Talk:Chickenhawk

	This Chickenhawks related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Margaret Thatcher

To be fair, British women were not allowed to enlist in the military when she was of military age. The first women in the British military enlisted when she was 44. Is it really fair to include her under these circumstances? Kentuckyball (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, it isn't.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We have had problems with the Chickenhawk label before so this is probably one of those old critcisms that never got fact checked.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 17:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly true in the case of the United Kingdom. Several units of women were formed during and after the World Wars.:

• Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps (1917-1921). Provided female personnel for auxiliary military positions such as clerks, cooks, cooks, telephonists, waitresses, and medical staff. Over 57,000 women served in this unit.
• Women's Royal Naval Service (1917-1919, 1939-1993). Provided female personnel for the Royal Navy. Members served in auxiliary positions such as cooks, clerks, wireless telegraphists, radar plotters, weapons analysts, range assessors, electricians and air mechanics. About 5.500 women served during World War I, 75,000 women during World II. The first member to actually serve on an operational warship did so in 1990, during the Gulf War. The service was merged into the Royal Navy in 1993.
• Women's Royal Air Force (1918-1920, 1949-1994). Provided female personnel for the Royal Air Force. Members served in auxiliary positions such as mechanics, and drivers. The force was merged into the Royal Air Force in 1994.
• Auxiliary Territorial Service (1938-1949). Provided female personnel for auxiliary military positions such as cooks, clerks, storekeepers, telephonists, orderlies, drivers, postal workers, ammunition inspectors, and anti-aircraft artillery personnel. Over 65,000 women served in this unit. Its most famous veteran is Queen Elizabeth II, who spend her service as a lorry (truck) driver.
• Women's Auxiliary Air Force (1939-1949). Provided female personnel for the Royal Air Force. Members served in auxiliary positions, such as parachute packing, crewing of barrage balloons, catering, meteorology, radar operations, aircraft maintenance, transport, communications duties including wireless telephonic and telegraphic operation, code and ciphers operations, reconnaissance photographs analysis, and intelligence operations. At least 180,000 women served this force during World War II, including both volunteers and those conscripted into service.
• Women's Royal Army Corps (1949-1992). The female branch of the British Army following World War II. Disbanded in 1992, with its members absorbed into other military units.

Margaret Thatcher was born in 1925 and was 20 years old at the end of World War II. She was eligible for service in one of these units, but neither volunteered, nor was ever conscripted. She spend the years 1943 to 1947 studying for a Chemistry Bachelor of Science degree in the Somerville College, Oxford and specializing in X-ray crystallography. She graduated in 1947, following the end of the war. She was reportedly the first British Prime Minister with a science degree of any kind. Dimadick (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that none of these positions are actually fighting positions (Except maybe the last one but from a quick google search I did not find that to be so, correct me if I'm wrong). Chickenhawk I would imagine wouldn't refer to people who worked in administrative positions or as parachute packers, but would more refer to people who were on the front lines and have really seen the horrors of war. Kentuckyball (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Syrian girl

Syrian girl has never adovoated for offensive war just for Assad to fight the rebels There’s a big difference between advocating crushing insurgents and invading other nations Same with Khomeni He didn’t start the Iran Iraq war he simply was In charge at the time and defended his land. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2603:6000:9940:574a:15a3:b8c2:43ba:a901 / talk}

This whole article seems fallacious for me

As much as I applaud efforts to foster peace and oppose mindless warmongering I have to say this whole article, as well as the label itself, seems to me to be fallacious and irrational.

As far as I understand your position one must have served in the military if one supports going to war on any particular case, or else one is a deplorable chickenhawk.

It is a fallacy to claim that first-hand experience in X is needed to talk about or support X. By the very same line of reasoning we could say that only mothers may be midwives, that no one without a driving license may be a car mechanic or, even more absurdly, that a historian must have lived in the times they study.

In the modern society theoretical knowledge required for decision making is very often far removed from actual implementation of these decisions - it would be absurd to require that a planner who designs a new street must personally operate a bulldozer and pour asphalt on the field that is to become a new street.

Similarly, the decision of whether or not go to war is a decision of politicians - it MUST NOT be the decision of military personnel themselves, for obvious reasons. Therefore labeling politicians as chickenhawks is ridiculous, as it borderlines stigmatizing politicians for doing their job, which is - among others - to direct the military.

A politician may or may not have had personally served in the military - but it shouldn't matter that much since the skillset needed to be a successful politician is quite different from the skillset needed to become a successful footsoldier. It would be best if a politician does not remain a soldier while serving as a politician, or else we have a military junta.

Last final reduction to absurd: By your reasoning only former soldiers may say that Ukraine has the right to defend itself against Russia.

While there definitely does exist an unfortunate mindset that conjoins cowardice with mindless warmongering and such mindset can and should be rightfully criticized, suggesting an implication "IF you did not serve in military and support war at any particular occasion THEN you are an abhorrent idiot who supports atrocities without even realizing how horrible they are" is excessive, unsubstantiated and fallacious. Sjhfeke (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: Perhaps the term 'Chickenhawk' (as well as its sister label, 'armchair warrior') could be salvaged under condition that they are redefined a bit? Let me attempt: A 'chickenhawk' (or an 'armchair warrior') is a person who simultaneously (a) advocates for the use of violence even though it is clear that they (b) have no competence on the subject and (c) the execution of what they propose would result (or, even worse, does result) in a catastrophe from both ethical and pragmatic points of view. Sjhfeke (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Non combat

Should people who served active duty but not in a combat role and who advocate for war be considered chickenhawks? ^{— Unsigned, by: 2603:6000:9940:574a:4579:dbc6:4a7e:90c0 / talk / contribs}

I don't think so. Theoretically, anyone in the military can be sent into combat. People in the US military lose a lot of rights during their service. Bongolian (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Considering when you join the military you lose all rights to self-determination for a set period of time you could argue that it's a form of voluntary slavery. Carthage (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel like there is a case to be made for people who use their connections to get a cushy post. Plutocow (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Foreign miltary

What about people like Arnold Schwarzenegger who served in the Austrian army in peace time? ^{— Unsigned, by: Samuel1998 / talk / contribs}

Genocide

What about people who survived genocides and advocate for aggressive war tom Lantos comes to mind ^{— Unsigned, by: Samuel1998 / talk / contribs}