Is U.S. military aligned correctly?Published 12:01am Sunday, November 18, 2012
One wonders why women should want to serve in the military. Apart from the fact that women might have some desire to perform patriotic duty, what good does joining a historically male organization do for a woman?
Does it engender some sense of equality? Does it offer some opportunity options that might not exist for some young women?
Exactly how does being rigorously steeped in male tradition built along male paradigms and being ruled over by a male dominated hierarchy benefit a young woman just starting out in the world?
Is this some new plan of the patriarchy to re-educate young women into male philosophy? Is this a plan to make a certain percentage of young women think like men? Wouldn’t that be just lovely!
Early in his last tenure, President Obama spoke a few times about a civilian force just as large and just as well-funded as the military.
Why not create such a force, not a force for civil defense as he seemed to suggest, but a force that offensively seeks to promote harmony in society?
Rather than send our young women off to witness the horrors of “defending” our freedoms, why not offer them the same opportunity to serve here at home in a capacity more aligned with women’s special attributes, the task of expanding our freedom to live in harmony and plenty?
Why not let young women learn about logistics, strategy and tactics and all the manifold support functions required by an organized force serving in a force designed to attack the numerous social ills we face today?
Young women could afford themselves the same opportunity for personal growth, the same opportunity for exposure to the real world and the same opportunity for a career in public service through the creation of this national assault force.
Young women could gain the same sense of belonging, the same sense of patriotic devotion, the same sense of accomplishment doing positive good right here at home, where they would be safe from the dangers of an early death or mutilation, or long-lasting trauma.
This assault force could be funded with deductions from the “defense” force.
Surely the Pentagon could spare a few hundred million to begin with, working over time until the national assault force were equal in size to the national defense force. The war industry and the developing peace industry could both be funded with no new taxes needed.
What better homeland security than a nation protected by a force designed to do positive good and do it aggressively, staffed by women of all creeds, colors, faiths and origins?