The Modern Feminist Rejection of Constitutional Government

Submitted by Mastodon on Tue, 2016-08-23 04:56

Article here. Excerpt:

'Progressives and feminists alike largely advocate the goal of ensuring that men and women enjoy equal opportunity and treatment under the law, a goal that resonates overwhelmingly with the American public. Modern feminism, however, has strayed from this narrow mission, embracing instead a far more radical agenda. In the name of promoting “equality,” it has become a movement that seeks to promote women’s full autonomy by eliminating gender distinctions and forcing gender parity (statistical proportionality of males and females) in every area of academic, economic, social, and political life. Achieving these ends requires the vast expansion of centralized government, the redefinition of freedom, and the preferential application of the law to women based on their identity as a specially protected class.

On these grounds, the modern feminist movement is interested in fundamental social transformation rather than the mere protection of individual freedom and opportunity. Its agenda is openly hostile to the American constitutional system, which is based on limiting the scope and character of the law in order to protect the individual rights and equal opportunity of both men and women.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

The recent kerfuffle over drafting women shows the differences in the genders regarding voting and social obligations.

The draft for men was justified by saying that if men wanted to enjoy the rights of this country, including the right to vote, it was fair for the government to obligate them to fight for the country. This was held in a Supreme Court ruling early in the 20th century and confirmed by a later decision which stated that since women could not serve in combat, they were not required to be drafted. But since women can now serve in combat, the latter reason no longer is applicable, which is why drafting women is a real possibility.

On the other hand, when women were given universal suffrage, no court or authority ruled they had any obligation to serve in combat. Thus, the two sexes had different social contracts. Men's rights came with obligations to the state, while women's rights came with no obligations to the state.

So now that drafting women is possible, will women be given men's social contract or will men be given women's social contract? Will men now have rights without obligations or will both sexes have rights with obligations? I suspect that women will not be drafted and, therefore, that men will now have rights without obligations to the state. Thus the state will no longer be able to argue that men's rights come with obligations to the state. That's a huge change in the social contract--and one rarely discussed.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Wed, 2016-08-24 13:21

Alas I am forced by experience to disagree. Nymphotropism has no limits. Never underestimate its power to induce cognitive dissonance.

A reason to keep women exempt from draft registration will be found. Always is. Women are not even required to serve in the IDF (though they can volunteer), and Israel is surrounded by states with aims to destroy them. Nope, when it comes to equal obligations, the typical person will find a rationalization to keep them from applying to females.

Like clockwork. You can bet on it and win every time.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2016-08-25 00:56