We had a range this week. I know, it seems a little odd - we're deployed but we still have to fire at a range. The hope is that this way we won't have to run a range immediately upon our return to Germany since by then it would otherwise have been more than a year and a half since most of us qualified. We'll still probably end up having one within the first three months, but this way, people also have valid scores when they go to the promotion boards. My soldiers tell me they didn't do this any of the previous deployments, but those were also only 12 months rather than 15, and there have been other, obvious changes between the beginning of the war and now (one common comment is that some of the details and duties are slightly more garrison-like).
Of course, as anyone who knows me, has read this blog for a while or has looked through the archives while bored knows, I have a rather intense hate for ranges. In fact, I dread and loathe them with my entire being. They have always made me a little anxious because I'm just not that good a shot, but whatever confidence I had about my ability was completely shattered during BOLC II. I've only been a first time go on a range once in my life, but usually, I could get close, and I'd see improvement throughout the day as I got used to the weapon and people coached me until I got my qualification score.
In BOLC II, however, it just wasn't happening for me. It was the first time I'd shot an M4 and we were using COC sights - basically, it was a red light instead of iron sights. Even the instructors didn't seem to agree on what the standard was for zero on those things, so by the end of zeroing day, we'd gone through about two or three different boxes of where our rounds needed to be hitting on the target to be considered zeroed. So that definitely didn't help matters. Zeroing usually either goes very quickly for me, or takes forever. There's no in between. At Ft. Sill, I was having an off day (week), so I kept getting 4 out 6 shots into an area instead of the required five. Basically, this means, I kept screwing up either my trigger squeeze or my sight picture.
I, along with a select few others, had to zero the next day, and this new range was on a rise. I finally zeroed, but when I went to qualify, the qualification range they'd reserved for us was on a decline. It took me a few tries to realize that in order to hit anything, I had to aim for the dirt way below the actual target because my zero was completely off. I couldn't quite figure out how off, though, so I don't think I shot above 20 that entire day. By the end, I was so frustrated, angry and agitated that I almost started crying when the guy running the tower told me "to hurry up because [I] was holding everyone up." Naturally, I didn't qualify that time either because I was shaking with rage and frustration (so much for that steady position). There were four of us that didn't qualify during range week (and actually, it took most people more tries than usual so everyone was having some issues with the new sights or the elevation). We had to go back the next week and shoot at paper targets. After being rezeroed, I qualified on the first try. However, the experience of being on a hot range for four days straight (Heat Cat 5 hot) and usually being one of the last off the range because I just couldn't get it gave me a new, intensified fear and hatred of ranges. Before that, they were unpleasant, they took longer than I liked, but they weren't nearly the same type of torture as they became that week in Oklahoma.
Imagine my delight then when I had to go to a range within a month of getting to my new unit. And I felt like there was some pressure - I was the new platoon leader, I better at least be able to qualify. Fortunately, March in Germany isn't nearly as hot as a Ft. Sill summer, and even better, we were still using the good old-fashioned iron sights (one of the instructors at BOLC II told us that if we got to our unit and it had new equipment to make the soldiers use it because the Army made it for a reason, and it would help in the long run; not to let the soldiers be afraid to try new things or cling to the old ways - thank you very much, but I'll stick to my iron sights - at least this way, I don't have to worry about my weapon running out of batteries when I'm trying to aim). I didn't qualify the first time, but I borrowed an ACH from one of my soldiers for my second try, and made it. The Kevlar I had was too loose and kept falling into my eyes - made it kind of hard to hit anything, since by the time I'd pushed the Kevlar out of my face, the target had usually already fallen back down (I hadn't gone to RFI yet to get all my "cool" combat equipment and the new style ACH). Also, the soldiers asked about my score, but they didn't really care too much that I wasn't expert or even sharpshooter for that matter.
But anyway, the dread and fear remained. After all, Iraq is hot like Oklahoma, so naturally, it seemed like this range would have more in common with that experience (I kept waking up every half hour to hour the night before). So how'd it go? Eh.
I zeroed pretty quickly, but then again, that makes sense. This is my assigned weapon, and I already zeroed it in Germany. I just had to make a minor adjustment so my rounds were falling into the center of the target rather than the bottom (and honestly, I think that may be due to my glasses - I wore contacts in Germany; I remember hearing that when firing with contacts, you end up aiming or seeing things slightly lower or something). That definitely helped my mood, so I just wanted to get on the range and qualify already. And that's when the range shut down for a camp-wide drill. We all sat in the heat, in full gear, for two hours waiting for the range to go wet again. I drank about three liters of water and never once had to use the bathroom. By the time the drill ended, there was only enough time for everyone to go through the qual once and I missed the score by three. THREE! I had to go back the next day because I only got a 23, instead of a 26 (since paper targets are perceived as easier, they have higher standards).
Everyone else's reaction was, "well, that's close." Mine: "I was so close, what if I screw everything I was actually doing right up, and get a worse score?" Which is exactly what happened the next morning.
I was on the first firing order out there, but I wasn't the first in the line so I didn't get the lane all the way at the end. Why is this important? I'm a lefty. When I shoot, I lay one way, while right-handed firers lay the opposite way. Since I was shooting in a middle lane, the guy to my right and I kept accidentally kicking each other. Not a big deal, but it does affect the position a little. I also hadn't completely adjusted my sandbags when they said to start firing, so I was somewhere between supported and unsupported. My ACH kept slipping, my glasses were slipping and fogging up and I couldn't get a good sight picture (since I was having such a hard time getting a sight picture, I think I even aimed at someone else's target at one point). To top it all off, a round of brass went down my neck while I was in the kneeling (fortunately, I only had a round to go so it's not like it broke my composure when it still mattered - by this point, there was already no way I was going to qualify). I got it out, I didn't flag anyone, but Pivo, who knows me pretty well, was acting as a safety, and he said he thought he was going to have to tackle me because I looked like I was about to flip out (it burns!). I ended up with an overwhelming 17 after that attempt.
Next try - 25. 25. Does anyone realize how absolutely frustrating that is? I also almost burned myself a second time, and managed to bust myself in the lip while clearing my weapon. Shut up, Dad. You try holding a weapon, three mags, a target and trying to clear your weapon all at the same time - something might slip. In my case, it was the rifle, and the butt stock hit me in the face.
In summary, I ended up qualifying with a 32 (only took me four times; actually, if you exclude the 17, my other three scores all would average out to three qualifications - not really relevant, but I thought I'd point it out). My neck looks very bad. Maybe I can pass it off as war wound to civilians when I go on R&R - it takes me forever to completely heal - I still had a noticeable mark from getting burned on the grill after more than six months. That one wasn't my fault, though. Still got the klutz factor going for me, or against me, and maybe, just maybe, I'll eventually get a hang of this shooting thing.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
A Tragic Fall and Culture Clash
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe
I last read this novel when I was in high school, and I have to say, that while I was intelligent and all in high school, and loved books, I didn't seem to appreciate a lot of novels (okay, so I still haven't taken a second look at Bronte but I swear, it's on my shelf, and I'll get around to it). On the one hand, I'm sure some high school students will enjoy this type of stuff and learn from it, but I personally feel like I made several decisions about books based on my high school readings that were too harsh or ill-based. For example, I wasn't into Beloved in high school, but since I've read every one of Morrison's novels. I don't remember feeling all to passionately about this book one way or the other, but it didn't inspire any interest to read anything else by Achebe.
The reason I decided to read it now is because I've read two novels by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie so far this deployment, and I was very impressed by her work. Since she has been compared to Achebe, I wanted to see if the comparison was fair, and I figured if I liked her, then chances were I'd like his novels (not that the "a modern day insert-famous-author-here" recommendation is always a guarantee - in high school, I used to read John Irving, but couldn't even get through a chapter of Dickens).
I enjoyed it a lot - since high school, I've learned a lot more about Western culture and Christianity trying to impose itself on other cultures and judging their customs and traditions without thinking to reexamine theirs, so I appreciated that aspect a lot more.
Okonkwo, the protagonist, is not a very sympathetic character, by any means, but Achebe makes him seem very human. His father's poverty and drunkenness have made Okonkwo a very strict authoritarian who feels like he has something to prove to the world. He has had to work his way up in the world despite his father's failures, and as a result, he is always worried about others perceptions of him, and guards his emotions so he'll seem strong and brave. He beats his wives, kills a boy as part of a sacrifice to the gods, but through it all, while the reader might not approve, Achebe explains his motivations, and even shows his humanity in his relationship with his daughter Ezinma. He loves his children, and, at one point, there was passion in his relationship with at least his second wife (she is the one Achebe focuses on the most).
Given his focus on what is proper, it is of course inevitable that when he falls from power, it would be by tragic accident completely out of his control. No one blamed him for his actions, but tradition is tradition, and as a result Okonkwo and his family are banned from the village for seven years. In these seven years, Christian missionaries begin to have a strong influence over the area, and Okonkwo doesn't want to let go of the old ways. Finally, when a new, more radical missionary takes over, things come to ahead in the village.
Achebe never argues that everything about the old faith or old ways was perfect - after all, Okonkwo gets exiled for an accident, twins are seen as an abomination to be set out to die but there are many traditions that are worth keeping, and given time, who knows what would have happened. The whites, however, just come in, claim the land for their queen, introduce their laws (and their system is often more corrupt), and their religion on the villagers without regard for their traditions and beliefs. The white never actually wonder if maybe it is their ideas that are flawed or could use improvement - imperialism at its best.
I last read this novel when I was in high school, and I have to say, that while I was intelligent and all in high school, and loved books, I didn't seem to appreciate a lot of novels (okay, so I still haven't taken a second look at Bronte but I swear, it's on my shelf, and I'll get around to it). On the one hand, I'm sure some high school students will enjoy this type of stuff and learn from it, but I personally feel like I made several decisions about books based on my high school readings that were too harsh or ill-based. For example, I wasn't into Beloved in high school, but since I've read every one of Morrison's novels. I don't remember feeling all to passionately about this book one way or the other, but it didn't inspire any interest to read anything else by Achebe.
The reason I decided to read it now is because I've read two novels by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie so far this deployment, and I was very impressed by her work. Since she has been compared to Achebe, I wanted to see if the comparison was fair, and I figured if I liked her, then chances were I'd like his novels (not that the "a modern day insert-famous-author-here" recommendation is always a guarantee - in high school, I used to read John Irving, but couldn't even get through a chapter of Dickens).
I enjoyed it a lot - since high school, I've learned a lot more about Western culture and Christianity trying to impose itself on other cultures and judging their customs and traditions without thinking to reexamine theirs, so I appreciated that aspect a lot more.
Okonkwo, the protagonist, is not a very sympathetic character, by any means, but Achebe makes him seem very human. His father's poverty and drunkenness have made Okonkwo a very strict authoritarian who feels like he has something to prove to the world. He has had to work his way up in the world despite his father's failures, and as a result, he is always worried about others perceptions of him, and guards his emotions so he'll seem strong and brave. He beats his wives, kills a boy as part of a sacrifice to the gods, but through it all, while the reader might not approve, Achebe explains his motivations, and even shows his humanity in his relationship with his daughter Ezinma. He loves his children, and, at one point, there was passion in his relationship with at least his second wife (she is the one Achebe focuses on the most).
Given his focus on what is proper, it is of course inevitable that when he falls from power, it would be by tragic accident completely out of his control. No one blamed him for his actions, but tradition is tradition, and as a result Okonkwo and his family are banned from the village for seven years. In these seven years, Christian missionaries begin to have a strong influence over the area, and Okonkwo doesn't want to let go of the old ways. Finally, when a new, more radical missionary takes over, things come to ahead in the village.
Achebe never argues that everything about the old faith or old ways was perfect - after all, Okonkwo gets exiled for an accident, twins are seen as an abomination to be set out to die but there are many traditions that are worth keeping, and given time, who knows what would have happened. The whites, however, just come in, claim the land for their queen, introduce their laws (and their system is often more corrupt), and their religion on the villagers without regard for their traditions and beliefs. The white never actually wonder if maybe it is their ideas that are flawed or could use improvement - imperialism at its best.
What's Up, Doc?
For Her Own Good: Two Centuries of the Experts' Advice to Women by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English
Barbara Ehrenreich is now perhaps most well known for her book Nickel and Dimed, but way back in the day, she and Deirdre English wrote this piece about women, medicine and psychology.
It took me a while to finish this - it was engaging and it wasn't dry, but other things kept coming up that I was slightly more interested in. I think part of the problem is that while their research was probably rather new and groundbreaking in 1978, several authors have since taken similar topics and written books. While there was some new information, for the most part, it felt like a recap of things I had heard/learned in either class or from other books. However, I think it works well as either an introduction or a refresher.
The first section deals with how women, traditional healers and midwives were shut out of medicine as it became a profession and men, who often had no hands on experience and relied merely on book learning (Ken Follett used this as a plot line in World Without End), villainized women who used home remedies and common sense because they lacked formal education. They also mention how witch hunts in Europe were part of this strategy since many of the women accused of witch craft had a knowledge of herbs and healing, and this was used against them. In order to turn medicine into a profession, it had to become more regulated, and men also had to convince others that they had a service to sell rather than an obligation to help others. The book When Abortion Was A Crime also has a good history of men taking over women's medicine, even pushing midwives out by accusing them of being dirty, among other strategies.
Throughout, women's gender and sex was seen as reason enough to keep them outside the medical profession and work in general. Most diseases, no matter what, were blamed on the uterus, and women were seen as incapable of dealing with stress. History went through a shift from the woman as an invalid, unable to do anything because of her frailty, to being a cheerful, active housewife. In all cases, these definitions of womanhood excluded black and working class women since these women didn't have the luxury to be sick or invalid for weeks at a time nor did they have the option of staying home and playing homemaker because their income was vital to the family.
Another point that was kind of interesting was the take on children. With the turn of the century, children also began to be viewed in a different light. Now they became the center point of a woman's existence, but even here the experts changed their minds time and again as to how to properly raise them and what women's duty was. It went from children need a firm hand, to telling women to simply cater to their children's needs ('50s), and until the experts decided that children were horrible ungrateful creatures that needed discipline. And of course, the Oedipus Complex was thrown in, and women were responsible for anything that went wrong with their children - they were either resentful or overprotective.
The book also includes a foreword and afterword which was added to this edition, published in 2004. Expert advice is still prominent as ever as demonstrated by the large self-help sections, and as in the past, it continues to be contradicting and restrictive.
Barbara Ehrenreich is now perhaps most well known for her book Nickel and Dimed, but way back in the day, she and Deirdre English wrote this piece about women, medicine and psychology.
It took me a while to finish this - it was engaging and it wasn't dry, but other things kept coming up that I was slightly more interested in. I think part of the problem is that while their research was probably rather new and groundbreaking in 1978, several authors have since taken similar topics and written books. While there was some new information, for the most part, it felt like a recap of things I had heard/learned in either class or from other books. However, I think it works well as either an introduction or a refresher.
The first section deals with how women, traditional healers and midwives were shut out of medicine as it became a profession and men, who often had no hands on experience and relied merely on book learning (Ken Follett used this as a plot line in World Without End), villainized women who used home remedies and common sense because they lacked formal education. They also mention how witch hunts in Europe were part of this strategy since many of the women accused of witch craft had a knowledge of herbs and healing, and this was used against them. In order to turn medicine into a profession, it had to become more regulated, and men also had to convince others that they had a service to sell rather than an obligation to help others. The book When Abortion Was A Crime also has a good history of men taking over women's medicine, even pushing midwives out by accusing them of being dirty, among other strategies.
Throughout, women's gender and sex was seen as reason enough to keep them outside the medical profession and work in general. Most diseases, no matter what, were blamed on the uterus, and women were seen as incapable of dealing with stress. History went through a shift from the woman as an invalid, unable to do anything because of her frailty, to being a cheerful, active housewife. In all cases, these definitions of womanhood excluded black and working class women since these women didn't have the luxury to be sick or invalid for weeks at a time nor did they have the option of staying home and playing homemaker because their income was vital to the family.
Another point that was kind of interesting was the take on children. With the turn of the century, children also began to be viewed in a different light. Now they became the center point of a woman's existence, but even here the experts changed their minds time and again as to how to properly raise them and what women's duty was. It went from children need a firm hand, to telling women to simply cater to their children's needs ('50s), and until the experts decided that children were horrible ungrateful creatures that needed discipline. And of course, the Oedipus Complex was thrown in, and women were responsible for anything that went wrong with their children - they were either resentful or overprotective.
The book also includes a foreword and afterword which was added to this edition, published in 2004. Expert advice is still prominent as ever as demonstrated by the large self-help sections, and as in the past, it continues to be contradicting and restrictive.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
ARRGH!
So I've been reading The Blog Of War off and on for the last week or so, and it's pissing me off. Let's just say if I ever finish it and actually have the energy to articulate everything that book is making me feel, it could make for a long rant. Of course, that requires me not throwing it across the room/ out the window first.
I mean, I knew it was going to be slightly on the conservative side when I ordered it but I still wanted to see what others engaged in the war were saying, and I'm just completely irritated with what Burden chose as a representation of the war. I certainly don't see myself or my experience anywhere in this damn thing. And I'm trying to consider that the book was published in 2006 and two or more years can make quite a difference, but it's still aggravating.
Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself. This will be continued some time in the near future.
I mean, I knew it was going to be slightly on the conservative side when I ordered it but I still wanted to see what others engaged in the war were saying, and I'm just completely irritated with what Burden chose as a representation of the war. I certainly don't see myself or my experience anywhere in this damn thing. And I'm trying to consider that the book was published in 2006 and two or more years can make quite a difference, but it's still aggravating.
Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself. This will be continued some time in the near future.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Chick Lit Memoir
Bright Lights, Big Ass: A Self-Indulgent, Surly Ex-Sorority Girl's Guide to Why It Often Sucks in the City, or Who Are These Idiots and Why Do They All Live Next Door to Me? by Jen Lancaster
This book is a bit of a shift after a feminist guide, since Jen Lancaster is a self-described conservative Republican that actually reads Ann Coulter. This is her second memoir, and she got the first book deal partially as a result of her blog, www.jennsylvania.com . Her blog is usually rather amusing, and this book was a nice, light read.
Her first book, Bitter is the New Black, was a much more traditional linear narrative. This one is a series of anecdotes, mostly occurring in chronological order, addressing certain themes or stupid events in her life. Actually, it's a lot like reading several very long blog entries. Jen isn't afraid to look at her bad features or portray herself in a very unflattering light (in ways, her behavior towards others has improved since the last book, but she also seems to act even more dizzy on occasion). A lot of the book works because of her humor, and while she is good at making fun of others, she is also self-deprecating, and recognizes when her humor starts getting just cruel.
I admit, sometimes when I read her blog or her books, I hit points where I want to cringe due to her political views or certain behaviors, but there's enough of the humor as discussed above to alleviate any discomfort I might feel. Besides, I'm in the Army - I'm kind of used to being surrounded by people who I like on an individual basis but whose beliefs and political views I absolutely disagree with. And honestly, while perhaps occasionally shallow, Jen Lancaster appears to be slightly more liberal on social issues, although I could be wrong (she isn't homophobic so I'm assuming she is also more pro-gay rights, but then again, I've known people that had several gay friends and were still against gay marriage). Honestly, it's probably just that I think she's funny so I want to give her the benefit of doubt.
This book is a bit of a shift after a feminist guide, since Jen Lancaster is a self-described conservative Republican that actually reads Ann Coulter. This is her second memoir, and she got the first book deal partially as a result of her blog, www.jennsylvania.com . Her blog is usually rather amusing, and this book was a nice, light read.
Her first book, Bitter is the New Black, was a much more traditional linear narrative. This one is a series of anecdotes, mostly occurring in chronological order, addressing certain themes or stupid events in her life. Actually, it's a lot like reading several very long blog entries. Jen isn't afraid to look at her bad features or portray herself in a very unflattering light (in ways, her behavior towards others has improved since the last book, but she also seems to act even more dizzy on occasion). A lot of the book works because of her humor, and while she is good at making fun of others, she is also self-deprecating, and recognizes when her humor starts getting just cruel.
I admit, sometimes when I read her blog or her books, I hit points where I want to cringe due to her political views or certain behaviors, but there's enough of the humor as discussed above to alleviate any discomfort I might feel. Besides, I'm in the Army - I'm kind of used to being surrounded by people who I like on an individual basis but whose beliefs and political views I absolutely disagree with. And honestly, while perhaps occasionally shallow, Jen Lancaster appears to be slightly more liberal on social issues, although I could be wrong (she isn't homophobic so I'm assuming she is also more pro-gay rights, but then again, I've known people that had several gay friends and were still against gay marriage). Honestly, it's probably just that I think she's funny so I want to give her the benefit of doubt.
Who Says Feminists Don't Have A Sense of Humor?
It's A Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments by Amanda Marcotte
Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte recently released this book, and it had favorable reviews, so I ordered it along with a few other blog-inspired books.
The book is broken down into eight sections with several chapters each. Some of them include advice about how to deal with or spot certain types of people, others attack and mock certain prominent media myths/stories or explain and analyze different cultural phenomenons. If you aren't already a feminist, or don't share her views, this book probably won't change your mind. Her opinions are well-crafted and supported, but she isn't necessarily trying to sway anyone over. Instead, it's a fun, amusing book for an audience that already sees things her way, more or less.
I think parts of it would be entertaining even for people who aren't incredibly liberal, but they'd probably also take issue with a few of her statements or topics, wondering what's the big deal about that, anyway. I enjoyed it a lot. The last section includes some recommendations for further reading and viewing. I own four of her six favorite, feminist-friendly shows on DVD.
Among my favorite sections of the books, I'd have to include "Whither Cats?" In this, Marcotte discusses, how in response to hearing about single women living alone, the public responds with the outcry cats. As she states, people who says this have yet to prove "that cats are somehow antihusband and (2) assuming #1 is true, that husbands are better than cats" (76). After all, cats don't get upset if "you don't change your name to Mrs. Cat" (76). I like cats - can you tell? In theory, I have two, but they are really my parents'.
Speaking of the name change, Marcotte also has a great chapter about that entitled "The Name Change Is No Longer Sexist, So Just Shut Up And Do It." She brings up several arguments that people like to make to support name changes, refutes them, and also offers a few strategies to get people to shut up, such as mentioning "that you'd love to have the same last name as your husband, [but] he was surprisingly less than eager to adopt yours" (185). She realizes that people are going to choose their battles, and for some women, this one just isn't worth the trouble. Still, it's nice to analyze and mock the pressure behind this tradition.
Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte recently released this book, and it had favorable reviews, so I ordered it along with a few other blog-inspired books.
The book is broken down into eight sections with several chapters each. Some of them include advice about how to deal with or spot certain types of people, others attack and mock certain prominent media myths/stories or explain and analyze different cultural phenomenons. If you aren't already a feminist, or don't share her views, this book probably won't change your mind. Her opinions are well-crafted and supported, but she isn't necessarily trying to sway anyone over. Instead, it's a fun, amusing book for an audience that already sees things her way, more or less.
I think parts of it would be entertaining even for people who aren't incredibly liberal, but they'd probably also take issue with a few of her statements or topics, wondering what's the big deal about that, anyway. I enjoyed it a lot. The last section includes some recommendations for further reading and viewing. I own four of her six favorite, feminist-friendly shows on DVD.
Among my favorite sections of the books, I'd have to include "Whither Cats?" In this, Marcotte discusses, how in response to hearing about single women living alone, the public responds with the outcry cats. As she states, people who says this have yet to prove "that cats are somehow antihusband and (2) assuming #1 is true, that husbands are better than cats" (76). After all, cats don't get upset if "you don't change your name to Mrs. Cat" (76). I like cats - can you tell? In theory, I have two, but they are really my parents'.
Speaking of the name change, Marcotte also has a great chapter about that entitled "The Name Change Is No Longer Sexist, So Just Shut Up And Do It." She brings up several arguments that people like to make to support name changes, refutes them, and also offers a few strategies to get people to shut up, such as mentioning "that you'd love to have the same last name as your husband, [but] he was surprisingly less than eager to adopt yours" (185). She realizes that people are going to choose their battles, and for some women, this one just isn't worth the trouble. Still, it's nice to analyze and mock the pressure behind this tradition.
Further Reading
Thanks to snailbiscuits for the link.
I liked this article about women blogging, and media representations of women in film. Definitely worth checking out.
I liked this article about women blogging, and media representations of women in film. Definitely worth checking out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)