|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The link in the above post leads to the wrong story. I'm notifying Scott and looking for the genuine article myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The link in the above post leads to the wrong story. I'm notifying Scott and looking for the genuine article myself.
I have updated the link to the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard on the boob tube about six months ago that Teddy Kennedy was responsoring the ERA. I'm all for it, in principle. The gender feminists may get far more than they hope for if it passes, and women may find themselves far less pampered.
The problem is that, even though the amendment's wording is simple and straightforward, it will be open to interpretation, just like the 14th amendment that supposedly guarantees equal protection under the law. (What a joke!)
Also, there's talk of adding to the original amendment a clause stating that women can't be drafted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 08, @03:36PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
If it provides an exclusion for females from the draft, I don't see how it could still be an "equal" rights ammendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't you remember that some are MORE equal that others? Equality is fine, as long as I have more of it than you!
Hmm, maybe thats how Enron made all their money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 08, @03:44PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it provides an exclusion for females from the draft, I don't see how it could still be an "equal" rights ammendment.
That's what any sane person or society would think. Nevertheless, I've read in the mainstream news (take it for what it's worth) that Dick Cheney said recently that he previously opposed the ERA but would now support it if it contained that clause. And he didn't say that the amendment should be renamed if it includes that clause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If it provides an exclusion for females from the draft, I don't see how it could still be an "equal" rights ammendment."
"That's what any sane person or society would think. Nevertheless, I've read in the mainstream news (take it for what it's worth) that Dick Cheney said recently that he previously opposed the ERA but would now support it if it contained that clause. And he didn't say that the amendment should be renamed if it includes that clause."
I love it when people gloss over the Catch-22 here. They blame women for not being eligible for the draft by law and while conveniently failing to mention it is primarily men (in the military) who wish to exclude them from it.
Now, I don't claim to be an expert here, and I could well be wrong, but I don't think it is "feminists" who are trying to evade the draft on behalf of women.
Anyone have a link or source to support this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love it when people gloss over the Catch-22 here. They blame women for not being eligible for the draft by law and while conveniently failing to mention it is primarily men (in the military) who wish to exclude them from it.
I don't recall any arguments that feminists wanted to keep women out of the military, but I certainly doubt that feminists want women *drafted.* It would inhibit a woman's right to choose whatever whatever and so-forth. Even to gender feminists there's a difference between allowing women into the military and forcing them into it.
Cheney, if he made that argument, did so because he's of the old school "we need to protect women" mentality. In fact, he probably doesn't want women in the military, period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't recall any arguments that feminists wanted to keep women out of the military, but I certainly doubt that feminists want women *drafted.*
If I remember correctly, NOW filed briefs with the Supreme Court (SC) advocating the drafting of women during the SC's consideration of the issue. (The SC has ruled, and ruled again under review, that women cannot be drafted -- the poor oppressed darlings.) The problem is that, if we draft women, we have the *appearance* of equality. In fact, as we've already seen in Israel and Operation Desert Storm, having women in combat roles doesn't help the war effort and puts men at greater risk. For one thing, once things get terrifying, women can get pregnant, be sent home as great heroes and have abortions at their convenience. Their units are, thereby, left understaffed when entering combat, and the nation's war effort is undermined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, as we've already seen in Israel and Operation Desert Storm, having women in combat roles doesn't help the war effort and puts men at greater risk.
I disagree a bit, but only because I believe there are women who can handle combat roles as well or better than some men. And although some women might just go for getting pregnant to get out of the war, I don't think they're all that selfish and conniving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
one could always ignore gender as an issue and make physical attributes the defining limitation.
Without forced contraception, it won't work. The way it is now, women can and many do get pregnant when the going gets tough. They're sent safely home, hailed as heroines and can abort at their leisure. In the meantime, male combatants are at greater risk, as is the national war effort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think they're all that selfish and conniving.
They may not be in advance, but when I read of the utter terror of much of combat, I know that many men and women, given the option that women have, would flee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The military should be able to force abortions on pregnant soldiers. I'm against forcing medical procedures on private citizens, but military personnel are not private citizens. The military already has the right to force other medical procedures. I don't see any reason why they should not be able to force abortions, or even sterilization of female recruits. They can tubal ligate them upon entrance and attempt to reverse it upon exit from the service. Sometimes that works, and if it doesn't, so what? What's wrong with adoption?
Now, regarding something you brought up on another board about how men should have "rewards" because they and only they face the draft. 60% of Americans are overweight, and about 30% are obese. Many of these people never have to to worry about being drafted, because the military doesn't want to deal with Type 2 diabetes, arthritis, sleep apnea and all the other ailments these people suffer from. Would these rewards also be given to a 20-year-old who weighs 400 pounds and has to walk with a cane because all the weight has destroyed his knees, even though there is no way he will ever be drafted, not in a million years?
What about young men who are autistic, schitzophrenic, epileptic, juvenile diabetics, wheelchair-bound or are otherwise mentally or physically disabled? It's not reasonable to say they must worry about the draft. There is a loophole in the law that requires them to register, and that's absurd, but the military will never draft a diabetic who has to eat a special diet and shoot himself up with insulin thrice daily, or a schitzophrenic who needs constant medication to keep himself from hallucinating and hurting himself and others.
How will veterans and others who've actually served in the military feel about some guy who never served a day in the military, but just had his name on a list for ten years, getting free medical care, free housing, free food, free education, a free car and all the other free things I'm assuming you'd have males as a whole get? Having your name on a list is NOT the same thing as actually having served. Saying that it is insults those veterans.
I am for those who serve getting benefits, because they earn them. Having your name on a list shouldn't earn you anything unless you actually serve, and I think most military personnel would agree with me. Why should they bother serving when all they have to do is let their name sit on a list and reap tons of benefits, even if they have a disability that they know damn well precludes them from ever serving in any capacity.
The draft just needs to be eliminated, period, but until it is I cannot support giving benefits to men who never served, but just had their names on the list. Military benefits should be reserved for military personnel and vets only. Furthermore the draft should never be tied to voter registration, car registration or any other basic Consitutional rights, only to extras such as free health care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway... does anyone know where there is a current version of the wording of the last proposed Equal Rights Amendment? I'd like to have a copy available to me in case I need to write to a senator or two. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are wrong, Claire, though you make a few good points. During the Vietnam war I faced the prospect of being drafted. I was terrified. My options, had the war not ended, were fleeing the country with perhaps $100, going to prison (a torture chamber) for five years or going to war. The country put me through hell. I almost committed suicide. No country has the right to do that to a young man and, after he's gone through years of terrified hell, tell him "Too bad. You didn't get drafted, therefore, you get nothing." It is a vicious, oppressive, monstrous thing to do to someone. While even greated benefits are due to vets, if the country hangs the draft over the heads of selected people, those people deserve compensation, even if they're never drafted.
The only reason you believe what you do is because you are a woman who can't even begin to fathom what the prospect of being drafted does to a person.
As for ending the draft, the proposal is pie in the sky. If a volunteer army were sufficient, there never would have been a draft or a military caste or class. When the need arises in the future, even a country that has eliminated the draft will renew it.
And as for forced abortion, I think it's possibly a great idea, but if it will never be enforced, basing policy on it is nonsensical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 08, @07:04PM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Without forced contraception, it won't work. The way it is now, women can and many do get pregnant when the going get tough. They're sent safely home, hailed as heroines and can abort at their leisure. In the meantime, male combatants are at greater risk, as is the national war effort.
The solution to this problem is simple. Require women in the military to have abortions when they use pregnancy as a means to avoid war and combat. The "her body, her choice" argument doesn't fly. Abortion is far less risky than combat. If you can force a man to put his body into combat, you can certainly force a woman to have an abortion so she can be sent back to her unit to fight the enemy. Morality isn't an issue either. If you can force a man to kill the enemy - another human being - you can force a woman to kill her fetus (human or not).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You were not schitzophrenic, diabetic, in a wheelchair, etc. Those people do NOT have to worry about being drafted any more than I do. Do you really think the military would draft a schitzophrenic who thinks God is speaking to him through the television? Can you picture them drafting a paraplegic? No, but yet under your plan those men would receive the exact same benefits as someone who is eligible, and that is wrong.
Although your pain was real, it does not compare to someone who was actually there. I think one of the reasons why my bio father is so fucked in the head is because of Vietnam. Among other things, he saw a Vietnamese kid get his head shot off a few feet away from him. He was so close the blood, pieces of bone and brain tissue splattered his clothing. No wonder he's cracked.
>you are a woman who can't even begin to fathom what the prospect of being drafted does
>to a person
Every time I think about the draft, I imagine how draftees die, in graphic detail. I can actually feel the terror and the pain. It is so overwhelming I get nauseous.
>As for ending the draft, the proposal is pie in the sky.
So we should continue to support the brutal slaughter of terrified millions? I can't do that. You said yourself it is vicious and monstrous. Why would free money suddenly make it okay? Is the want for free money so great that people will do anything to get it, even agree to be executed?
I don't get it. I don't even want free money. I just want to earn enough to pay my bills, and not hate my job too much, two things I realize I'll probably never have in this life. But, I would rather be poor all my life and commit suicide when I'm too old to work, then have someone else execute me at their whim. There are worse things than being poor.
>If a volunteer army were sufficient, there never would have been a draft or a military
>caste or class.
That is exactly what the government would like you to believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be far more cost-effective and efficient to tubal ligate them upon entrance into the military. If they are pregnant upon being drafted, then an abortion will also be performed at this time, before they are put into basic training.
We also need a clause that says the father of the kid cannot stop a military-ordered abortion. Neither the mother nor the father should have a say in this, or it won't work. Otherwise a woman can just collude with a husband or boyfriend to plead her case.
>The "her body, her choice" argument doesn't fly.
You are correct. Military personnel do not have a choice as to what happens to their bodies. They are not private citizens. They can be forced to receive anthrax vaccinations and other procedures and drugs. Sterilization and abortion should be no different than an anthrax vaccine.
I do not disagree with your motives, only with your methods. Sterilizing them before they get pregnant is cheaper and more efficient than giving them abortions afterwards. It also prevents the enemy from capturing the women and using them as breeders. Even if you don't care about the women, nobody wants the enemy to have an easy way to repopulate themselves. If the women are sterilized, they can be raped, but that's it. The enemy does not get to repopulate itself.
I have no problem with sterilization and abortion. I see discharge due to pregnancy as breeder entitlement, and I am against *all* forms of breeder entitlement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some of you people are all over the map with sterilizations and abortions etc.
The fact remains no one has produced any evidence that American feminists oppose women being drafted.
That is the first issue. If American feminists are NOT requesting or lobbying that women be exempted from the draft, then you cannot say American feminists want equality but don't want an equal obligation to be called up to serve our country. This is making things up that aren't true.
Again, I've never heard a draft exemption for women proposed as a platform position of any national feminist organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact remains no one has produced any evidence that American feminists oppose women being drafted.
See Shawn Larsen's Post No. 32
That is the first issue. If American feminists are NOT requesting or lobbying that women be exempted from the draft, then you cannot say American feminists want equality but don't want an equal obligation to be called up to serve our country. This is making things up that aren't true.
They cannot "request" or "lobby" out of existence something which does not yet exist.
Again, I've never heard a draft exemption for women proposed as a platform position of any national feminist organization.
That's because gender feminism, at its base, is reactionary. You won't find them complaining or lobbying until someone does seriously propose that women be drafted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, I've never heard a draft exemption for women proposed as a platform position of any national feminist organization.
You've never heard them lobbying for the draft for women, either, have you? IF gender feminists were interested in equality WITH equal responsibility, I think the draft would be somewhere on their agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist___ That was one woman, not feminists or heading up a feminist organization. I don't think its difficult to find a individual feminists who argue against the draft for women.
What I'm saying is that feminists (gender or otherwise) don't oppose the draft for women. At least I've never heard a feminist organization proposing that as a policy platform. The insinuation was made that they (feminists) want equality but not equal obligation to our country. I don't think this is true for the vast majority of feminists and have seen no evidence of such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The military should be able to force abortions on pregnant soldiers. I'm against forcing medical procedures on private citizens, but military personnel are not private citizens
As a libertarian I am opposed to drafting anyone. I'm not too keen on forced abortions either.
My take on persons who have voluntarily committed to make themselves available for combat duty is that maintaining their bodies in ready condition for duty is part of that committment. Getting pregnant should be dealt with in the same way as other infractions of that kind -- from deliberately gaining 40lb to shooting oneself in the foot -- are dealt with.
No need for any special case.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because thinking about all this draft bullshit is 1,000x preferable to thinking about everything else right now, I actually went onto NOW's website and looked up their official position on the draft, which is as follows:
"NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women. NOW's primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrimination by the volunteer armed services.
"This policy was adopted by the NOW National Board in January 1980."
http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/draft2 .html
For my own part, I know a woman on the Delphi boards who identifies as a feminist, and is a very rabid proponent of drafting women. She thinks required military service would lift poor women out of poverty. I don't agree with her, but there you go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The insinuation was made that they (feminists) want equality but not equal obligation to our country. I don't think this is true for the vast majority of feminists and have seen no evidence of such.
Again, you don't see them lobbying FOR the draft, either. What you don't see is as important as what you do. If they wanted equal rights and equal responsibility, the draft would be on their agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This policy was adopted by the NOW National Board in January 1980."
Interesting that they adopted this position the very year Jimmy Carter asked for money to reinstate registration for the draft, and requested that Congress include women in said registration (which they did not).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPPOSITION TO DRAFT AND REGISTRATION
1/80
BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women. NOW's primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between our sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrimination by the volunteer armed services.
This policy was adopted by the NOW National Board in January 1980.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forced abortions aren't great, but those women who get pregnant to avoid combat duty are pieces of shit. These aren't draftees, they signed up for service. Then when war broke out, they whimpered, sniveled and got knocked up with kids they didn't even want for no other reason than to avoid doing exactly what it was they were trained to do.
WTF did they think the military was, the Girl Scouts?
>Getting pregnant should be dealt with in the same way as other infractions of that kind
>-- from deliberately gaining 40lb to shooting oneself in the foot -- are dealt with.
I have no idea how those are handled, though I imagine the perps are court-martialed. Whatever happens to them should happen to women who have convenient "oopsies" in the middle of a war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- If they are pregnant upon being drafted, then an abortion will also be performed at this time, before they are put into basic training.
We also need a clause that says the father of the kid cannot stop a military-ordered abortion. Neither the mother nor the father should have a say in this, or it won't work. Otherwise a woman can just collude with a husband or boyfriend to plead her case.
--
The problem with a policy like this would be that you would HAVE to draft EVERY person in the military. NOBODY is going to volunteer for a service that treats people (no, we military members dont have a lot of say about our bodies but we ARE people) like this. And since draftees aren't required to serve for more than a single tour you are going to have virtually zero people with more than 4 years experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no idea how those are handled, though I imagine the perps are court-martialed.
This happened in Desert Storm. The women who got pregnant were sent safely home, hailed as heroines, and left to have abortions, if they chose, at their leisure.
Men who committed comparable infractions to avoid combat would be imprisoned. Gee, why do men not want women in combat? Could it be because allowing women into combat leads, as a direct result of government policy, to a greater likelihood of the men getting maimed, captured and killed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Captain Pistachio, but if you're in the military, it would be great to hear more from you and your compatriots about this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since it's relevant, I just thought I'd throw in this excerpt from Warren Farrell's '93 book "The Myth of Male Power". Under the heading "Is Equality in the Military Really a Political Possibility? (pg 161):
What is in the forecast for tomorrow's political climate (for equality of responsibility)? Partly sunny, partly cloudy. The sunny part: 75 percent of men and 69 percent of women already favor drafting both sexes (if anyone has to be drafted). The cloudy part: 57 percent of draft-age women said they would be unwilling to serve if drafted, versus only 24 percent of draft-age men. And as far as requiring combat roles for women," only 12 percent of men and 9 percent of women are in favor. In brief, neither sex is in favor of real equality; women are less in favor than men: 7 million more women than men vote in each presidential election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great one, Collins. Just don't expect to convince our resident "moderate" genfem, Lorianne.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had a high school friend many years ago who enlisted in the Marines. Late in basic training, his drill sergeant left him and his platoon in the noonday sun, at attention, for something like 90 minutes without relief. At Camp Lejeune, you can imagine the sunburn, and this guy has fair skin to begin with. The result is that, when he went to sick bay for treatment, they were ready to court-martial him for damaging government property. Since he was on the parade grounds with his platoon under orders, they "generously" allowed him a medical discharge. This allowing pregnant women to be discharged in this day of effective birth control and elective abortion seems discriminatory, especially when you consider the potential penalties for sunburn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know about the rest of you, but I love it when trolls come here. It proves that our views are being heard (if not agreed upon), and it shows us that the gender f's are easily frustrated. Plus, they provide a certain comic relief.
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that I am not advocating this. I truly am not. But...
If this society doesn't figure this out before the next serious war that results in a draft, we will probably have a violent revolution. There may not be a more important topic for us to be working on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they (the trolls) provide a certain comic relief.
That they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collins___ You're mixing up women and feminists a (valid) point often made by the some men here, but apparently only when it makes their case.
Let's review:
The point was made way upthread the "feminists" probably didn't want true equality and that they would backpedal ERA if it meant an equal draft. I honestly didn't know if this claim was true or not, but I doubted it. A very quick whirl through NOW brought up the policy position of the largest organization of feminists in the USA which supports equally the draft for women and men IF there is to be a draft.
Then to refute this you say that 57% "draft age" women say they would be unwilling to serve if drafted (but contrast this with all women (again, not feminists and further not all women but just draft age women who favor an equal draft).
Then to futher mix fruits, you say that most women (again not feminists) do not wish women to be in combat (you did not say how many men do not wish men to be in combat by the way).
I wish we could have a straight conversation about this. It appears the largest and most recognized organization of feminists (NOW) supports an equal draft and has for 22 years, which is in direct contrast to the original claims made here that "feminists" do not.
In addition, according to your info, a majority of women support the equal drafting of men and women as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Lorianne:
I was quoting Warren Farrell who I think was making a point about the attitudes of women and men in general re several questions related to the draft. He based his statements on polling results of men and women. You're right that he wasn't focusing on the official position of feminist organizations such as NOW. His point is that neither sex (especially women)really favors equal responsibilities for women when it comes to the military draft and required combat roles. And that women make up a more powerful political force in terms of their voting numbers and participation.
Incidentally, Linda Kerber in her '98 book "No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies" on pg 284 states that "Feminists and liberals who tetified on the issue [in 1980] rarely supported either registration or the draft. Most opposed the entire package." Congresswoman Pat Schroeder "sneered" at draft registration. However,Judy Goldsmith of NOW before the House Armed Services Committee did state that registration and the draft should include women, as did former congresswoman Bella Abzug. African-American feminists were torn with some groups opposing and others supporting the registration of females.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, why do men not want women in combat? Could it be because allowing women into combat leads, as a direct result of government policy, to a greater likelihood of the men getting maimed, captured and killed?
That possibility has to be considered. It comes up in Emergency service too: if NOW gets its way and half of future firefighters are women, the risk to *male* firefighters may nearly double.
Why? because it's still going to overwhelmingly be the males who get sent into the really dangerous situations, but with only half as many males in the service that risk is now concentrated on fewer bodies.
However, there may be an opposite effect, especially if such discrimination is not allowed. If the managers and commanders knew they would be exposing women as well as men to the risks, they might be much less macho about ordering their subordinates into "suicide" missions.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 09, @03:49AM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
"This policy was adopted by the NOW National Board in January 1980."
Anything more recent? NOW in 1980 was radically different than what it is today. It was around this time when NOW was transforming itself from equity feminism to gender feminism. Karen Decrow was the last equity-minded president of NOW (1974-1977), and she supported an equal draft registration policy for men and women. So yes, NOW in the late 70's was one of the groups that sued the government in an effort to require women to register for the draft along with men.
If it was a serious consideration today, as opposed to lip service, NOW 2002 would not support draft registration for women. Their argument would be that women are beaten everday, shortchanged in health care and education, receive 59 cents for every dollar earned by men, brutalized by the justice system, lack reproductive freedom, are discriminated in the family court, and are degraded in television and movies. They would claim that forcing women to register for the draft would be an additional burden unfairly placed upon them and their children.
Our current policy that requires draft registration only for men is undoubtably the most obvious example of sexist gender discrimination in this country. Yet groups such as NOW and the ACLU are not concerned. Clearly, they are not for gender equality.
As I mentioned before, 70% of women in Sweden do not support compulsory military service for women, even though it is required for men. While it's true that Sweden isn't the United States, it's also true that social policy in Sweden is far more liberal than the United States. My assumption is that more than 70% of women in the United States do not support compulsory military service for women.
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As things stand today, we need a draft. The services have been too gutted over the last 8-9 years to fight a real war against a real enemy (as opposed to a small Middle East country).
If the force today was still sufficient to fight and win our wars I'd fully support getting rid of the draft. I don't want to serve next to someone who was drafted 2 months ago, hates being here, and is so poorly trained so as to be almost useless. But if we start having draconian "you get pregnant and we abort your child" policies everyone in voluntary service is most likely to seperate, leaving you with nothing but those poor conscripts. I'd rather they just gave women who get pregnant to escape duty a dishonorable discharge and get it over with...I don't want to serve with people like that.
There is no reason to draft females, since all you really get when you draft people are people for the combat roles. Most women (not all, but the large majority) aren't strong enough to perform combat duty. If they increased the physical standards for women up to the requirements of men alot of my objections would vanish (not all but this post is already getting longer than I'd like).
Drafting women would cause a ton of problems that the military just doesn't need. Things are bad enough with today's PC climate, I can't imagine what it would be like to have a ton of pissed off female conscripts that nobody would have the nerve to punish around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do YOU want to kill yourself? If not, why do you expect anyone else wants to either?
Why is survival instinct only okay when it's men who feel the instinct to survive?
>neither sex is in favor of real equality;
Good, because equality is COMMUNISM, and I'm heartened to hear most people aren't red.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but I still think mandatory sterilization upon entrance would be more cost-effective and efficient than abortion after these moos have spawned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>As I mentioned before, 70% of women in Sweden do not support compulsory military service for women,
The only groups I know of who actively campaign for the legalization of suicide are advocacy groups for the terminally ill. And they are NOT campaigning for forced suicide, nor for forced suicide by TORTURE.
If even terminally ill people in great pain don't want to be forced into even more painful deaths, why does anyone expect the general populace to clamor for this?
Even you people are clamoring for forced suicide by torture for OTHER PEOPLE, NOT FOR YOURSELVES. You'd have to be shit fucking CRAZY to demand this for yourselves, and you know it.
>Karen Decrow was the last equity-minded president of NOW (1974-1977), and
>she supported an equal draft registration policy for men and women
This bitch reminds me of the losers who commit suicide by jumping off freeway overpasses, not only killing themselves but innocent people who don't want do die. If this bitch wants to die so bad, she should blow her worthless, fugly head off, but that doesn't satisfy her. She wants to kill other people along with her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I'd rather they just gave women who get pregnant to escape duty a dishonorable discharge
>and get it over with...I don't want to serve with people like that.
They're breeder MOOS and they deserve to be severely punished. Not only letting them keep their demon spawn, but giving them discharges is not acceptable. I am sick of breeders, especially MOOOOOOOOOOOs, getting preferential treatment because of their pwecious chilllllldrunnnnnnnn, and apparently I'm not the only one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, I agree with everything Warren Farrell says about how parenthood sucks and is a sure way to ruin your life. If I had a choice between Hell and being a parent, Hell would win hands-down. Hell is better than parenthood. I only wish he'd stop telling men, "But you need to spawn sprogs you don't want anyway in order to get a woman" and instead come out in favor of the childfree movement. Men do NOT have to agree to spawn fry they don't want in order to land a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A dishonorable discharge is probably a worse punishment (in the long term) than a forced abortion. It's VERY hard to get a decent job if you've had one. Whereas a forced abortion isn't going to punish someone who gets pregnant to escape duty (since they'll have to be flown off the ship/out of the area they're in to a hospital that can perform abortions, then recover, THEN be flown BACK to the combat zone/ship to make everyone around them miserable).
It's a moot point anyways, since women are nearly untouchable in the military today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mandatory surgical sterilization of females upon entrance into the service would solve the problem. It would also solve the overpopulation problem, as tubal ligations are not always reversible. OH WELL! I don't give a damn.
I and many others are sick of breeder moos getting preferential treatment in society and in the military. Irresponsible breeding within the military should be punished. Adding to the overpopulation problem, especially in a time of war, should not be considered some great achievement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn___ A policy statement remains intact until it is rescinded. I found no indication on NOW's site that the position had changed since 1980
I cannot comment on all you speculation about what NOW "would do" or what their arguments "would be". I think you are projecting.
"Our current policy that requires draft registration only for men is undoubtably the most obvious example of sexist gender discrimination in this country.
Yes. And this is explicitely stated in NOW's policy statement. They say the current divided policy is unconstitutional for men. How much clearer can you get than that? They agree with you.
"Yet groups such as NOW and the ACLU are not concerned. Clearly, they are not for gender equality."
You are projecting again. NOW has stated it's position. You cannot simply will their position to be different to what it is so that you can claim they are not for gender equity in the draft.
This is pure folly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is why I support surgical sterilization upon entrance into the military as opposed to abortions after the fact. If you tubal ligate females upon entrance, they can't spawn later on and get a shore leave as a result. Reversals of the procedure can be offered upon completion of service. If an individual reversal doesn't work, OH WELL. Tough. We are already grieviously overpopulated and more people should be adopting anyway.
>It's a moot point anyways, since women are nearly untouchable in the military today.
They'll be touched once the draft is made all-inclusive, especially the breeder moos who are put on pedastals because they do "the most important job in the world." It makes me sick that adding to the overpopulation problem is called "the most important job in the world." Breeding is not a JOB, and it's not IMPORTANT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 09, @01:24PM EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
They'll be touched once the draft is made all-inclusive, especially the breeder moos who are put on pedastals because they do "the most important job in the world." It makes me sick that adding to the overpopulation problem is called "the most important job in the world." Breeding is not a JOB, and it's not IMPORTANT.
That depends on your POV, Claire. I have degrees in the sciences, and I do not agree that we are overpopulated. If it wasn't for immigration (both legal and illegal) the US population would collapse. Given the known energy sources , the presense of water on other bodies in the solar system, the present inefficiences of our housing/developmental patterns, among many other things, I am very confident we would be able to support a world population five to ten times the present six billion-- in relative comfort, freedom, and without collapsing the ecology.
Anyway, its not wrong to be against "breeders'. But you have to understand that the genfems have already done your work for you -- without a vote they have decided the population policy of United States. There may be a few tax-breaks, and tons of draconian laws are passed "For the children", and yet the birth rate of most American communities and races is collapsing. Partly due to the child-support hustle, partly due to the lack of access, partly due to many expenses a child brings into the world (children never get any cheaper), and last but not least-- partly due to the virtual destruction of the family ( replaced by the State) people are choosing to delay childbirth or not have children altogether.
Its funny. In 20 or 30 years the only groups still replenishing their numbers will be immigrants (mostly hispanic) and we will live under a Dictatorship established to protect children that most people wont' have.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no reason to draft females, since all you really get when you draft people are people for the combat roles. Most women (not all, but the large majority) aren't strong enough to perform combat duty. If they increased the physical standards for women up to the requirements of men alot of my objections would vanish (not all but this post is already getting longer than I'd like).
Capt. Pistachio, see my column (which ran a while back on ifeminists.com) about the draft for some info on a time when the U.S. seriously considered drafting women. It wasn't for combat duty.
http://edge.net/~nitemist/draft.html
I completel agree with you, though, that before drafting women for combat duty, they'd have to make the physical requirements the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good, because equality is COMMUNISM, and I'm heartened to hear most people aren't red.
Equity is communism. Equality is equal opportunity and the freedom to pursue your own dreams your own way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--That is why I support surgical sterilization upon entrance into the military as opposed to abortions after the fact--
Now assuming they go this route, what do you think the majority of women will do? I'm betting they'd run to the closest border rather than accept a draft (which may not be a bad thing to some, to me draft dodgers are little better than traitors). And if we're talking about doing this to a volunteer force, how many women do you think will volunteer for something like that?
So female recruiting will drop hard, and to increase the numbers of female recruits (because the PC Gestapo says we MUST have a certain percentage of females or something is wrong) the DoD will lower the requirements for female entry even MORE than they have, to the point where a female could get it as long as she had a pulse.
I don't know what kind of solution would work and wouldn't actually damage the military, except maybe jail time (yeah right, the genfems won't stand for that).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 09, @02:41PM EST (#85)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. And this is explicitely stated in NOW's policy statement. They say the current divided policy is unconstitutional for men. How much clearer can you get than that? They agree with you.
NOW does not agree with me. Instead, they agreed with me (past tense). This was in 1980 when NOW was a different organization.
This is their policy statement but it is not their current policy. If it is their policy, what are they doing to implement it? NOW is busy trying to implement social change in all other aspects of public and private life so it's not for a lack of resources. However, they are not interested in implementing change in the most significant example of sexist gender discrimination in our country. Clearly, it is not their policy. Clearly, they are satisfied with the way things are.
Anyone can have a policy statement. Without action, however, it is simply lip service. It sounds good. It makes people feel good about themselves.
It is like me saying I care about world hunger. Am I doing anything about it? No. Am I giving money to charitable organizations that work to end world hunger? No. Do I have the resources to do so? Yes. Do I give money to other charitable organizations, such as local animal rescue groups? Yes. Clearly, I care more about problems associated with animals in my community than I do about hunger in other countries. I can say I care about world hunger all I want. I can write it on paper. I can put it on a web page. I can make it my policy statement in order to feel good about myself and to try to convince other people that I'm a wonderful person. But it is clearly not my policy. I have the resources but I'm doing nothing to implement it.
This was NOW's policy statement in 1980 and it was their policy at that time. They tried to implement legislation requiring women to register along with men. However, it is not their policy today. They are doing nothing to change the current situation. Keep in mind that I'm not saying they have to do anything. They can do what they want. But to claim that they are equity-minded on the issue of the draft and draft registration is not accurate.
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is their policy statement but it is not their current policy. If it is their policy, what are they doing to implement it? NOW is busy trying to implement social change in all other aspects of public and private life so it's not for a lack of resources. However, they are not interested in implementing change in the most significant example of sexist gender discrimination in our country. Clearly, it is not their policy. Clearly, they are satisfied with the way things are.
Exactly. If they were genuinely concerned about the draft, they would be taking action on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do you know they are NOT taking action on it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do you know they are NOT taking action on it?
Show me where they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There will never be a solution that satisfies both the military and the civilian population, because while civilians clamor for "equality" the military knows equality cannot exist in its world. Notice how most of the people debating here--including me--have never served even one day in the armed forces. Yet we're demanding to tell the armed forces how they should operate. I had a military guy confront me about this on another board recently. I was left with no option but to admit that he was right, and that I have no clue how the military operates from day to day.
Apart from ending the draft because it is inherently unconstitutional, the military should be left alone. If there were no draft, I don't think civilians would be demanding to run the military as much as they are now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet we're demanding to tell the armed forces how they should operate. I had a military guy confront me about this on another board recently. I was left with no option but to admit that he was right, and that I have no clue how the military operates from day to day.
Well I, for one, am not really telling the military to do anything except leave me the hell alone, and I don't think that's too much of a private citizen to ask of his or her government. Admittedly, my equal physical standards for men and women is telling the military what to do, but, then, if they weren't willing to listen to those ideas then the gender feminists wouldn't have been able to convince them to lower standards (or even admit women in non-traditional roles) in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 09, @04:28PM EST (#91)
|
|
|
|
|
"Well I, for one, am not really telling the military to do anything except leave me the hell alone, and I don't think that's too much of a private citizen to ask of his or her government."
Nightmist,
Amen brother, after 20+ years in the military I agree with you most wholeheartedly. I've really enjoyed the draft discussion, but it will be the politicians that choose to enact the draft (maybe at the military's request, but only your congressmen can make it happen).
BTW, have you guys considered info copying your legislative reps when you write letters to companies/media/organizations? If nothing else, I bet they might get the idea that the menfolks are getting a little concerned about how they're being treated--just a thought.
D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, have you guys considered info copying your legislative reps when you write letters to companies/media/organizations? If nothing else, I bet they might get the idea that the menfolks are getting a little concerned about how they're being treated.
Great idea!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That would require me to do research to disprove a claim made here that "feminists" don't want an equal draft. People who make such claims should support it.
However, I'll look into it. I just think its unfair to basically label an entire group as unpatriotic and not unwilling to equally support their country. You would have to prove that in some way
The Warren Farrel source alone said that 69% of US women (not feminist) support an equal draft. That alone says to me that a majority of women and an even higher percentage of "feminists" would. And I provided the NOW policy statement which supports that.
Also, where are the men working on getting this changed? A side issue true, but important none the less IF men are going to claim that women don't want an equal draft (as was claimed way upthread). It seems to me the ones making that claim should prove it's validity especially in light of the polls and policy statements that I have provided. And they should "call the bluff" if that's what they believe it is by formerly calling for women to be elligible for the draft. Until this is done, no one can claim to know the response from women or feminists.
Also, IF in fact the majority of men don't WANT women to be drafted, then it is disningenous for them to claim some kind of unpatriotism or desire for inequality on the part of women. The are basically projecting what they don't want, and calling it what women don't want. To me that is out of bounds and illogical.
How can you prove that women would backpedal on the ERA if it meant women would be eligible for the draft when neither is up for active legislative debate or action. You can't prove a negative in other words. Until then it is pure speculation.
I still stand by my claim that "feminists" support an equal draft. Unless I had the resources to poll "feminists" I cannot prove this is true. However without some poll proving otherwise, you cannot prove that feminists don't want an equal draft. (We both must rely on their majority organization policy statement). The policy statement and Mr. Farrel's poll seems to back up my claim not yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, I'll look into it. I just think its unfair to basically label an entire group as unpatriotic and not unwilling to equally support their country. You would have to prove that in some way
I said neither. I said gender feminists aren't doing anything about the inequality of the draft, and I doubted whether they were concerned about it. You have proven that... at one time... they gave the appearance of being concerned about it. Again I point out that this was done at the exact same time Jimmy Carter was lobbying Congress for money to reinstate registration and for money to include women in that registration. Considering everyone knew Congress had no such funding to allocate at that time, I'm sure NOW felt pretty comfortable taking that stance.
The Warren Farrel source alone said that 69% of US women (not feminist) support an equal draft. That alone says to me that a majority of women and an even higher percentage of "feminists" would. And I provided the NOW policy statement which supports that.
Why would that suggest to you that an "even higher percentage of 'feminists'" would be in support of an equal draft when most polls conducted today suggest that the majority of women restrain from labeling themselves "feminists?" If feminists are actually a minority of women, then your reasoning doesn't stand.
Also, IF in fact the majority of men don't WANT women to be drafted, then it is disningenous for them to claim some kind of unpatriotism or desire for inequality on the part of women. The are basically projecting what they don't want, and calling it what women don't want. To me that is out of bounds and illogical.
Nope. You are making the mistake of believing that men who do not want the draft (and I'm among them) do not care about inequality, or that men who want equality also want the draft. Neither is always true. I don't want the draft, but IF I am to be required to register for it, in the name of equality, so should women.
How can you prove that women would backpedal on the ERA if it meant women would be eligible for the draft when neither is up for active legislative debate or action. You can't prove a negative in other words. Until then it is pure speculation.
The whole point is that the ERA may be coming back for action. Prior to this most recent article, it was proposed to Congress once again by Gloria Steinham and a few others in early 2001. And what's wrong with speculating about what might happen if the bill were to reach that stage? You can't prove that they wouldn't backpedal on it.
I still stand by my claim that "feminists" support an equal draft. Unless I had the resources to poll "feminists" I cannot prove this is true. However without some poll proving otherwise, you cannot prove that feminists don't want an equal draft. (We both must rely on their majority organization policy statement). The policy statement and Mr. Farrel's poll seems to back up my claim not yours.
It does not follow that because a majority of women support an equal draft that a majority of feminists would, too. Warren Farrell's poll does absolutely nothing to back up your claim based upon the information I've given you about polls which suggest that most women do not identify themselves as feminists. Likewise, we all know that there are male feminists, and you can't lump male feminists into the "most women" category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's not a lot to ask. The military can enforce whatever rules it likes on its personnel. When you volunteer for the military, you waive certain Constitutional rights, which is why they can force you to be vaccinated against anthrax. Civilians, OTOH, are another matter entirely. The military should not have the right to draft civilians. The Constitution should preclude it.
Personally, I think the military would be more willing to put women into combat if they didn't feel it was being crammed down their throats. I think they're afraid that if they decide to do it, they'll ultimately be forced to put unqualified women in combat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 09, @06:09PM EST (#96)
|
|
|
|
|
"The military should not have the right to draft civilians. The Constitution should preclude it."
The constitution DOES preclude it based on Amendment XIII, section 1. I don't know how someone can say the draft isn't "involuntary servitude", but that's the sticker. Proponents of the draft say the draft isn't servitude. Duh, they lose me there.
D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They lose me there, too.
BTW, thanks for the 20 years of service. I like to think most people still do appreciate it, even though they don't show it all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To prove that feminist organizations today do not actively promote equality with respect to the draft, one would have to examine every recent official act of every feminist organization in the world. Clearly no one is going to do this. If this isn't done, genfems can declare, "Well, you may have missed the case in which they promoted equality."
We all agree that NOW has a decades-old policy statement supporting equality with respect to the draft. This old policy statement could, today, be nothing but lip service to give themselves the appearance of wanting equality. NOW is a well-funded, highly active organization. If they truly support drafting women if men are drafted, they are taking action to promote such egalitarianism.
My question: What action has NOW undertaken during the last decade to promote equality with respect to the draft? And don't waste your time by just repeating that they have left intact a decades-old policy statement if they are doing nothing to implement it. That's inaction, not action. If you believe that NOW supports equality with respect to the draft, show us where and how they are doing this.
I repeat, for emphasis, the question for our resident gender feminist... What action has NOW undertaken during the last decade to promote equality with respect to the draft?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know. I'm not a member of NOW and not privy to all they do. I don't have weeks to figure it out either. Since according to their statement, they do not support the reinstatement of the draft for anyone, I doubt they've done anything to directly bring the issue to the floor.
The question really is, what have YOU done to support women being equally "responsible" in return for equal rights?
This is the Catch-22 that I am speaking about. If you tell someone they aren't allowed to do something, and then make that action a prerequisite to equal rights then your true agenda is showing. You simply don't want equal rights, and you wish to gatekeep the the means by which someone can prove they wish to have equal responsibilites.
The agenda here is clear, some want to create different classes of full citizenship based on military service, and then restrict military service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The question really is, what have YOU done to support women being equally "responsible" in return for equal rights?
I'm so glad you asked, though at least part of the answer is obvious. As the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day. The men's movement is still in its infancy. MANN is an important part of that movement. By contributing to these discussions, I am taking action "to support women being equally 'responsible' in return for equal rights".
In addition to contributing to these conversations, I have been in contact with Scott to discuss becoming an administrator of this site. I have told him that I would most like to work as a liason between different men's organizations to coordinate our efforts. I expect to become an administrator within the next several days.
I have for years spoken with men and women about the vicious, murderous inequity of the all-male draft. Many have subsequently told me that our discussions have led them to believe that, if men are drafted for combat, women should also be.
I have repeatedly been in touch with Bob Rowan, El Dildo Bandito, who removed the violence-inciting (my wife's impression as well as my own -- Hell, from what I can tell, the opinion of most of the people who saw it) display of severed penises from the Boulder Public Library. I have participated in a demonstration at that library, to struggle not only for equal protection for battered men but also to promote equal responsibility for women who batter their partners. In addition, during my conversation with him yesterday, I told Bob that I would like to meet with his lawyers to coordinate local action. He said he will try to arrange such a meeting. I have also been in touch with the Campus Libertarians to discuss my being on a panel at the university to discuss men's issues, particularly domestic violence especially the ignored male victims and female perpetrators. They are considering sponsoring such a panel and having me on it.
I am also a nearly full-time writer (still doing some programming and Web work). I am working on a book that will be, in part, a full-frontal assault on the lunacy of political correctness. (And, yes, I have published quite a bit and I really am working on the book. My first book will be polished and out to editors in a few months. This is important because I'd guess about 100 times as many people are *writing* books as are truly writing books.)
Having said that, I will point out that what we have from this thread are the facts that NOW has a decades-old policy statement promoting equality under the draft but no one here knows of any case of the well-funded and extremely active NOW during the last decade taking any action to promote such equality.
P.S. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to toot my horn.
Love and kisses,
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonna go work out now. Catch y'all later. (Go work out. Go work out. Go work out.) subliminal message to all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 09, @08:39PM EST (#102)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I'll be the first to state it:
Lorriane, you have no need to do the research. I've done it for you, already. NOWS official posistion is still the same, and their UNOFFICIAL position is also pro women in combat. This can be proven simply by doing a search on "Women in the Military" Or "DACOWITS" and seeing the statements by women who are in the military-- some of whom belong to NOW. They do , indeed, believe women are fit for combat -- and even if they aren't, soon the military will be all computerized and we won't need grunts anyway. So the position of NOW is -- let em' fight.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 09, @08:45PM EST (#103)
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to add:
NOW was behind the decision to place women on combat subs, as well as fly combat aircraft such as F16's.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas__ I have no doubt you are very committed to what you do. That wasn't really the issue at hand.
In the meantime I found something interesting:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/1 2/184604.shtml
This article which quotes Selective Service officials claims in a time of crisis, if we have a major war, the question of whether or not to draft women would be moot, we'd have to draft women to meet basic requirements, especially in the medical field. So we'd be better off registering these folks now.
Exerpt from article:
"Brodsky said Congress argued that in a modern war the "military medical capability might not be sufficient to handle that crisis. It might be understaffed and might need more people quickly.
"Looking at the numbers of medical personnel required, the time frames and the kinds of skills required – it would have to include women," said Brodsky.
While noting that women historically have never participated in a U.S. military draft lottery, Brodsky said that in today's war, "it's frankly doubtful that we could achieve the numbers required" if female health workers were not drafted.
More than half of those graduating from medical schools today are women, Brodsky remarked. "If you're talking nurses, you've got 90 percent-plus nurses in this country are women."
"We're not registering any of those folks," Scraggs said.
PS Hugs and kisses is a little much Thomas, I believe you said you're married.
Warm platonic hug,
Lorianne
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warm platonic hug: A fine repartee, I must admit.
Your post brings up an important issue that I've mentioned before on MANN threads. (Warning everyone. Long sentence.) Do we draft men primarily for maiming, capture, torture and death as well as killing others, while drafting women primarily to work in fields that they can cultivate and later use to improve their own lives and then pretend that women and men are bearing equal social duty? How do we deal with this gross inequity?
Remo wrote the military will be all computerized and we won't need grunts anyway. I remember in the mid-60s when we were told in school that by about the turn of the century people would have to do little or no work because robots would do everything for us. We can't predict the future, but I'll be very surprised if many future wars don't require going en masse into villages, cities and caves to combat adversaries. We won't be able to just bomb cities in many cases because they will often have many of our allies in them. In numerous cases we won't know if an individual or group is friend or foe until curtain call. This combat will be decided largely by humans using bayonets, fists and teeth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo___ Thank I guess. I doubt the doubter will take your "evidence" of NOW's position. It seems clear to me that they support an equal draft IF THERE IS A DRAFT but they don't accept the draft on principal for anyone.
In addition, the Farrll quote indicated that 69% of women support the equal draft, which frankly, surprises me. If true, this to me shows that the majority of women support the equal draft. Typically feminists are more radically pro-equality than the general population of women, so the percentage of people who call themselves "femininists" and support the equal draft would be higher than 69%.
In any case, the combat question is entirely separate from simply being required to register for the draft, and different again from actually being drafted. And different again from issues of actual service. It seems to me the Military puts personell where they can do the most good. I have no problem with requiring people to meet certain standards to perform certain jobs. For example, the majority of people in the Air Force don't fly aircraft. Only a select few who meet stringent requirements pertaining to flying aircraft do.
Likewise, the majority of jobs across the board in the military are not in combat. Yet, in a major war, we're going to need all kinds of people who can perform all kinds of tasks to get the job done. It seems shortsighted to decrease by 1/2 the pool of people (and talents) available to draw from in times of national crisis.
For this reason the combat issue is a red herring. If it ever became an issue of quotas for combat, I would oppose that. Obviously the objective is to win the war, not meet quotas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 09, @09:36PM EST (#107)
|
|
|
|
|
Claire4Liberty,
Thanks for the appreciation. The 20+ wasn't something I'd recommend for most, but it's a case of once you swim halfway across the ocean you might as well go all the way.
I think most of the folks who support MANN support what the folks in the military are doing for them. The guys responding to MANN are smart AND they care!
I encourage all to keep an eye on the civilian leadership (they really do control the military). As far as the draft for the ladies, the military wouldn't object to it as long as they are allowed to use the drafted resources as they (military) best see fit (matching aptitude/talent with career field). Unfortunately, outsiders try to force the military into an experiment in social engineering. While some folks are better suited to certain jobs than others, quotas (desired outcomes to make special interest groups happy) sometimes result in square pegs in round holes.
Thanks again,
D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Do we draft men primarily for maiming, capture, torture and death as well as killing others, while drafting women primarily to work in fields that they can cultivate and later use to improve their own lives and then pretend that women and men are bearing equal social duty? How do we deal with this gross inequity? "
How do we deal with it now? The lion's share of men in the military are in support positions. In a real war, most do not see combat. Yet they can use their military pedigree to improve their lives after service.
For example, my grandfather served in WWI but was a mechanic. He never saw combat, always well behind the lines. The army would not have allowed him on the front lines because he was 500% more useful to them repairing vehicles and therefore keeping the supply going. So, he was in the same position as most women would be (most likely), his services on the front line were not requested, he was more useful to the war effort in a different capacity. Since he was not sent to fight actual combat, is he really "less than" the men who fought and died in the trenches? Yes, I agree, they sacrificed more. But how can you place a value on such a huge multi-tiered effort. Some guy somewhere was a cook, or a supply clerk throughout all the horror of war. There would be no combat if not for the support positions as well.
It seems like you want to make different classes of citizenship based on physical peril? While I can appreciate this in concept, since anyone can appreciate that getting your brains blown out a greater sacrifice than not. But I'm not sure how this will play out. For example, do we discount the vote to 4/5 for people who were in the military but did not serve in combat positions, to 3/5 for those who were registered but never called up for service, and 2/5 for those who were not eligible for the draft at all, etc....?
The whole concept seems fraught with problems. I wish you would just lay it out what you are proposing.
Instead, why don't we just give certain benefits to combat wounded/killed soldiers, certain fewer benefits to those wounded/killed but not in actual combat, then certain fewer benefits still to people who served but were never wounded/killed ..... and so on down the line?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt the doubter will take your "evidence" of NOW's position. I do take the evidence. Remember, I was the first one on this thread to mention NOW's support of drafting women. I quote from my post #19: "If I remember correctly, NOW filed briefs with the Supreme Court (SC) advocating the drafting of women during the SC's consideration of the issue."
In recent posts I have been *asking* if NOW has done anything recently to promote such equality.
It seems clear to me that they support an equal draft IF THERE IS A DRAFT but they don't accept the draft on principal for anyone. That's my position, but if women are drafted to cultivate their futures while men are drafted to suffer and die, there is a gross inequality that must somehow be remedied. If women aren't suffering and dieing in comparable numbers to men, something should be done in society to reward men for their greater sacrifice and that sacrifice includes facing their potential burdens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The lion's share of men in the military are in support positions. The lion's share of *draftees* are forced into combat positions.
It seems like you want to make different classes of citizenship based on physical peril. Actually, if we select people for physical peril, based on the biological group into which they were born, and in no way reward that biological group, THEN we are creating different classes of citizenship based on the biological group into which they were born.
The whole concept seems fraught with problems. I wish you would just lay it out what you are proposing. For the most part I'm asking questions. And I'm pointing out the fact that, if we draft men for combat and women for advancing their careers, we are possibly heading for very serious trouble. Pretenses of equality may not fly the next time we have a broad scale war.
Instead, why don't we just give certain benefits to combat wounded/killed soldiers We should do this, but we need to also recognize that, if we draft for combat the members of some biologically selected group, we owe members of that group some compensation just for facing that prospective burden. Just facing the draft can be hell, believe me, especially as it comes near.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Lorianne
Don't forget that Farrell also pointed out that 57 percent of draft-age women said they would be unwilling to serve if drafted, versus only 25 percent of draft-age men. And only 9 percent of women are in favor of requiring combat roles for women.
How do you feel about opening ground combat jobs to qualified women who are able to meet the physical standards? Or high-risk jobs on submarines and other warships?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok lets take this one step at a time:
1. IF there is a draft, it means we're already in some kind deep doo-doo; we need people and volunteers aren't enough.
2. If people are drafted it won't be to "advance their careers". That is not the goal of the draft. See No. 1 above.
3. People who are drafted could have volunteered for military service to advance their careers. The fact that they did not volunteer, means they did not consider the military to "advance their career" and were doing something else instead. Therefore, it is clear they are being drafted more or less against their will, or at least against their previous life pla. So the argument about advancing careers is moot with regard to the draft. It only makes sense in terms of volunteers and even there it is specious because some people join out of a sense of patriotism.
Basically, you (and others) seem to be wanting to tell women they shouldn't be draftd, and then call into question their patriotism for something they did exempt themselves from. To be consistent, you'd have to make the same argument about people who are not currently eligible for the draft .... say people older than 26, the blind or disabled, homosexuals .... and then claim these people do not WANT to carry equal responsibility and do not WANT to serve their country, and do not WANT to have any obligations in return for living in freedom ... simply because are currently inelligble for the draft.
And if they want to be elible for the draft, it can only be for self serving reasons, not because they want to serve their country in times of crisis.
So, I take issue with anyone who would say I don't want to have equal obligations, that I'd prefer to send someone else in my place, or those who project onto me that I'm a coward, or that I'd get pregnant to weasel out of my duty to my country etc, etc. I take these pre-judging claims very seriously and am offended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's getting late, so I won't go into all of this, but...
If people are drafted it won't be to "advance their careers".
If women are drafted and given computer programming jobs or jobs in the medical field while men are drafted to kill and to be horribly maimed, captured, tortured and killed themselves, then claims of equity probably won't fly. Many men will probably come to see the female (read: majority) elected government as their mortal enemy and may come to see women as their mortal enemies. Pretenses won't carry for much longer. However, the dirt and grit facts will matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First I feel that the draft is useless in today's military. We are long past the need for millions of bodies to throw at an enemy to overwhelm them with sheer numbers. (the war in Iraq proved that).
The problem I have with women in the military is the limitations placed on them due to pregnacy.
Remember several of the "best" military jobs are special forces. Experiance in many of these jobs allows for rapid advancement through the ranks of the military. The down side to this is that these forces are highly trained often requiring year or more of intensive training. To gain access to this training personnel are required to sign up for longer enlistments. These longer enlistments are used to make up for the loss of time due to training. If a woman gets pregnant after she is trained for this job she would still retain the designation but would not be on stand-by to fly into battle at a moments notice.
In addition many of the ordinances we use now are slightly radioactive (spent uranium in tank shells etc. and Nuclear reactors on navy ships) women are excluded from these jobs the INSTANT they are pregnant (a federal law). So unless women are forced to take birth control many jobs will still be limited to men. The idea was tried initially to let women rotate to duty that didn't have exposure to radiation but this ended up limiting the available jobs for men who where due to rotate.
So until women are not allowed to use biology (ie. pregnancy) as an "out" for combat or hazardous duty having equal treatment of women in the armed forced is a farce. (note: currently women are still not allowed in to the nuclear power field in the navy or SEALS for the above mentioned reasons.)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have a resident gender feminist? I've avoided this thread and others on the topic of the draft--as the God of War, I'm in favor of drafting the entire universe into eternal military duty.
Moreover, adhering as I do to the notion of the state as developed in Plato's Crito (and to some extent, the Republic), the state has the power to determine who is and who is not fit for military duty and, by living in the state, its citizens have the obligation to abide by its laws. If the draft is something you find morally wrong, then you can resist, subject to the state's penalty for resistance, or else you can attempt to change the law.
Perhaps the consideration of the ERA during the Bush administration is not so suprising. It seems that the ERA would require rewriting many federal laws that protect some individuals on the basis of gender from environmental hazards. For example, pregnant women can't work near nuclear reactors. It may benefit industry to relax federally mandated environmental protections and guidelines that currently tend to favor one gender to levels that would offer less protection to all genders (I'm trying to be a post-modernized God of War 1) by including intersexuals and 2) by making fatuous use of self-reference, you see).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 10, @01:52PM EST (#116)
|
|
|
|
|
How do you know they are NOT taking action on it?
Lorianne, let me ask you. Have you registered for the draft? You can do this, you know, or at least you could five or so years ago. I've known a couple of women who have submitted draft registration cards because they felt the current policies were unfair to men. I don't know what would happen to these women if the draft was implemented. However, it was an honorable show of good faith. Stand by your man, so to speak.
By the same token, if NOW and other gender feminists really believe that women should have the same legally mandated obligations as men when it comes to military service (as they claim in their 1980 statement), why aren't they registering for the draft in droves. Why don't they encourage other women to do the same? They could include draft registration forms in their brochures on "Girl Power". This would be a simple way that they could demonstrate a committment to fairness and gender equity. Women who oppose the draft on general principles could decline student loans and various licences. This is what happens to men when they don't register. True, a woman's registration may be moot if the draft was actually implemented, but it would be a notable demonstration - just like the burning of bra's (which never happened, by the way). However, feminists don't do this.
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you threaten to commit suicide, you can be forcefully taken away and restrained, drugged and jailed against your will, because only "crazy people" want to commit suicide. These maniacal policies extend even to terminally ill people who simply want a painless way out of their suffering. Dr. Kevorkian rots in jail while OJ chips golf balls.
Yet if you threaten suicide by submitting a draft card, you're not crazy, you're "demonstrating fairness and gender equity." Then when you demand that everyone else kill themselves along with you, you are "demanding responsibility."
If you people are so hellbent on killing yourselves, then blow your brains out, swallow pills or lock yourself in a garage with the car running. But don't you dare DEMAND that I and everyone else kill ourselves along with you. You remind me of the losers who jump off freeway overpasses, killing innocent drivers who don't want to die because they're so goddamned selfish.
When I was a teenager, I was told I was crazy because I wanted to die. Now that I'm an adult, I'm being told that I'm selfish and overprivileged because I no longer want to die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shawn, I honestly never thought of this. Thanks for the suggestion. Can women actually register for the draft without lying about their sex on the form? Can you register for the draft if you are over 26?
All good questions you ask. And I believe it would be a good idea for NOW to promote this concept.
One problem with it is registering when it is not required by law would by definition be voluntary. So all NOW could do would be to promote it as a voluntary statement of intent. They could not really back it up with anything legal.
In the meantime, many women are volunteering for the military, which skips the entire question of the draft. I think I read somewhere that the military is now 13% women.
You say women who oppose the draft on general principles could deline student loans and other things. True, but you could say the same thing about men who oppose the draft. Or anyone over 26 who is not elligible for the draft (under current laws).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But don't you dare DEMAND that I and everyone else kill ourselves along with you. You remind me of the losers who jump off freeway overpasses, killing innocent drivers who don't want to die because they're so goddamned selfish.
Tell that to the state, ma'am. I adhere to the notion of the state as developed in Plato's Crito (and to some extent, the Republic), the state has the power to determine who is and who is not fit for military duty and, by living in the state, its citizens have the obligation to abide by its laws. If the draft is something you find morally wrong, then you can resist, subject to the state's penalty for resistance, or else you can attempt to change the law.
Your analogy is unsound; the irony is perceived. The state has to protect itself from external attack and from insurrection from within. All states must do this if they are to remain states. Under what conditions would the state be justified in defending itself? Does the state have no recourse if none of its citizens wish to come to its defense? What about obeying the laws? The state has the right to compel any of its citizens to military duty, in accordance with the laws of the state. If you think the laws are unjust, then either change them, or resist, subject to the penalty that the state determines. This is your obligation as a citizen of the state. The state can certainly dare to compel any of its citizens to go to war, and to kill on its behalf.
States have always acted this way throughout history. According to the sociologist Oppenheimer, with regard to its origin, the State is an institution "forced on a defeated group by a conquering group, with a view only to systematizing the domination of the conquered group by the conquerors, and safeguarding itself against insurrection from within and attack from without. This domination had no other final purpose than the economic exploitation of the conquered group by the victorious group."
According to Albert Jay Nock in "Our Enemy, the State," the state is defined as the "organization of the political means," where the political means is defined as "the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others." The state is distinguished from society, which Nock implicitly defines as the "organization of the economic means."
The left may or may not agree with these terms; however, in my view they reflect the nature of the state as it has existed throughout history, from its primitive forms to the forms extant today: fascism, communism, and western liberal democracy.
A definition of the state is needed if one is to speak meaningfully about the relation between the individual and the state. If there is any social contract between the individual and the state, then there is the implicit agreement that, insofar as it serves the state's interests, the state will protect its citizens from external attack; for lack of other normative considerations, such as an axiological theory of inalienable rights or a utilitarian calculus, it is the responsibility of each state to protect its citizens from external attack, and it is not the responsibility of one state to protect the citizens of another state it seeks to destroy.
Your assumption that being drafted into military service is morally equivalent to suicide is false; the ends are entirely different: one serves the an individual end, and another serves a state determined end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist___ I'm not in favor of the draft in general for anyone. However, what I'm saying is I don't recall any "feminists" calling for women to be excluded from the draft.
So, it is disingenous to say women don't WANT to be treated as equal with regard to the draft when it in fact that they aren't ALLOWED to be. Also, if a exclusion rider is what it would take to get the ERA passed (because of men's objections to women being drafted, not women's objections) then it is disingenous to say women want equality but not responsibility, when in fact it is men (primarily military) who don't want to allow such equal responsibility.
If anyone can provide a source of nationally recognized feminist organization which is against the draft for women, I'd be happy to eat my words. I haven't seen it.
(Personally I think if there is a draft, everyone should be eligible for it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 08, @06:43PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
I love it when people gloss over the Catch-22 here. They blame women for not being eligible for the draft by law and while conveniently failing to mention it is primarily men (in the military) who wish to exclude them from it.
I don't believe this is accurate. For example, when former Colorado Congresswoman Pat Schroeder was head of the Armed Services Committee, she was a strong advocate for giving women the "opportunity" and "choice" to serve in the military, including combat positions, but felt that only men should be required to register for the draft. Of course, what else would you expect from a staunch gender feminist.
There was an interesting article in the Christian Science Monitor (April 19, 2000) concerning the prospect of compulsory military service for women in Sweden. In Sweden, men are required to serve in the military and remain in the reserves until age 47. Women are not. A paragraph from the article:
"Surprisingly, it is men who have been raising the issue of female conscription in Europe. In Germany, men have initiated reverse-discrimination cases arguing that men should not be singled out for military duty."
Interestingly, in all-so-progressive Sweden, 70 percent of women are opposed to women being included in compulsory military service.
Shawn Larsen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite agree Thomas with your memories of the draft. I was in the same position and it was difficult. Your life was literally controlled by a lottery.
If there is to be a draft then draft the women for non-combat duty. There is plenty to do. Let them do their part and if they are capable let them fight.
If there is to be an exclusion for women for the draft then we men should get an exclusion for housework. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If there is to be a draft then draft the women for non-combat duty.
Before I run... There's a problem with this. Men would be forced to kill and be horribly maimed and killed themselves. Women, in many cases, would get to learn, at government expense, many trades that they could later use to make their lives better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women, in many cases, would get to learn, at government expense, many trades that they could later use to make their lives better.
Not only that, but it would also push men who were not prepared for combat out of those jobs. If we draft anyone who fits the physical requirements, there WILL be more men drafted than women. That stands to reason, but at least the method of selection would be equal.
All things considered, though, I would prefer there were no such beast as the draft (or even just registration for it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Shawn. That's good to know. It's pretty unimaginable that genfems would truly support equal responsibility and equal social duty, despite any smoke screens that they may put up.
For the record, since I've been involved in this debate, my failure, over the next few hours, to respond to posts is not concurrence. I'm going to a meeting and then I'm gonna work out. (Something we men need to encourage each other to do more of.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 08, @04:25PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
If a real = rights ammendment is passed and signed, men will gain much more than women!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anon, I agree beyond any shadow of a doubt. The genfems should be careful about what they are asking for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Genfems aren't completely stupid. They'll avoid
supporting the ERA without appearing to oppose it.
ERA belongs to an earlier age of feminism... like
the old "you just have to reverse the genders to
see how sexist it is" argument. They learned fast
that in most cases this is true, but it's not
the fems that come out looking hard done by.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the feminists need to be careful what they ask for; they might get it. I do not believe that the feminists want equality, and I think that the courts have gotten around the 14th Amendment in very cagey ways that an ERA will not allow. The activist judges that allow so many one-sided judgements in favor of women will no longer be able to hide behind their rhetoric, or at least their hiding places will be much less effective.
I was against it before because it was so heavily embraced by the gay community (I'm not bashing here, just putting forth my position), but now I think I might well be for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
have gotten around the 14th Amendment in very cagey ways that an ERA will not allow.
Or at least in ways that we don't see yet. The only thing that concerns me about the ERA is that someone *will* find a way to apply it to women only. Like you, frank, I was opposed to the ERA until earlier this year.
I became convinced of a need for the ERA after reading an article about the ERA and men by one Robyn Blummer, who was once director of the American Civil Liberties Union (an organization I DON'T like, but Blummer seems to have her head on straight). You can read the MANN post here:
/articles/01/05/10/1238 243_F.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 08, @05:29PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
You know, just because your wives are drafted, doesn't mean you automatically won't be. Maybe you'll be put in the same unit and will get to witness her final, terrifying, gory moments.
Hope you enjoy it, since you're all apparently looking so fucking forward to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But seriously folks, Women in the military is not a problem for me as long as the positions they fill don't compromise the effectiveness of the unit. I'm against the draft altogether, but if it turns out that there must be one, then it is irrelevant to me how the women got there. Besides, one could always ignore gender as an issue and make physical attributes the defining limitation. The Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution would allow that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, just because your wives are drafted, doesn't mean you automatically won't be. Maybe you'll be put in the same unit and will get to witness her final, terrifying, gory moments.
Hope you enjoy it, since you're all apparently looking so fucking forward to it.
Dramatic, stupid, and ill-informed response considering a large number of us support GETTING RID OF THE DRAFT COMPLETELY! I haven't seen a single person here post a message saying, "Hey! Draft my wife!"
Sheesh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 08, @05:52PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Bullshit. The entire discussion is about how men will gain more from this than women, meaning that men will get to live while their wifeys get blown to bits on the battlefield. If any of you hypocrits think your little wifeys will be exempt, bullshit. Equality means everyone gets drafted, no exceptions for any reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equality means everyone gets drafted, no exceptions for any reason.
That's right, Sweets. (Everyone who is physically capable.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 08, @06:01PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
If wifey can't handle it, that's her fucking problem. She can die along with everyone else. What makes her so fucking special? You know you're proving that you're a hypocrit. You want other mens wives to die, but when it comes to your own, all of a sudden she doesn't get drafted. You don't want equality, you want privledge for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What makes her so fucking special? Nothing.
(I know it's generally best to ignore trolls, but I'm having fun with this loonie toon at the moment.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, now I agree with frank. Another troll--who obviously has never read a single post about the draft on this site--to ignore.
Also, I'm not married. :D
Sigh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy to say you want to draft all women, force them into having abortions if they're pregnant at the time the notice comes up, sterilize them and all that stuff, when you are talking about faceless, nameless strangers.
How are you going to feel when it is YOUR mother, YOUR wife, YOUR lover, YOUR sister, YOUR daughter who gets the execution notice in the mail?
It is easy to condemn strangers with no names or faces to horrifying deaths. It's not so easy when you think of it happening to someone you care about.
The fact that "only" my partner can be drafted, and not me, provides me with not one shred of comfort. If he were drafted and killed, I would not want to live anymore. Over and over in my head, I would imagine how he died, in graphic detail. I would scream all night in terror, anger and pain. I would kill myself rather than live with that. No fucking flag presented to me by an honor guard would make me want to live.
Maybe thinking that way makes me fucked in the head, but at least two WTC widows have killed themselves. Perhaps they couldn't live with the nightmares either, despite the fact that it was "only" their husbands who died.
I don't think suicide is great, but do I blame them? Nope, and I told my partner I'd have done the same damn thing.
Before being so gung-ho about all this, maybe everyone should stop thinking about faceless strangers being drafted and killed, and think about their loved ones instead. Then decide whether you support the draft in any form. Just my $0.02.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that "only" my partner can be drafted, and not me, provides me with not one shred of comfort.
Exactly. So the troll isn't correct at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone here write a formal brief in support of the ERA for the men's movement? (Okay, that would claim too much.) How about for MANN (If Scott, possibly with the admins, agree)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the one hand, if you want true equality, you have to put women in draft-service with the guys. It's one of our current privileges as females.
On the other hand, I personally don't want a death sentence sent to me, or my husband, brother, father, or son in the mail. But if we have no draft, and we go to war, where will our forces come from? A sincere question that I hope you fine gents will come up with an answer for.
But then again, war is barbarism, something that lurks under the very consciousnesses of every human being. When we're not in a physical war with someone else, we are in a mental war with ourselves. Such is human nature. To create endless hells even though we have the brainpower to create endless paradise... (OK, so I sound nihilistic.)
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A sincere question that I hope you fine gents will come up with an answer for.
LadyRivka, if you search our archives, you'll find that we've been debating this without answer for some time. :) Also, you'll find a column I wrote on the subject about why there should be no draft at all (and why the volume of military personnel will not suffer as a result in wartime). :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we're not in a physical war with someone else, we are in a mental war with ourselves. Such is human nature. To create endless hells even though we have the brainpower to create endless paradise...
Damn, I'd like to meet you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, I liked your web site. I downloaded Comet Cursor, and now a cute betta who looks just like my own betta is pointing at my hyperlinks. He's almost too cute for the Internet.
> [exemption from the draft is] one of our current privileges as females
I agree with that. Although I will never be financially privileged, I am privileged in that one respect. Though it is horrifying to think that the ability to choose to live is considered a privilege and not a right.
>war is barbarism, something that lurks under the very consciousnesses of every human being.
Absolutely.
>When we're not in a physical war with someone else, we are in a mental war with ourselves.
Again, absolutely.
>Such is human nature. To create endless hells even though we have the brainpower
>to create endless paradise...
Last night my partner wrote a poem called "Extinct." It talks about how humans are going the way of the dinosaurs. For every rebuttal to that theory, I can come up with 10 points supporting it.
Here's one. Among all the animals, we are the only ones with the gall to say that the ability to choose to live should be a privilege and not an inherent right. Ironically, we also deny the terminally ill the right to choose to die. Apparently anti-Right to Die and pro-draft "activists" have one thing in common: Both feel that the only people who deserve painless deaths are mass murderers like Timothy McVeigh.
We think this way, yet we feel we are the dominant species on this planet????????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with that. Although I will never be financially privileged, I am privileged in that one respect. Though it is horrifying to think that the ability to choose to live is considered a privilege and not a right.
Living is a right, according to our Founding Fathers, who stated their belief in our Declaration of Independence from Britain that all men have the inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That's why I believe the draft to be a violation of my right to life.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
