REFLECTIONS OF "THE INVISIBLE WAR"

     After viewing the eye-opening documentary by Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering called "An Invisible War" this past Wednesday afternoon, I have a new understanding of just how prevalent rape is in the United States Military. Once in awhile, I would hear about a case in the news and feel angry and disgusted that many individuals who are trained to be leaders, are in fact some of the perpetrators of this crime. According to the Department of Defense, it is estimated that out of all the active-duty female soldiers, 20 percent are violently sexually assaulted. Furthermore, approximately 1 percent of male soldiers, or  (20, 000 men in 2009) have been sexually assaulted. The percentage of men and women who are raped is most likely even higher, but unfortunately many don't report it because only 10 percent of assault cases end up being prosecuted.

     When it comes to rape in the U.S. Military then, it's apparent that this heinous and dehumanizing act is not gender specific, although female soldiers are raped far more often by military personnel. Sadly, there are still a great deal of men in our society who remain extremely discriminatory against women who desire to proudly serve our country. Even though there are many reasons why men rape women, as well as other men, it's possible that these offenders see women in particular, as trying to infiltrate and challenge their historic male only ideal within the military establishment. So, in their distorted way of thinking the only way to force them out, is to commit  acts of violence and sexual trauma against them. Rape is about power and dominance. Furthermore, it's used as a tool to degrade and destroy people mentally, and even physically.

     The film concludes by indicating that out of the many cases reported, they rarely result in any type of formal prosecution. Not surprisingly, as the paperwork moves through the chain of command it somehow becomes misplaced, forgotten, or even destroyed.  In fact, the film included a list of individuals accused of rape, who actually received promotions instead. Great deterrent! So, while the rapists go on with their pathetic lives, victims are left to deal with the bureaucracy, lingering physical injuries and PSTD, doctor appointments, medical bills, and legal fees.

     I found it very interesting that when interviewed on camera, high ranking military personnel would condemn these assaults and even talked as if they were doing everything possible to bring the offenders to justice. The reality is that victims remain in a constant state of victimization because they don't get any satisfactory answers and closure. Michel Foucault states, "We may find "states of domination" where power relations have become so entrenched that they can seem entirely one-sided and unchangeable." Clearly, the United States Military resists in moving forward into the 21st century.   There are also certain factions within this male dominated organization that are seemingly impermeable by design, a sort of power within a power, if you will.

     There are many brave, patriotic, and dedicated American soldiers of both genders that put their lives on the line and sacrifice a great deal in order to protect and defend our nation. So, why doesn't the United States Military PROTECT AND DEFEND their own soldiers? Why are disturbed and violent individuals in our military allowed to be promoted, especially when they're accused of rape, or even under a serious cloud of suspicion about this this crime? Shouldn't the most advanced and powerful nation in the world perform an equally advanced type of psychological profile on all individuals who want to join the military? Obviously, due to the number of sexual assaults reported in the documentary, there are many offenders currently at large in the United States Military. There has got to be a better  selection process put in place to eliminate undesirable candidates BEFORE their allowed to join. Because today's recruiters have a monthly quota to attain just like many sales associates in business, it's all about the numbers, not about enlisting qualified, mentally stable, and descent human beings.

Hillary Clinton - NOT Too Old For Presidency

     Although, I'm really tired of politics right now because of the endless campaigning of the recent presidential election, there is one story that just caught my attention. Lately, there has been a lot of discussion in the news about Hillary Clinton running for president in 2016. In fact, CNN Contributor and author David Frum, wrote an article on CNN.com about Clinton, and offered some rather insightful reasons why he thinks the Democratic Party shouldn't support Clinton's campaign. However, one of Frum's opinions really caught my attention. He wrote, "Hillary Clinton is 14 years older than Barack Obama. A party has never nominated a leader that much older than his immediate predecessor." Interestingly, Frum continued his thought by actually offering two examples of presidential predecessors that were in fact older - James Buchanan and Dwight Eisenhower. So, I began to wonder why he even mentioned Clinton's age in his opinion piece at all? Was this a sexist statement? Not surprisingly, Frum's piece created a bit of a backlash. But it also generated a great deal of discussion about gender and ageism, especially with regard to the presidency.

 Clinton will only be 73 years old in 2016.  She is a very sharp, energetic, and healthy woman who just finished her term as Secretary of State. When the time comes for her to make a decision, I'm sure she will do what is best for her, and the country. As I thought about Frum's statement further, I realized that the new Pope Francis is currently 76 years old, and he seems energetic and clear-headed enough to do his job. Was age a factor in his election? Pope Benedict, who just retired, was 78 years old when elected, and is now 85.  Pope John Paul II served the longest (30 years), and died when he was 85 years old. Finally, President Reagan was actually 69 years old when he was elected, served two terms and was almost 78 when he finished his last term in office. In an article written by Claudia Tomlinson from the Huffington Post, she writes, "While an older man is seen as symbolizing wisdom and credibility, the older woman is still associated with kindliness, and nurturing, not characteristics highly valued in international political leadership roles." I think Tomlinson is very accurate in her perception. This idea is a result of the traditional social constructions of gender roles about what older men and women are supposed to act like at a certain age. Frankly, I can't picture Hillary Clinton staying home baking pies and cookies.

      Due to our current economic situation, many older people have come out of retirement and gone back into the workforce. I wonder if the current perceptions about the older generation will change? Also, if Hillary Clinton does become the next president, will this great milestone finally put an end to the negativity surrounding women, age, and their potential for service in the highest levels of our government?