war has been so completely bolluxed (as I sadly rather predicted it would be, in more or less the way I predicted it would be) that it has become a dramatic negative - a dramatic negative - for the modernist side.

I agree ... I'm merely emphasizing that the result of our loss will not be a good thing for feminism, liberalism, or modernism in general, worldwide. A lot of people seem to assume, simply because Dubya is a conservative by American standards, that "his" defeat will be good for liberal and modern causes -- but they ignore that from a global perspective, it is less a Republican defeat than an American and Western one.

In other words, the consequences of defeat will be very bad for liberalism worldwide.