|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 15, @05:59PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen a lot of people say that opposition to drafting women is a liberal feminist view held by socialist Democrats and members of NOW. But, here's a conservative columnist, obviously not a feminist, obviously not a liberal, coming out against drafting women. I've seen other conservatives say similiar things.
So if you're against drafting women, does that make you a liberal or a conservative or what? If you're for it, what does that make you then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am neither liberal nor conservative, but am completely against the draft. Honestly, I think the draft is one case where there really aren't any liberal/conservative definitions, except for the fact that liberal presidents seem to want women included in the draft while liberal feminists seem to think that war SHOULD only affect men.
As for the rest of the world, I think it depends on the individual, and not so much the politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 15, @06:26PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
From what I've seen, feminists are divided on this issue. And so are masculists. Some feminists favor forcing women to register, others don't. NOW joined with men's activists at one time to support inclusion of women in mandatory draft registry. But for different reasons than the masculists. NOW says the exlusion of women reinforces their 2nd class citizen status. Men's activists (or the masculist branch of men's activists) say the exclusion of women is actually a form of protecting women while using men, which makes men the 2nd class citizens. I agree more with the latter. But as we know, men's activists are a little divided here. Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 15, @07:00PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
No matter what is done, there will be people who will be furious. It scares me that so many people are screaming about equality, and demand it even if it means sacrificing this country in war by putting undertrained, unqualified women on the front lines.
The military was never supposed to be a bastion of equality. Its purpose is to protect this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, the military isn't a bastion of equality... but this country IS. And if you're drafting free people into an unfree military, then the country really can't call itself free, can it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A former teacher of mine once said that school, the American academie, or whatver you want to call it, was not a democratic (free) institution. That was over 25 years ago.
The American military is not supposed to be free either. I don't know how I feel about the draft, by the way, either, but if people join an all-volunteer army, they deserve the utmost respect, because they are giving up their freedom voluntarily to defend this country.
I guess the point is, while the military may not be free, neither should it become a petri dish for some misguided social experiment. If women can't physically fight in the infantry, they don't belong there. Notice I said infantry [ground troops], not flying a plane or operating radar on a ship. I think women have been doing these things, haven't they? And if they are doing them well, I say let them.
BTW, I think we are getting off topic here, as regards to what Kathleen Parker is, ideologically.
I'd say she is a conservative anti-feminist, and as such, when I read the column in question, I realized I no longer trust her. As I have posted before on this site, this particular breed doesn't really care about men any more than the feminists do.
What is it they say, the opposite of hate, is not love, but indifference?
fritzc77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for that last comment, I meant to say "the opposite of love, is not hate, but indifference", not the other way around.
fritzc77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neil Steyskal had submitted this as a story a few days ago, and I think it would be easier to post it here rather than as a lead story, given the backlog we currently have. His submission was a link to some of the Newsweek letter responses to Anna Quindlen's column about drafting women:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/655446.asp
----
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
