I never said you were, quite the contrary, in fact, I specifically stipulated that this gender bigotry was excuslive to the old macho fuddy duddies.Not all men are the same though
America's fighting women:A search for good POD's.
- Thread starter SergeantHeretic
- Start date
No didnt take that you were but my thoughts were that some men in the higher echelons of your armed services must have seen that this was the sensible way to go,In your pod could you give them more power ,earlier?
The Victorian age took a lot of time dying but in fact if you look at history it is littered with strong brave women...and these are only a known few out of what must be many more
I agree, I just wanted to reassure hi mthat wqe were cool and it was all good.
That could very well be.
Yes, of that I am aware, to quote an arc line fro the 1968 Planet of the Apes movie, "Where there is one, there is another, and another, and another.
BlondieBC
Banned
Another problem is that countries only follow conventions is major wars (wars of national survival) if it helps them win, so for both sides to follow a convention or even informal international norm, it has to be viewed as beneficial to both sides. Now in minor wars, a country may follow the rules because of perceived gains if larger war exists. Based on GWB and Cheney's attitude and actions, I believe they would have authorized violating the protections of Women if they felt it was necessary. They modified the definition of torture so far that the word is meaningless. Take one simply example, when they wanted to torture people they sent them to another country and claimed we did not do it. Would the excuse of "the death camp I ran was in Poland" actually have worked at Nuremberg? Of course not.
Not the Bush is unique in his actions, it is the rule to ignore inconvenient treaty provisions in war, not the exception. British Blockade in WW1, German use of chemical weapons WW1, USA protest unrestricted submarine warfare in WW1, then doing it in WW2, carpet bombing of cities, etc.
Precisely, that being so, what is to stop an enemy from ignoring Geneva when and where it suits them regardless of weather or not a woman is a technical "Non combat soldier"?
Iraq signed Geneva, and, in the words of one POW from '91, "The Iraqis followed the Geneva Convention for about a half an hour. The rest of the time, they did not." (Lt. Col. Cliff Acree, USMC) As for the women, though her story is incomplete (due to Army security regs), read then-Maj. Rhonda Cornum's book She Went to War: the Rhonda Cornum Story. She was lucky in two ways: one, she was seriously injured in the shootdown of her UH-60 (both arms broken, a bullet wound to a shoulder, blown out knee, a smashed finger), and two, she was Army and thus not associated with the bombing. Though it should be said that being Army didn't help Melissa for the first two weeks of her captivity.....
That, good folks is exactly my motr farming point. Whe nthe war starts the fussy protocals go right out the window so why not realize that, train us arm us and give us official standing as combat troops?
Yep common sense and I agree.So in order to achieve this there are two paths you can take.Firstly the gradual path which I guess western nations are on now? This will achieve an equality of exposure to danger sooner or later with my money on sooner.
That is'nt what you want though, and here you strike the problem of all alternative historians.. the dreaded institutional inertia
If you think of societies as big oceon liners moving with massive inertia along a course determined by previous engine speeds and helm orders,then the problen is easily envisaged.
So to reach a 'different' port we alter course or engine speed or we crash into an iceberg [which is much more fun but much harder to justify]
Wars ,famine etc are the ice bergs and political debate and public opinion changes are the engine speed/helm orders
So the choice is yours here
One thought/idea does come to mind please feel free to disregard it
In the 1940's the US army was racially desegragated ,what if encouraged by his wife FDR desegregates the armed forces [all of them]. This was done anyway by Trueman later.
This causes civil unrest throughout the southern states which takes the form of a fall in recruiting ,perhaps as a result of some form of social stigma/ostracism if you do join up. As well as this the Negro population are physicaly discouraged from joining up as they were from voting.
FDR fears to call out out the national guard suspecting their loyalties and no doubt pressured by southern politicians reluctantly accepts the situation.
Japan and Germany are still at war with the US and still need to be dealt with BUT now there is a man power shortage. In this case FDR [again encouraged by his wife allows women to take up a more combat orientated role in the military ,not full combat at this stage but so close to the front line that clashes with axis troops are inevitable ..maybe heavy artillary? but anyway close enough for gallantry medals to be won
At this stage you are all set for full combat roles maybe by the 1960's perhaps?
This I fear is an ice berg and will be rightly judged as such
Yep common sense and I agree.So in order to achieve this there are two paths you can take.Firstly the gradual path which I guess western nations are on now? This will achieve an equality of exposure to danger sooner or later with my money on sooner.
That is'nt what you want though, and here you strike the problem of all alternative historians.. the dreaded institutional inertia
If you think of societies as big oceon liners moving with massive inertia along a course determined by previous engine speeds and helm orders,then the problen is easily envisaged.
So to reach a 'different' port we alter course or engine speed or we crash into an iceberg [which is much more fun but much harder to justify]
Wars ,famine etc are the ice bergs and political debate and public opinion changes are the engine speed/helm orders
So the choice is yours here
One thought/idea does come to mind please feel free to disregard it
In the 1940's the US army was racially desegragated ,what if encouraged by his wife FDR desegregates the armed forces [all of them]. This was done anyway by Trueman later.
This causes civil unrest throughout the southern states which takes the form of a fall in recruiting ,perhaps as a result of some form of social stigma/ostracism if you do join up. As well as this the Negro population are physicaly discouraged from joining up as they were from voting.
FDR fears to call out out the national guard suspecting their loyalties and no doubt pressured by southern politicians reluctantly accepts the situation.
Japan and Germany are still at war with the US and still need to be dealt with BUT now there is a man power shortage. In this case FDR [again encouraged by his wife allows women to take up a more combat orientated role in the military ,not full combat at this stage but so close to the front line that clashes with axis troops are inevitable ..maybe heavy artillary? but anyway close enough for gallantry medals to be won
At this stage you are all set for full combat roles maybe by the 1960's perhaps?
This I fear is an ice berg and will be rightly judged as such
Sometimes an ice birg is just what is needed.
I think I am going to go for this as it lets me drop some anvils vis a vie racism and sexism and bigotry.
That and I just love the mental image of women debarking in low to the ground hueys in Nam to the tune of Creedence CLearwater's fortunate son."
It's a political thing, not a military thing, so just look for political opportunism to bring this about.
In my AU I will have Elenore convince FDR to intergrate the services in 1943. This will cause he deep south to regard this as an insult and white enlistment i nthe SOuth will drop. In addition the KKK and other white racist groups with physically bully african Americans to keep them from enlisting.
As WWII is still ongoing and to an extent in doubt, FDR will have to expand the WAAC's the WAVES, the SPARS and allow them to fight i nthe same jobs then that female troops are allowed to do today.
As a result many women will earn citations for valor as the existencies of war wil lresult i nthe fighting axis forces regardless of their technical non combat status.
Twenty years later in early 1963, JFK sighns an executive bill allowing women to serve as combat troops o na volunteer basis.
Five years later the Selective service act is modified to mandate the conscription of women on an equal basis with me.
Ten years later the Women's rights movement is stiffened by combat veterans of the Vietnam war demanding,
"I fought for MY freedom too!"
As WWII is still ongoing and to an extent in doubt, FDR will have to expand the WAAC's the WAVES, the SPARS and allow them to fight i nthe same jobs then that female troops are allowed to do today.
As a result many women will earn citations for valor as the existencies of war wil lresult i nthe fighting axis forces regardless of their technical non combat status.
Twenty years later in early 1963, JFK sighns an executive bill allowing women to serve as combat troops o na volunteer basis.
Five years later the Selective service act is modified to mandate the conscription of women on an equal basis with me.
Ten years later the Women's rights movement is stiffened by combat veterans of the Vietnam war demanding,
"I fought for MY freedom too!"
He HE we still use them here
[Hueys that is no credence clearwaters]Just remember in your time line that there will be resistance to your changes and that not all women will think this is a good idea
Oh, I know, that's the fun bit, the DRAMA!He HE we still use them here
Just remember in your time line that there will be resistance to your changes and that not all women will think this is a good idea
You thought there was opposition to the Vietnam war IOTL? Oh nelly, just wait until Uncle Walter is commenting and narrating television images of female troops shot to pieces getting medevacced from hot LZ's never mind what happens to American women that get sent to the Hanoi Hilton.
If you have a woman/women win gallantry awards may I suggest the Ardennes offensive A.k.a the battle of the bulge.
Medals are more readily won in times of extreme confusion and that is exactly what happened. Further, during this battle units became mixed up and fought with varying degrees of success as as hoc battle groups ,this would of course include your just behind the lines womens groups.
Next there is the battle at home, there will be a massive campaign to not only recruit women, but to convice the general public that this is the right thing to do. Even under extreme war time conditions societies are not a homogenious whole .
As far as womens movements go this idea is not a butterfly it is a very large elephant [albeit with dainty little butterfly wings bolted on
]After the war the GI bill is going to see loads more women better educated not just in university the results will be obvious and you can fill in the gaps
just at radom the boost madison avenue got with advertising campaigns for women recruiting is not going to allow them to show women in polka dot skirts and bobby sock accepting as a birthday gift a toaster from a beaming pipe smoking idiot of a husbandNo your 1950's are going to be different ,they have to be to allow JFK to do what you want him to do eeek maybe he is shot in Dallas by a mysogenist mens rights group
If you have a woman/women win gallantry awards may I suggest the Ardennes offensive A.k.a the battle of the bulge.
Medals are more readily won in times of extreme confusion and that is exactly what happened. Further, during this battle units became mixed up and fought with varying degrees of success as as hoc battle groups ,this would of course include your just behind the lines womens groups.
Next there is the battle at home, there will be a massive campaign to not only recruit women, but to convice the general public that this is the right thing to do. Even under extreme war time conditions societies are not a homogenious whole .
As far as womens movements go this idea is not a butterfly it is a very large elephant [albeit with dainty little butterfly wings bolted on
After the war the GI bill is going to see loads more women better educated not just in university the results will be obvious and you can fill in the gaps
No your 1950's are going to be different ,they have to be to allow JFK to do what you want him to do eeek maybe he is shot in Dallas by a mysogenist mens rights group
Oh crap this is good stuff, maynard, I like it!
The Ardennes offensive AKA Hitler's backhand blow will be prime turf for women coating themselves in pretty ribborns that REALLY make people stand up and take notice.
You sure are right about the Fifties being a heyday of women's rights.
Ooooh, Kennedy shot by a hyper religious demagouge is way better than Oswald.
(SQUEEEEEE)