Women in Combat

Secretary Panetta made the official announcement: 230,000 military combat roles will be open to women.  I think this is a tremendous stride.  Since combat operations are necessary for real high-ranking advancement in the military, this will open the door for women to have more meaningful military careers and a voice at a most important table.  Like every other hall of power, I think things will be better - more solid, perhaps - with women's perspectives and leadership.

I don't think this is going to make war softer or less aggressive.  Sure, my best, idealistic self would love to say that we will see an end to war, it is simply not the case.  We will always find reasons to fight, are driven to conflict.  This is human nature, not a trick of gender.

It has been interesting to watch my male friends grapple with this question.  Some certainly embrace the idea for many of the reasons I find it to be a step forward.  Opportunity for women in the military to advance their careers, achieve parity in rank & pay, all in the service of our country.  For the men I know who don't like the idea - staunch conservatives and wild liberals alike come down to the same arguments.  "What society sends girls to fight and die in war?"  "Women are precious vessels, givers of life."  "Women are physiologically different than men and simply can't do the same tasks."  "How pregnant/post partum does a woman have to be before she is pulled from/put back on the line?"  "I just don't like it."

No one is suggesting that we change the physical requirements for entering into combat duty.  With 230,000 combat roles, not all will require the same physical rigor and again, while men as a whole may be stronger, able to carry 250lbs of a fellow soldier as well as their own gear and weapon, not all men can do this, and some women can.  This is a matter for a test of the individual, not for a broad restriction of women in general.  Combat roles include engineers, intel, sharpshooters,  and yes, special assault forces.  Not all these roles will be open, and all will require the same testing and importantly, training.  For a solid first person account of this as well as an outline of the ways in which women are already serving in combat situations, Slate has a great piece by Kayla Williams.

I think of the other arguments as sentimental.  Not necessarily in a bad way, just sentimental.  It helps that these concerns have been advanced by friends, rather than say - Rush Limbaugh.  The sentiment contains both a sense that women are delicate flowers and need to be protected, and the notion that we as a society are or should be too "civilized" to put women in harm's way.  I confess that I find the "delicate flower" component oddly sweet.  Particularly when it is advanced by those who I know have chosen to live their lives with strong, vibrant women who they fear as much as they worship.  From these men it seems rooted in a sense of gentlemanliness, of chivalrous order.

It's the other side of the sentimental argument that I really have trouble with and that highlights both how war and conflict have changed, and a kind of hypocrisy about how we comport ourselves as a society both at home and abroad.  US women in the military are already dying in combat, even if they are not in "official" combat roles.  And women who are in conflict zones all over the world are in constant danger whether risking rape while getting water on a daily basis, or being caught in the crossfire in an urban invasion, women and children - innocents - die every day all around the world.

But women are also caught in the crossfire here at home.  Violence is still an epidemic in many of our urban centers.  Young men and women, mothers, fathers, children, have to bury their loved ones on a daily basis. There is no hand-wringing about the delicate nature of women in this country who fight every day to keep their children and grandchildren safe.  It is the men AND women who are our first responders who bear the burden of our safety at home.  Women have served in police and fire departments for decades now with pride and valor.  We have answered the call of service to keep our communities safe and achieved much.  Is there really any reason to believe that we will do less in military combat roles?

Rubio vs Castro: What Makes You Latino?

Now that the political theater of the conventions is over, the commentary keeps plowing on from: who got their message out, who motivated their base the most, and, oh so importantly, which party had the best (read: most) Latino representative.

I’ve complained in the past about demographers insisting that the Latino Vote is a monolith.  Insisting that Latinos swear political allegiance to only one party is just a different way to stereotype, as far as I’m concerned.  And recent polling shows Latinos shifting to become independent voters in droves.

My favorite claim in this comes from the right wing insistence that Rubio is “more Latino” than Castro because he is fluent in Spanish.  Funny how the party that insists we wetbacks learn English would tout the retention of language as a key component to being fully Latino.

My Spanish is terrible.  My parents didn’t prize keeping language and any native language acquisition I would have gained died with my maternal grandmother when I was six years old.  I feel like I would have had more opportunity if I had language beyond a 5 year old.  I insist that my daughters learn Spanish because it will make them better people and better citizens.

But lack of language has not made me less of a Latina.  It has not severed my ties from my family or my culture.  I am a bridge from one world to the other with or without Spanish.  Do I think I might be a more effective bridge with language? Yes.  It’s something I question quite a bit.  Something I struggle with personally.  The thing about a bridge is that it’s not on one side or the other – it is by definition in between, a conduit for movement from one side to the other.

Is 20 Years Enough?

I attended my 20 year high school reunion this weekend.  It was crazy and more than a little surreal.  High school is such a strange transitional time.  You move from barely being a teenager to almost being an adult, with none of the self-directed growth you can do in college.  Basically, you are thrown together with a lot of people you probably would never have chosen.  And all together, you must survive four years of education that will shape the rest of your life.

I was a high school misfit.  I think most of us are.  For most people, it is the first chance we have to play at being adults.  We play at relationships and personality traits the same way we play at make-up and hair styles, trying things on for fit.  If you are lucky, you find a group of people who accept you as you are (or as you are pretending to be on that day), and you learn and grow and morph and run away to college.

For me, those people were in theater.  Our drama troupe was called Company and we were largely a group of people who just didn’t fit anywhere else.  I think many Company members walked in several circles and really, isn’t it the nature of drama that we can be chameleons?  I never felt like I had a lot of ability to move around socially when I was in high school, and I wouldn’t say that it was all wine and roses, but I had good friends across many years and I had really hoped to see some of them this weekend.

Nope.  Most of the folks I really liked in high school, those I was closest to, were not at the reunion.  That’s the other thing about arty types, we’re not really joiners.  So, I had a couple of glasses of wine, a couple of surprising conversations, and left with my husband, my oldest friend, and my dignity.

The Wrong Kind of Brown

Followers will know that Deldelp Medina and I have a session submission in to SXSW.

One of the things that SXSW is very clear about is that your session should answer 5 questions that you need to articulate before you can submit.  The five questions we came up with are these:

1. Why isn't our generation of Latinos considered exceptional?
2. How do we become visible in the media landscape without being reduced to the lowest common denominator?
3. How will bi-culturalism replace bi-lingualism for our children; what can we gain and what are we afraid to lose?
4. Are we the wrong kind of brown when it comes to entrepreneurship?
5. Why do we hold onto our cultural baggage: racism, misogyny, & homophobia?

We developed these questions out of our own experiences.  These are conversations that happen in living rooms and bars when smart, thoughtful people get together; but, the conversation isn't happening in a larger forum where it belongs.

This past Monday, a paper was presented from the University of Cincinnati called  "Who "They" Are Matters: Researchers Assess Immigrant Stereotypes And Views On Immigration".  Turns out, sociologists have done some research on the topic and indeed, we ARE the wrong kind of brown when it comes to entrepreneurship.  Americans have a decidedly negative view of latinos and feel that we are a drain on the economy, even though we build businesses and contribute more than we take away.  Again, the facts don't matter here, only the Fox news-branded perception.

So what changes these small-minded perceptions?  Clearly not facts.  I think it is personal experience.  Do you know a smart latino?  Maybe you don't think of that person as an immigrant?  I grew up in a middle class suburb.  Do I "act" like a latino?  What would you think about me if you met me on the street?  One of the reasons this study is so compelling is that they purposefully took a group of people from Ohio, a place where the immigrant and latino populations are far below the national average, a place where people could reasonably be expected to NOT have any day to day contact with either a latino or an immigrant.  Guess who shapes those views in the absence of experience?

I have no silver lining today.  I'm just annoyed.  It's one thing to think or feel something.  It's quite another to have it proven to you that people you've never met think that you and your children are worthless.

Help us bring this conversation into the light of day.  Vote for us here, the process is kind of a pain, but we'd be very appreciative!

Welcome Back to Public (Private) School

I went to Catholic school from K-12, so when Miss Thing started at our local public school last year, there were a number of things that didn’t really phase me that seem to give folks a lot of consternation.

First, I don’t really worry about what teacher she is going to get.  There was only ever one class at each grade for me from K-8, so there was no choice.  Maybe I just haven’t been at this school long enough to have opinions about the teachers, but in life, we all have to work with people we like and people we don’t.  Learning to navigate personalities is a part of learning how to be in the world.

Second, was the amount of money we ended up shelling out to supplement the school staffing and curriculum.  This was largely to two entities, our local education foundation and the PTA.  My parents paid a lot of money in tuition for my private education, and then always were required to commit another 40 hours per year in volunteer time. Shelling out close to $1000 to make the education work didn’t really strike me as odd, at first.

Like any parent with the time and resources to do so, I have done my best to be engaged in Miss Thing’s classroom and her school.  I began attending PTA meetings last September to better understand the work this organization does on behalf of our school.  I learned that the PTA and our local educational foundation fund science, technology, music, art, and library time.  The public school my daughter attends is highly functional, but what makes it work is the sheer volume of resources the PTA and the local education foundation are able to pour into these programs and salaries.  Programs that are fundamental to basic education and future entry into the rapidly shifting job market.

We do not acknowledge that California schools that succeed do so because of this kind of private investment.   And what can be incredibly frustrating about the PTA is constantly hearing how glad people are to live in the district and how thrilled teachers are to have such substantial parental involvement, as if this involvement is purely a matter of choice.  But this level of investment is not available to all parents and students, not out of a lack of desire or care, but due to socioeconomic factors that result in a lack of access to the time and capital that must be invested to make a modern public school function in this political and economic climate. 

Our school is a public/private partnership.  Without the substantial private funding that supplements the budget, our school would not work.  While I applaud my school district and parents for making our school work, it is shortsighted to imagine that our society will succeed unless all our children have the same access to high quality public education.  Our society cannot thrive while large populations of students and communities are cast off.  

Education cannot be a policy afterthought, nor should it be allowed to fall into disrepair in order to make it easier to privatize schools.  If our policy makers are serious about securing our economic future, full & free public education should be available to every community.  Not just those who can afford it.

SXSW Really? Yes.

I recently developed a proposal for SXSW with Deldelp Medina, one of the smartest people I know.  If you knew my friends, you would know that this is really saying something.  Our proposal is about the confluence of stereotypes that keeps people like us – Latinos of our generation – out of leadership, power and influence.  You can read more about it at the SXSW panel picker.

Family and friends keep asking why.  Why this, why here, why now.

1. Representation.  My views and perspective, in all their complicated glory, are not out there.  I don’t see or hear anyone like me when I turn on the TV or radio. 
2. Discourse.  My views ARE complicated and complex.  I think this is true for most people in this country and we do ourselves a disservice by buying into the way we play politics from a divisive single-issue perspective. 
3. Leadership.  I have been working my way into leadership in so many aspects of my life and it can be a struggle.  This is one way to take it.  And truthfully, it’s the hardest part because it involves a kind of self-promotion that I struggle with and thought I left behind a long time ago.

So, check out our proposal: From Dot Com-y to Altmamí.  If you like it, vote for us. 

Join our conversation on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/altmamis

You can also follow us on Twitter @smbrowngirl and @deldelp

If you want to hear from Deldelp, check her out http://latinainca.tumblr.com

What Is a Soul?

Sitting down to dinner tonight and the following exchange greeted me:

Miss Thing:  Mommy, is a soul blue?  What is a soul?

The Husband:  I want to hear the answer to this…

Me (taking my time chewing to try to compose something of a satisfactory answer to my 6 year old daughter):  No, I don’t think a soul is blue.  Some people think that a soul is the thing that makes people different from animals.  A soul lets us think, reason, and love.

Miss Thing:  Is that all?

Me:  That’s enough.  A soul is what lets us love.  Without a soul, you wouldn’t be able to love mommy.

Kisses and a quick snuggle and then dinner returned to all its mundane glory.  In the kitchen I asked The Husband what he thought of my answer, and he told me I deserved a philosophy prize…something like The Cracked Nut.

What is a soul?  If my daughter was older, I would tell her it is a spark of divinity.  The eternal within all of us – the thing that is unbreakable, that animates our poor carcasses of flesh for this all too brief sojourn.   As I think about it now, I wonder what is divinity, what can it possibly be BUT love?

Once in a while, mommy gets it right.  Now where is that Cracked Nut award?