VA Motto - Lincoln's Words Sexist, Vets Demand It Be Changede

1. 90

   GA Andersonposted 6 years ago

   The Veteran Administration's, (VA) motto, a phrase from Pres. Lincoln's 1865 Second Inaugural Address, is sexist, and “symbolizes​ ​the agency’s​ ​resistance​ ​to​ ​gender​ ​equity.” It must be changed, says the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, (IAVA), veteran's group.
   Source: VA rejects push to alter ‘sexist’ motto: ‘Lincoln’s words are Lincoln’s words’
   
   The motto:
   “To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.”
   
   Who would not see this reference - in light of today's attitudes, as a reference to the soldiers of our military - male and female, except someone looking to find offense?
   
   Oops... It appears IAVA doesn't see it that way;
   
   “Every​ ​day​ ​that​ ​the​ ​VA preserves​ ​this​ ​motto,​ ​it​ ​ignores​ ​and​ ​obscures​ ​the​ ​needs​ ​of​ ​far​ ​too​ ​many​ ​women​ ​veterans. […] The​ ​VA’s​ ​continued​ ​use​ ​of​ ​its​ ​sexist​ ​motto​ ​symbolizes​ ​the agency’s​ ​resistance​ ​to​ ​gender​ ​equity,​ ​and​ ​perpetuates​ ​a​ ​hostile​ ​and​ ​unequal​ ​environment​ ​for women​ ​veterans,” IAVA’s letter reads in part."
   
   Obviously I am too much of a dinosaur to have any patience for stuff like this.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Just a little more bait for the College of the P.C ,  .....come on seriously ,  Lincoln , a guy that grew up in the early 1800's , a saying bent towards the positivity of protecting those who sacrifice the most in war , any war .            Liberal P.C.er's  will stoop to  all the new lows  for what ?  Just to inflame one more cause born of selfish  personal recognition ?
      
      I think even truly consciensious liberals will tire of this mindless P.C. crapolla  eventually ...........well ...........maybe not  . I mean , no one here appreciates the new roles of women in the military more than I,  I'm sure  female soldiers didn't bring this to the fore-front ,  can we not be lame ?
      
      Probably just one more UCLA freshman activist.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Like you said, it is what Abraham Lincoln said. I cannot think of anyone then or today that more eloquently spoke to the state of the veteran and his or her survivors.  If he were alive today, I am sure that he would have been more inclusive regarding gender. I can't imagine women wanting to make an issue out of this, as we all know that the intent of the quote was not intended to exclude women from being included as part and parcel of the mission of the VA.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I think I see a tinge Purple there Cred. Well done.
         
         And well done on what I see as a rational perspective too.
         
         GA

         replyreport
      2. 71

         VanessaJanesposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with you there was no intent to exclude female veterans.  However, if female veterans want a more inclusive motto for the agency that is supposed to care for them and all veterans, then they have earned the right to say so. Times have changed since Lincoln was president. It does no dishonor to Lincoln  to adopt a more inclusive motto that reflects the current reality of women veterans.  It would dishonor women veterans to dismiss their desire to be included in the motto of the government agency that should be taking care of them. They served, too.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Aime, I took at look at IAVA's website to try to see if this is a female soldier driven campaign. No luck, and no luck finding gender membership numbers. Or female spokepeople for the campaign.
            
            Of course it is not a valid indicator that most of the sites language and imagery shows a male bias. The organization does have a female executive director, but I could find nothing that indicates this is a female soldier driven issue, A Stars and Stripes article spoke of an IAVA survey that indicated 73% of 4300 membership respondents, (no gender data included), say they don't feel women vets are equally respected .
            
            Since you mentioned it, I too think it matters who is behind this campaign, if it isn't women, then I stand firmly with my first thoughts. If it is women, I still stand with my first thoughts, but maybe not so firmly.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 90

               GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Oops! This was to Vanessajanes, not Aime.
               
               GA

               replyreport
   3. 61

      Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      As a female veteran I can tell you I think this is beyond ridiculous. We change it to include 'women' and then we'll be faced with complaints that it doesn't include something like he/she and she who was a he, then he who was a she, and then we'll have to take into account all the other possible contingencies. I can imagine:
      
      “To care for the human being, whatever their sex, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic identity, biological predisposition, or otherwise personally preferred means of identification unthought of at the time of this sayings affiliation; who shall have borne the battle and for their significant other; whatever their sex, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic identity, biological predisposition, or otherwise personally preferred means of identification unthought of at the time of this sayings, and the  minor human being, whatever their sex, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic identity, biological predisposition, or otherwise personally preferred means of identification they might, at some point, determine themselves to be during the course of their future life unthought of at the time of this sayings left behind by the human being, whatever their sex, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic identity, biological predisposition, or otherwise personally preferred means of identification unthought of at the time of this sayings.”
      
      I'm certain, even that, may not fulfill the desire of some future human being.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         Greensleeves Hubsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         That's the way things are going - we laugh now, but in the future it'd scarcely be surprising if that's how it's phrased - a crazy world getting more crazy !!

         replyreport
2. 70

   Aime Fposted 6 years ago

   Meh.
   
   Doesn’t bother me personally... but I’m not a veteran. I don’t think it would bother me even I were a veteran, but who knows. If the environment is already not very welcoming of women then I could see how something like this might pile it on. But I have no idea if that’s the case and I won’t pretend to know.
   
   At the same time, if people feel it’s time to move on to a more inclusive motto I don’t see what the issue is with that, either.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I understand your perspective Aime, and I am not losing any sleep over it either. It is just one more example, by my thinking, of valid issues being taken too far. So far, that I think they harm rather than help the issue involved.
      
      As Wilderness said, this is just one more example of the sometimes idiocy of the PC movement. (okay, the idiocy was mine, the PC was Wilderness')
      
      An illegal alien is now an undocumented immigrant, the Washington Redskins is a racist name that must be changed, (Washington Native Americans?), all Confederate heroes were only honored because they were pro-slavery racists, and now, any gender specific noun or pronoun is inequitable to the opposite gender. Geesh!
      
      Whatever happened to that old adage that was intended to be a life-lesson for kids as they grew-up... 'sticks and stones...'? I suppose it is as much a dinosaur now as my thoughts are.
      
      GA

      replyreport
3. 95

   wildernessposted 6 years ago

   We should change history to assuage the tender sensitivities of a handful that search diligently for something, anything, they can complain about?
   
   I don't think so.  If one of the greatest men in our history is to be considered sexist then let it be so.  The rest of us will console ourselves with the knowledge that our culture is not what his was, and do it without trying to change what was into what we would like it to be.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I don’t think anyone was implying that Lincoln was sexist but that the quote’s use in its current context is. Not saying I necessarily agree but I do think most people realize that the problem is not with the quote itself or the man who said it.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         You might be right - I perhaps did not read closely enough.  Either way, though, it's once more taking the requirement to be PC too far.  There can't be a soul in the country that would read that motto as not applying to all modern soldiers, regardless of whether women fought in the army during Lincoln's time or not.

         replyreport
   2. 90

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I see that Aime already mentioned it bud, but I don't think the inference was to Lincoln, but to the VA's use of the motto. I am with you on the "console" part. I might grumble about this stuff, but I am not changing my perspective, or losing any sleep over it.  ;-)
      
      GA

      replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   So , somewhere between 400 and 750 women "fought " in the civil war . They either disguised themselves as men or not however all deserve recognition ,    I'm sure neither the news media ,the government or the women themselves  admitted it at the time . The changing of written ,historical speeches for the purpose of today's popular  P.C. recognition however ,  IS but a political move by liberal re-writers of history  to  actually change history itself !

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Aime Fposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      No one wants to change the quote itself. I think everyone can recognize the quote was said in a different time. The suggestion is to look at finding a more inclusive motto for the different environment that exists today, not to rewrite history. Calm down.

      replyreport
   2. 90

      GA Andersonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Regarding this topic, I read of no effort to change a historical speech - just to pick a different motto.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         My point  is the judging of real history by TODAY's unreal cultural standards ,   It only shows the political  , cultural and un-evolving   immaturity  of many .  AND   I have always admired , fully respected and appreciated  the unerring sacrifice of woman and her role in our history .
         
         In clear and simple terms,  I hate P.C..

         replyreport
5. 91

   Greensleeves Hubsposted 6 years ago

   Good to see some from both sides of the political divide in agreement on this. In American terms I would be regarded as a liberal, but nothing irritates me more than the silly extremes that some people go to in striving to be 'politically correct'. All common sense goes out the window in an effort to ensure no one anywhere can possibly get offended.
   
   As far as the motto is concerned, it's OK I suppose to compose a completely new one if they think there's a different but more appropriate sentiment which needs to be expressed, but to distort (corrupt) a statement by one of your greatest leaders is just plain wrong - you can't rewrite history just for the sake of modern sensitivities, and in this case it's not necessary to try.
   
   In the UK incidentally I think most people support more inclusiveness of all sections of society in public statements, but most also think that it's sometimes taken to ridiculous extremes. It's in the nature of things that pressure groups - the 'political correctness brigade' or any other - will always try to take things too far.

   replyreport
6. 71

   VanessaJanesposted 6 years ago

   First, no one wants to change the quote itself, much less  "change history." It is merely being suggested that the motto,  which was adopted over 50 years ago, does not fit with the modern era. Geez, organizations update slogans, mottos, logos, and other identifying materials all the time. What is the big deal?
   
   I don't personally care, but if the clients being served by the VA care, it matters. Those "clients" served their country and have a right to express their feelings about it without being labeled P.C. As usual, the reaction from some traditionalists is way over the top.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I am more concerned that access to the VA and its services are actually being provided on an equal basis.
      
      We can create an additional motto or remove the gender reference from Lincoln's quote, when I know that it remains in the spirit of Lincoln's intent, because history reveals the man in just such a light.

      replyreport