IT has been brought to my attention, by one of my readers (which means one third of the readership) that, apparently, I posted two similar entries. What I believe happened was that I wrote the first draft in two places. I published it. Then I found it in a second location, and I noted that it had not been corrected. I assumed that therefore it had not been posted. So I posted it. I apologize. I would say that this would never happen again, except for the fact that I probably will.
As a sort of compensation, I invite a guest to offer this entry. His name is Jonathan Swift. He is a churchman of the Church of England. He offers this following commentary that he calls “A Modest Proposal.” The subject is the evaluation of allowing women to serve in combat situations in the armed services.
Take it, Johnnie.
I modestly propose that females not only be allowed, but also be encouraged to serve in the more dangerous roles in the military. The arguments advanced against this, though they have some value, become moribund and sterile when compared to the advantages. I shall offer a few.
An argument against the policy is that this will cause more females to be killed. I admit this highly probable conclusion. However, death comes to all of us. As we shall admit, if we were honest enough to do so, many people should die, relatively early, as their absence contributes more to a beneficial society than their presence. The support for abortion rests solely, and firmly, upon the following premise. Those who are not wanted should not be allowed to live. Because of legal restrictions (that are, as I write, being weakened) this lack of attractiveness is currently limited to the not yet born. Further advance of this eugenic principle may be hoped for… especially if the Democrats continue to win elections.
The society, that is its more intelligent members, decree that some are not fit for life. As any logical criterion compels us to conclude, the following principle must be followed. If the ends are desired then the means, even if indirect and unintentional, must also be accepted, if not vigorously advocated.
Warfare surely will kill mostly young people. Putting females in harm’s way will cause more young females to be killed. And who are these, that is who would accept these combat roles? The feminist would. The shrew would. So would the hag. That is, the least desired among that gender would be full soldiers. This alone would lead us, and does lead us, to conclude that losses of such individuals would actually be a collective gain. A society of cranky and rebellious women is conducive to neither public discourse, nor rational polity, nor communal peace, nor serene marriages, nor happy children (that is the ones who are pretty enough so that we allow to be born).
As I am near the end of my limited space allow me merely to allude and then pass over another advantages. The more intelligent of us know that world is overpopulated. The death of young females not only removes them from the total number. It also removes (by a type of advance abortion) their never-to-be-conceived offspring. Gentlemanly inhibition prevents me from indicating the sad fact that many “womanly soldiers” lack the conventional standards of beauty and charm. Thus their elimination will increase the average level of both.
Such a policy would not cure all the ills of the nation. However, it would be a beneficial milestone on our current course. I thank you for the opportunity to express my view.
Comments