Women (re)defined by Navy As Males

I saw on a friend's facebook she was a fan of "women (re)defined", it wouldn't let me comment on it's page without becoming a fan which I am not. It is just a silly pro-war misgynomist "re-definition" of women to be like men. Why must women be like men to be powerful? The Military is the perfect example. They see themselves as a non-gendered entity, but really they are the epitome of "male". They are homophobic, violent, and use size to intimidate others and prove their dominance. It isn't a new type of femininity, it is the masculinity of femininity. Or the more extreme reading of it is about how the Military, now which is mostly non-combative positions, finally see that women fit in.

A great website that goes more over it is http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/09/18/navy-women-redefined/

Another arm of this propaganda is targeting Navy Mothers, but not moms who are in the Navy, but rather the mother of soldiers. While it is neat that there would be a support system for mothers going through the pain of having children in combat, from reading through it, it isn't for people with pain, it is simple propaganda used to make parents more pliable to the idea of sending their precious family into war. Mothers against war are a very active group. They make a good argument too. Most people do consult their families before making decisions about joining the Military. To get to the kids, you have to go through the gatekeepers. Those are the schools (mostly public ones that have already attracted minorities and the poor), and parents. Parents would be the best target for propaganda. It seems benign, but it is propaganda.

Most people think of "propaganda" as a bad thing. Defined it means any pursuation that is used to gain power. It has a goal, that may not be in it's immediate intent. It influences behavior or thought. But to think that it is always bad is a fair reading of "propaganda". I have to go to class, but I'll try and write more later.