Female soldiers fighting ISIS - any thoughts?

[LegoComplex]

Was just reading this (I know.. guilty as charged reading dm) and thought of you guys.. I wondered what your thoughts on this may be. I personally hsve huge respect for these women, and from the sounds of it the dynamics of mixed gender troops works well in Syria:

"The person in the trench next to you could be a guy or a girl and it makes no difference. They're soldiers first. Not once did I feel harassed, objectified or in danger when I was around the men."

‘This was a problem for some of the western guys who wanted to get it on with the girls,’ she said. ‘An American kept complaining about how cold the girls were. I told him to stop disrespecting them with his flirting.
‘Flirting is a way of gaining control and that's not part of their (Kurdish) culture.'
‘A YPG soldier explained to me that in a society where the men elevate themselves, the women get left behind, but in their society where the women are elevated, the men get elevated with them"

The last sentence is particularly insightful, but very surprised (pleasantly) that this could be found in a part of the world renowned for poor women's rights. Any thoughts?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3147862/Body-parts-bloody-battles-one-boys-Model-went-fight-ISIS-Syria-reveals-horrors-saw-life-woman-frontline.html

I am loving that the main quote they fished out of that was the laundry one. Al Jazeera, the thinking man's daily mail.

I'm not reading the same bastion of feminism into it that you are, dad. I'm reading a couple of women frustrated by a different patriarchal system that constantly grinds them down and says no, and reinforces that the woman's place is in the home, with the other women, waiting for the men to come back from war. It's like reading Homer and watching Hector's son playing with his helmet whilst Andromache goes 'fuck me, here we are again'.

It is interesting that yet again the journo is quick to point out that the woman being interviewed hasn't actually done anything, y know, bad, like, eek, kill someone. Just holding the line, nothing heroic to see here.
It's so interesting to see the different ways that male and female soldiers are portrayed in the media. It was one of the reasons that way back when, we all kept our fingers crossed that no women died, because of the damage that would be done against equality by the media coverage. These days it is marginally better and I have seen US women veterans included in some of the articles alongside male colleagues without specific mawkish reference - although interestingly the general public are so attached to the Barbie goes to war meme that that they have now appropriated a picture of a group of amputee Brazilian models to fb share as 'our gals returned from war'.

Patriarchy has very strict limits on what is expected from females in the military.

Im not supporting the article, all sides have women fighting for them, is just rare to get articles from the other side.

I agree as you say women still firmly stuck in a male system, with flips sides of barbie and mother teresa going to war.

"I'm surprised to see the Kurds described as a matriarchal society - aren't they still practising child brides and honour killings (ie: child rape and murder?)"

Not to forget FGM. Iraqi Kurds are the only people in that entire region who cut bits off their little girls' genitals.

Yeah. It's surprisingly common there.

"I suspect the treatment of women in the armed forces has something to do with how long (if ever) an army existed for that country/people without women involved."

Women's place in Kurdish armed forces comes as a tradition from PKK ("Kurdistan Workers' Party"), the Marxist-Leninist terrorist organisation that was involved in a multi-decade armed struggle with the Turkish army. Being communist and all, this organisation saw no problem with women fighting alongside men.

No problem Lego and Madwoman. I know the app is free as well if you have a smart phone but its very addictive lol.

As far as I know the Turkish Kurds and Syrian Kurds never practiced FGM, its the Iraqi and Iranian ones that do. The Kurds were originally nomadic and are scattered across several countries so they're cultural practices are fairly varied.

Kurdish women in Turkey were very influential in the Turkish feminist movement due to their politicization resulting from involvement in the Kurdish nationalist movement and the suffering they endured living in a conflict zone.

The PKK is classed as a terrorist organisation by Turkey and its allies but it has the popular support of the Kurdish people who the Turkish state committed ethnic cleansing against by burning 3000 villages to the ground causing million people to flee their homes.

They are both communist and feminist. This is a quote from their leader. "Without women’s slavery none of the other types of slavery can exist let alone develop. Capitalism and nation-state denote the most institutionalized dominant male. More boldly and openly spoken: capitalism and nation-state are the monopolist of the despotic and exploitative male” from this article. It's also a good read it kind of explains the PKK outlook.

And this one is about Turkish feminism and the different branches, Turkish nationalist, Kurdish nationalist and Islamist if anyone's interested. dx.doi.org/10.1080/19448950903507388

"The PKK is classed as a terrorist organisation by Turkey and its allies but it has the popular support of the Kurdish people "

Umm... It's in pretty much every country's list of terrorist organisations, because they blew up lots of people to bloody bits with their bombs over the years. UK says PKK is a terrorist organisation. The rest of EU says PKK is a terrorist organisation. And for good reason.

What you are saying is as meaningless as "Al Qaeda is classed as a terrorist organisation by America and its allies but it has the support of Arab people".

I was personally affected by one of their bombs that killed and maimed civilians. I realise that it is fashionable to glorify all things Kurdish at the moment because they are fighting ISIS, but you really don't want to go into this with me.

"And this one is about Turkish feminism and the different branches, Turkish nationalist, Kurdish nationalist and Islamist if anyone's interested."

Much as I would love to learn about Turkish feminism from an article written in English, I don't quite feel like paying EUR 30,00 for the privilege.

I am sorry if I have offended you in any way CoteDAzur and I do not agree with violence of any kind but from what I understand the Kurdish separatist bombing campaign was a a result of the ultra-nationalist Turkish state refusing to allow any Kurdish parties to stand for elections and their attempts to repress Kurdish culture. Even the Kurdish language was banned from television stations. Now that all this has stopped the violence has stopped and the Kurds are trying to achieve their aims by political means. In a similar way that nationalist violence in NI was a result of anti-Catholic discrimination and attacks on them when they looked for their civil rights. As soon as power-sharing was introduced this violence has stopped and republicans are trying to achieve their aims through political means.

ISIS and Al Qaeda are a different kettle of fish because they are not simply looking for equal rights for the Sunni's, they are trying to wipe out any other other cultures and impose their culture on everyone. And they do not have the support of most Arab people. Thousands of Arabs are suffering under their "rule".

I did not realise the link I provided had a charge, that was the link provided in the article for citation but I found it through google search and was able to read it for free.

You don't offend me personally, but the sort of ignorance and the brazen "I'm alright Jack" attitude that leads to statements like "Oh they're not a terrorist organisation, it's only Turkey and its allies who say it is" and "It's OK that they killed innocent people because they couldn't broadcast in Kurdish on TV" pisses me off.

I dare say that you would not be impressed if someone claim on here that it was OK for 7/7 bombers to kill so many innocent people in London because they couldn't have sharia in the UK, for example. Or that they were not terrorists, and only UK and its allies called them terrorists.

"ultra-nationalist Turkish state refusing to allow any Kurdish parties to stand for elections"

There were no Kurdish parties at the time of PKK's hayday. PKK begin a Marxist-Leninist 'revolutionary' party and as such, they weren't interested in being elected. When Kurds put a political party together (HDP), they stood for elections.

"their attempts to repress Kurdish culture. Even the Kurdish language was banned from television stations."

There were three TV stations at the time, all state-owned. You couldn't very well decide to broadcast in one in a language that the majority wouldn't understand. There were no English broadcasts, either. All films were dubbed.

"Now that all this has stopped the violence has stopped and the Kurds are trying to achieve their aims by political means."

Ah, to be a foreign spectator! It's funny to see how different things are perceived from thousands of miles away.

What actually happened was: In 1999, Turks army captured Abdullah Ocalan, PKK's leader. Then the violence stopped. He has since then had a change of heart and saw the error of his violent ways, apparently, and has been declaring that political solutions are best and violence is wrong. Oh and of course since Al Qaeda's attack on American soil in 2001, terrorism is really unpopular worldwide, highly likely to get the US to come down on you like a ton of bricks, and PKK could get no funding from anyone.

FWIW I don't think the NI situation was that simple either. It was about whether NI remained part of the UK or not. One party, primarily catholic wanted separation, the other, primarily protestant, wanted to stay in the UK and should we have abandoned them? Both sides turned to terrorism, each inflamed the other, drugs (and allegedly the US, no we weren't impressed by individual Americans claiming the IRA were freedom fighters) got involved for financing it, innocents in the middle, classic case in how violence escalates. Everyone needed the violence to stop but dealing with terrorists turns my and many people's stomach. I'm not from NI btw, northern Brit who remembers Manchester Arndale centre being bombed (me and mine weren't there).

But, there again Cote, it was stopped. Power sharing has stopped the violence, at least for now. I'm grateful some people have stronger stomachs. One thing to thank Blair's regime for, apparently the US and Bill Clinton had a lot to do with it.

Violence, in war and homes, is a choice. I appreciate that sometimes there seems to be (are?) few options, but let's not pretend it's anything other than what it is - all about power - it's insulting to the dead and survivors imo and doesn't help to resolve issues. Religion is a complicating factor and one we'd all be one hell of a lot better off without imo, but organised monotheistic religion is itself about power first and foremost.

Nothing is ever simple. The settlement is probably why NI now has those horrible archaic restrictions on abortion and women suffer for it as usual. I liked how that Guardian article said the local chap was calling for feminism as a foundation of a new resolution. Perhaps we and the middle east can learn the good points from each other instead of the bad?

FWIW I don't think the NI situation was that simple either. It was about whether NI remained part of the UK or not. One party, primarily catholic wanted separation, the other, primarily protestant, wanted to stay in the UK and should we have abandoned them?

That was how it ended up but originally the Catholics were not looking for separation, they were looking for British rights as British citizens, just like in the rest of the UK such as "one man one vote". There was very little support for the IRA until the civil rights marches were attacked by loyalist mobs stirred up by by Ian Paisley.

Nothing is ever simple. The settlement is probably why NI now has those horrible archaic restrictions on abortion and women suffer for it as usual.

It is the evangelical protestant majority that support the restrictions on abortion, not the Catholic minority. SF have blocked further restrictions.

the sort of ignorance and the brazen "I'm alright Jack" attitude that leads to statements like "Oh they're not a terrorist organisation, it's only Turkey and its allies who say it is" and "It's OK that they killed innocent people because they couldn't broadcast in Kurdish on TV" pisses me off.

That is not what I said at all. If you read my post above I said I don't condone any violence but I am able to recognize that the oppression of a group of people can lead to violence. The TV is just an example. Human Rights Watch have compared the treatment of Kurds in Turkey to apartheid.

Human Rights Watch have compared the treatment of Kurds in Turkey to apartheid.

And rightly so, because that's what it amounts to.

Please educate yourself on foreign issues before you talk about them. Kurds were not treated terribly well in Turkey, yes, but the situation had NO similarity to apartheid - there was no racial segregation whatsoever, anywhere. Not in education, not in government, not in public transportation, nowhere. It is not physically possible to differentiate between Turk and Kurd, so apartheid would not even have been possible even if there was political will to implement such a system. And no such system was ever proposed anyway.

There are no physical differences between Anglo-Saxons and Travellers either, Cote, but there is very definitely a form of Apartheid that exists even in despite of legislation. With respect, I am rather well informed about what you describe as 'foreign issues', thank you, and if you honestly belief that Apartheid only exists between people of differing skin colours, then I'm very much afraid that it's you that needs to educate yourself. I understand that you are very close to the situation, sometimes taking a step back and looking at it through less jaded eyes helps? Turkey sitting on it's hands while it's neighbours destroy each other is piss poor foreign policy, it will not end well for anyone in the region.

This clause, btw, has to be the understatement of the day.. Kurds were not treated terribly well in Turkey

*believe

jeez, I really need to proof read what my stupid bloody phone decides to type!

Well, you are not really, although some Googling of English-language websites is clearly making you think you are.

Learn what Apartheid means before you fling nonsense accusations around. It doesn't mean "Some prejudice and discrimination". Racial segregation is a prerequisite of Apartheid - as in, can't be in the same classroom, can't be in the same restaurant, can't be in the same bus, etc.

Kurds have always gone to the same schools as Turks, always worked in same places, always were in government alongside Turks - as Prime Minister and Interior Minister, for example. An estimated 1.9 million Kurds live in Istanbul. So where is this racial segregation (except in your head)?

"sometimes taking a step back and looking at it through less jaded eyes helps"

Imo and ime, what really helps is in-depth understanding through knowledge and experience.

"Turkey sitting on it's hands while it's neighbours destroy each other is piss poor foreign policy"

Maybe you would like to see the Turkish army enter Syria to impose order. Oh wait, then it would be barbarian Turks taking advantage of the political turmoil in the region to invade its neighbours

Seems Turkey is finally doing something about IS in Syria, but only because they're also allowed to bomb Kurds in Iraq.

How utterly transparent of them.