|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woodrow Dick's letter is insightful. But I wish he (or the editors who changed his letter) had been clearer: the silencing and shaming of men is not just about depriving men of the right to say "no", it's also about teaching men that they are less valuable than women, and that they have no right to speak about their human dignity, life possibilities, and personal choices. Men need to have the courage to say "no" to women, but they need also to have the courage to say much more. Mensactivism.org is a hugely important inspiration in this regard. Let's do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have always believed that if women want the right to vote they should be told that they also have reponsiblities towards that right.
This is also what Robert Heinlein wrote about in his Starship Troops (the movie was crap by the way) book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 30, @12:48PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
There should be no draft at all. If there is one, it shouldn't be tied to voting under any circumstances. No one, men or women, should be told that they have a responsibility to be forced into involuntary suicide by the most horrific means imaginable just so they can have the right to vote.
I think it's disturbing that there are so many parents who are looking forward to sending both their sons and daughters to the gallows. It's like they can't wait to get the body bags back. They claim war is awful but are rubbing their hands together, their eyes gleaming with anticipation. This is the same thing that happened with the Hitler Youth in Nazi Germany. Parents were told that a dead kid was a badge of honor.
This is what the draft has done to our country, and this is why we need to eliminate it before it ends up literally destroying humanity itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, as a newbie, I hate to make my first comment a correction; but, in fact, the draft has been eliminated. There has been no conscription in the US since the early 70’s. Registration for the draft is another matter, and perhaps this is what the original writer and the comment above referred to.
In any case, I must respectfully disagree with both the letter to the editor and some of the comments in this thread. In the event of a war that necessitates conscription – which the current one is unlikely to do – I accept that it is men who must bear this burden. It is both our duty and our honor to serve our country in wartime if called. Women do not have that duty, but rather have the duty to show support and loyalty to the men who serve. Call it “romantic” if you like. I prefer to think of it as respectful of tradition. Women, in turn, have other duties that men do not have. (Although I admit that they are rarely compelled by law to honor them, as men are when drafted.)
The problem is that our society has shifted from recognizing this natural difference between the sexes to believing that men should be women with penises who need to learn to live up to their feminine potential. This, in turn, requires that traditional male virtues, vices, obligations and behaviors be cast aside, demeaned and even prosecuted so that men will become more like women. As result, even something as quintessentially masculine as military service must be feminized so it can be acceptable to the modern worldview. The result is -- or was, until Sept. 11-- a military that is beset with pregnant soldiers and sexual harassment complaints and is in danger of being paralyzed by political correctness and demoralized by a world that – again, until 9/11 – seemed to have little respect for its values, traditions and service. (It’s interesting how, when we needed them, the guys – policemen, firemen, soldiers – came through for us anyway, despite the scorn with which traditional masculinity was treated at the turn of the 21st century.)
Of course there are women who want to serve in the military and have the potential to be good at it, just as there are men who want to be preschool teachers and are good at that. By all means, they should have the chance to do so if they choose, so long as they accept that they will be expected to succeed in a world where the values and behavior patterns will be very different from those that generally prevail among members of their own sex. But we should recognize, as a society, that such people are outside the mainstream of their sexes and admit the reality that it is and always will be primarily men who fight wars and primarily women who care for children. Forcing members of one sex into roles that come most naturally to the opposite sex is unlikely to have a happy outcome when applied on a broad scale. Just because it is currently fashionable to coerce men into behaving like women does not mean that we should force women into behaving like men as some sort of revenge. Let’s correct the former problem, not add to it with the latter.
Sorry to be so long-winded on my first post, but this issue of the denigration of traditional masculinity is one that resonates strongly with me. Next time, I promise to try to be less pompous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just one thing about that last post: War is not natural for men. Children are natural, killing other people/getting killed is not. The comparison is (in my eyes) therefore not accurate. I myself has very little need or want to to go war and kill other people, it is not something you look forward to. On the other hand, many women (and men) DO look forward to fostering children (althou that is not always a plesurable experience).
Is there any equality in forcing men to choose war and not to hold women to the same standard? No, the draft (registration) must go!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"War is not natural for men."
Well, I don't know about natural. We (men) have been fighting wars since before recorded history. It seems like a pretty strong trend to me.
"Children are natural, killing other people/getting killed is not. The comparison is (in my eyes) therefore not accurate. I myself has very little need or want to to go war and kill other people, it is not something you look forward to."
Nope, that's true. Only a crazy person (or a hormonally charged 18 year old male) would ever WANT to go to war. But sometimes war is necessary in defense of one's country, freedom or values, and it is men who fight wars, not women.
"On the other hand, many women (and men) DO look forward to fostering children (althou that is not always a plesurable experience)."
Undeniably true, but most men see their role in child-rearing as paternal, and most women see their role as maternal. Those roles are different historically and remain different even today, despite the widespread attempt to portray fathers either as unnecessary or as imitation mothers.
"Is there any equality in forcing men to choose war and not to hold women to the same standard? No, the draft (registration) must go!"
Sometimes, life isn't equal. In our society, women continue to be the primary caregivers in their families, for children and for the old and sick. Similarly, men continue to bear the heavier burden when it comes to necessary but physically dangerous work and more often than not bear the heavier burden of financial responsibility for their families. I don't know if that's "natural" or not, but you can look around you and see that it's true. My point is that perfect equality will never be achieved between the sexes because men and women are different.
The draft issue is probably moot for the near future anyway. What the draft gives you is a large body of unspecialized troops -- "cannon fodder," as they are disrespectfully but sometimes accurately called by pacificists. In the world as it is today, it's hard to imagine a situation where we would need the hundreds of thousands of such troops that a renewed draft would produce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 01, @12:36AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"The problem is that our society has shifted from recognizing this natural difference between the sexes to believing that men should be women with penises who need to learn to live up to their feminine potential....Just because it is currently fashionable to coerce men into behaving like women does not mean that we should force women into behaving like men as some sort of revenge."
This comment is interesting in light of the letter to the editor that this letter was responding to. The other letter writer said many of the same things you did, basically stating that men and women are very different creatures.
I too can't help but wonder if the cry to put women on the front lines is rooted in a belief that women should be men with vaginas. Let's get real. A frilly, soft, feminine lady will be the very first one mowed down on the battlefield. To make women into soldiers, they must become more masculine. If we started putting women on the front lines, this would happen through natural selection. The femmes would be killed off, the butchies would be the only ones strong enough to survive.
Maybe the big picture is a portrait of a totally androgynous society, where there are no gender differences at all, physical or otherwise? Too sci-fi? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm still vehemently opposed to the draft, but you have to admit, this is an interesting concept. Should gender differences be embraced and celebrated, or should they be condemned and eliminated? If we do embrace them, should women be barred from full participation in society because most of them don't go to war? The problems just go around and around with no solution in sight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 01, @12:39AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
No matter what we do, yes, the draft must be eliminated. It just doesn't have a place in a civilized society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women could be drafted into all kinds of non-combat support jobs cooking, medical services, supply clerks,cargo pilots as well as many civilian jobs that are usually considered voluntary--Red Cross, various kinds of industrial work related to wartime. Of course, this would free up more men to go fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I´m not looking for exact equality. I´m looking for an equality that means that women put a comparable ammount (as to men who goes to war) of sacrifice into society. Today that is simply not true and to think that this means that it will never change is just not the answer to the problem.
There is (as others said before) a lot of things women could do. Women are different from each other so we should have a selection, not by gender, but by ability (a la Startship Trooper if you will) of who does what in society. Everyone is different, but in the end all of us are humans. The draft board (in my homeland, Sweden), make selections about what you should be trained to do in the military, so there is really isn´t much to change at all. Just make women do the tests and see where they fall in. And no stupid degrading of the tests just because they are women or it WILL get them and/or others killed.
Actually I think that the Startship Trooper society is just plain stupid. But it is in some (very limited) way better than this society...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 01, @01:28PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
It would free up more men to fight, which means more men would die than if we didn't draft women.
Don't get me wrong. I can see what you're saying, but I guarantee that first sentence is the most common counter to drafting women into support positions.
What to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 01, @04:03PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, but how do we determine comparable sacrifice? As mentioned in another post, if the majority of women who are drafted end up in positions other than front-line combat, because most of them can't pass the physical tests, doesn't that mean fewer of these positions will be available to men? Doesn't that mean men will still do most of the dying?
The problem is, very few people, esp. nowadays, are going to consider a woman who is drafted to work in a supply room to be making a comparable sacrifice to a front-line marine.
>And no stupid degrading of the tests just because they are women or it WILL
>get them and/or others killed.
The only way to have 50% of front-line soldiers be women, and therefore 50% of the deaths, is to lower the standards for women. There are women who could pass the exact same tests as the guys, but most won't. A stone butch who's testing transsexuality will pass the same tests. A high femme stay-at-home mother who passes out at the sight of a spider won't, unless we lower the standards and say the hell with her being killed within 2 seconds of stepping on a battlefield.
I understand your points, but I don't know what the answers are. The only way I can envision 50% of front-line soldiers being women is to masculinize girls from childhood. They can't be allowed to play with Barbies. Barbie has no place in war, Barbie would be the first one killed on a battlefield, cowering behind a rock crying. They should be made to play with tanks and GI Joes, and brutally shamed if they cry or show any emotion.
We already do that to our boys, and I don't think it's right. Instead of seeing our sons as something more than little soldiers, it seems to me like we want to expand this inhumanity to their sisters. I'd rather see our kids go down their own paths, BOTH genders having a CHOICE as to whether they join the military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only way to have 50% of front-line soldiers be women, and therefore 50% of the deaths, is to lower the standards for women.
Yow, one thing I DON'T want people to start talking about in the men's movement is quotas like "we must have 50 percent female and 50 percent male." In fact, I don't think anyone's said that. "Fair" doesn't mean "quota," and affirmative action is most certainly the wrong way to go to rectify ANY inequality.
My argument: there should be no draft at all. A draft violates the freedom principles on which this country was founded. HOWEVER, IF there is registration for the draft, women should be required to register as well. THEN, if the draft is ever reinstituted, the military services should test the fitness of ALL draftees, and not just accept them because their number has been called. And women MUST pass the exact same tests that men pass, with no lowering of standards.
All that said, what you'd end up with a drafted military of mostly men, but the process would be fair because there ARE women who are better fit for combat than are some men.
Now, if we get rid of the draft completely, then the process becomes even more fair because there will be no unwilling soldiers, and the weed-out process of military training will get rid of both the men and women who do not belong in military service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Nitemist you covered the point of equality for me. :)
I agree with the ability issue if a woman can carry a 120# ruck then she can do the job. trust me intelligence is NOT the issue.
let me address a few of the ideas mentioned in other posts.
Women in non-combat roles only is a horrid terrible awful bad idea.here is why. Part of the rotation for the military personell is to non-combat roles. After a certain time in a job where your on constant 24/7 call, it is nice to have a job were you know you can have a family and be home at night to see them. Every woman that takes a spot in a non-combat role because she isn't allowed to rotate into a combat role takes away from the amount time and availability for a man.
(until you serve 4-6 years on sea duty and are given the wonderful option of 3 years at shore duty does the bias of the system rear its ugly head.)
All this hinges on the fact women aren't allowed into certain combat roles for the same reasons they cann't be drafted.
Women can perform in combat roles as history and current more progressive countries have proven. They usually were much more brutal though. Remember you don't need much strength to pull a trigger or target a missle.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks you Nightmist! That was exactly what I was talking about. There is no real need to send out exactly 50% womena 50% men into war. Just send those who are able of both sexes (if you absolutely must send them to war that is).
I think the idéa of having to die for a piece of land is what disturbs me the most about the draft. Isn´t life supposed to be the most precious of all things?
I get really turned off when I hear about wars, especially when a contry fights in another contry (a thing the USA seams to love to do). Isn´t that the most stupid thing of all? Fighting another people just to be able to win an argument about who is right (and yes, I know a war is about more than that)?
Just look at Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Bosnia and now Afghanistan (did I spell that correctly?). These wars could have been fought differently without that much bloodspill. You should never undervalue your diplomatic power.
War simply is no good, but sometimes it´s unavoidable :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist: "My argument: there should be no draft at all. A draft violates the freedom principles on which this country was founded. HOWEVER, IF there is registration for the draft, women should be required to register as well. THEN, if the draft is ever reinstituted, the military services should test the fitness of ALL draftees, and not just accept them because their number has been called. And women MUST pass the exact same tests that men pass, with no lowering of standards."
Nightmist, I understand what you're getting at here. The problem is that there is more to being a combat soldier than physical fitness. There is psychological fitness as well, and I don't know how you can test for that in a way that does not either pass everybody or screen out almost everybody and that cannot be gamed to allow those who want to avoid combat to fake "negative" results.
In the US, at least, we haven't bothered with this kind of testing in the past because the assumption is that in general men are psychologically fit for battle until proven otherwise. History tells us that this is true. There is no such historical evidence to support the idea that most women are psychologically fit for battle.
I guess what this entire issue comes down to is the following question:
Are men and women essentially the same psychologically, particularly with respect to fitness for battle? One either believe that men and women are equally comfortable with violence and with self-sacrifice on behalf of abstract principle or one does not. I do not and therefore, given the absence of any test to sort out psychological fitness, do not see young women as appropriate candidates for drafting into combat. On the other hand, if one believes there is such psychological equivalency, then your solution is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not and therefore, given the absence of any test to sort out psychological fitness, do not see young women as appropriate candidates for drafting into combat. On the other hand, if one believes there is such psychological equivalency, then your solution is fine.
Remember, though, that the U.S. already has women in some forms of combat, just not ground combat. Apparently, they have proven themselves psychologically prepared to destroy buildings and kill people by dropping bombs on them.
While I do believe that men and women (generally) are affected by external influences different was psychologically, those differences do not necessarily mean that women cannot pyschologically handle combat. Likewise, individual men are going to have different psychological responses to combat, and, as you mentioned, the military is not currently testing them for that.
Remember the stories of soldiers who returned from Vietnam, psychologically scarred forever. They weren't psychologically fit for that combat, and they were men.
I think that women who enter the military voluntarily can handle combat psychologically just as well as a man can, otherwise, they wouldn't be entering the military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think context plays into it, as well. There's a big difference between being violent on your own steam, in your own living environment, with a single person that you have "issues" with - as opposed to being violent in a war situation, where you have been remodeled into a soldier with a shaven head and dog tags and a military uniform, and you're in a foreign land, and you're killing not because you want to but because you have to. Could the ability to adapt to such a scenario be where the real difference lies between men and women?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uh, what he just said. =)
Re the psychological effects of war, go through the archives and look for an L.A. Times article I submitted a few months ago (under Anon User, b/c it was before I signed up for a nic here). It was a chilling expose of the horrors WWII vets experienced, and how our country turned our backs on these men once they came home. Even though they were male, a great number of these guys had severe psychological problems for the remainder of their lives.
You'll have to pay a token fee to get the article out of the LAT archives, but it's worth it for anyone interested in this subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I read that article - and I'll certainly never forget it. Thank you, Claire, for submitting it! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will have to disagree with you on this point. I think the evidence shows that the end psychological result of a violence enviornment (for the lack of a better word)such as domnestic violence, child abuse, or war is the same for anyone, victim or perpetrator. one of the favorite studies for feminists is that of the number of women in prison that have suffered from abuse as a child. The same is also true for men but its not a popular notion that men are victims more often than women are.
part of the problem with PTSD is that the army found out that only a fraction of the men in WWII actually fired at the enemy. To correct this they worked on the natural tendency for people not to kill and short circit it. You ever notice all the targets are silhouettes and recruits are taught to target, shoot fire and move on. This training teaches those who don't want to kill to become killers reguardless of their initial "wants".
I won't even get into the enourmous amount of military propaganda that occurs dehumanizing the people who kids are going to fight.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist: "Remember, though, that the U.S. already has women in some forms of combat, just not ground combat. Apparently, they have proven themselves psychologically prepared to destroy buildings and kill people by dropping bombs on them."
nm, I'm not trying to quibble, but are you sure about that? I thought women were barred from all combat, including air missions. Do the Navy and USAF now permit women to fly bombers and fighters in actual engagements with the enemy (as opposed to training and support flights)?
In any case, such women would be self-selected and much more likely to be ... errr ... combat-ready, so to speak. It was DRAFTING women into combat roles that I was speaking about, not allowing them to volunteer. (I'm not so hot on the volunteer idea, either, frankly, but that's a different debate. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, (two?)women fighter pilots in the Navy are currently flying combat/bombing missions over Afganistan. It was mentioned in the news and one of them was interviewed.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
