|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @09:20AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The feminists tell me that I should not care about things like this because the draft will probably never be used again.
These people are sick sick, unbelievable. I am not an American, so this doesn't affect me really, but I still get mad when I see men's rights being violated like this in other parts of the world and see that almost no one cares.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The feminists tell me that I should not care about things like this because the draft will probably never be used again."
Great. So tell them that we're going to push for a law that requires women age 18 to register to get pregnant in case the country needs more babies. Then say, "don't worry, it never will happen."
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The feminists tell me that I should not care about things like this because the draft will probably never be used again.
I've heard this nonsense about the draft never again being used. Many people believe that all future wars will be fought with technology. I wonder if they ever hear the news, when the US and mainland China engage in saber rattling over Taiwan. Do these idiots really believe we could ever win a war with China without engaging massive amounts of manpower? Excuse me, I guess that should be personpower or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we're going to push for a law that requires women age 18 to register to get pregnant in case the country needs more babies.
Or better yet, they should register for a term of service as concubines for our male soldiers. (Hmmm, this brings to mind a great science fiction book I once read, The Rainbow Cadenza.)
Then say, "don't worry, it never will happen."
-----
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Requiring males to register to get their drivers licenses is a travesty in itself, but the main outrage lies in the selective service system itself. In our new age of "sexual equality," there's no excuse that only males should have to register; if women are so equal, then they should have to follow the same strict rules. I suppose they could always destroy the selective service system itself, but that would be too easy.
It's hypocrisy at its worst, and I'm sorry to hear that the state I live in is adding to the national cesspool.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @05:14PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
If a draft exists at all, it should include everyone who enjoys the rights and benefits of citizenship. An American without equal responsibilities should not have equal rights.
However, when we draft *anyone*, we're not interested in having the best forces possible.
It seems to me that the best solution for both issues, draft fairness and strong defense, is simple: if Americans feel national security is of vital importance, then we should seek to obtain the finest military forces possible. Abolish the draft and create an all-volunteer military that is paid whatever amount is required to secure an excellent and adequate force to meet any national defense security challenge. Only the finest men and women soldiers should be sought and accepted by the military and be paid accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While it's true that Selective Service registration is still required by law whether this bill passes or not, I have two major concerns about it:
By forcing compliance as soon as most young men get their drivers' licenses (16), we're diminishing the liklihood that these men will realize the injustice of SS registration and their motivation to act legally to change it. They'll be more willing to simply accept it as a given.
And in general, I don't think it's fair to pass a law like this that applies to 16 and 17 year-olds. This isn't a safety and welfare law, such as requiring seat belt use, and there's no legal recourse for a 16 or 17 year-old to protest this - they can't vote, for crying out loud.
As a NH resident, I have written to my state Senator and also to the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who are currently reviewing the bill.
Scott
PS - the bill number is SB314. I was disappointed that Foster's wrote an article the bill but didn't even mention its identification number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @10:17AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
This looks like a national pressure campaign by the Selective Service System. I saw something similar being pushed in Richmond VA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is hardly surprising, the value of men is still to make the money, do the heavy lifting, and fight for freedom for others. Male students can not get Federal financial aid in this country unless they register for the draft, though this is not an issue for females. The freedom that is accorded to women that is not given to men is the right to choose. In a world that women have fought for choices men are still dictated too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The state sets different qualifications to get a driver's license depending on the sex of the applicant?
Can that possibly be legal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They tried this in California and enough people objected that they watered it down so that the applicant can opt out of the requirement on the DMV application. I still don't like the idea that a male has to affirmatively waive forced draft registry while a female does not, but the change was still good. People in NH may want to consider joining forces with Mexican-American or immigrants rights groups. They spoke out against the California bill along with us, though for different reasons. Writing to the committee in charge on the letterhead of your group is a good way to get your group's name out there. Often the groups that are pro and con get listed on the bill's website.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C'mon you guys. Don't you know that war is entirely the fault of males?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is only one reason that a person needs to get a drivers license and that is to show all of the rest of the people in the country that they are capable of handling a vehicle safely enough so as not to endanger the lives or property of others. PERIOD.
If a person has shown (by the passing of a driving test) that they can do this then they MUST be given the license.
All threats of taking away the license (for any reason) or of not giving the license in the first place for any reason (other than the ability to handle a vehicle safely) are illegal and unconstitutional.
In this day and age, people must be able to drive.
It is not a "privilege" as we are told, it is a necessity.
All threats of withholding this necessity are attempts at coercion - which is illegal.
I propose another bill. In its raw, simple form, it would be something like this:
The DMV cannot (under threat of serious criminal prosecution) withhold a driver's license from anyone (for any reason) who has proven their ability to drive safely - by passing the standard driving exam.
I think that this should also apply to the rest of the world.
Governments all over the world are trying similar coercive tricks on their citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On a serious note (as if this isn't all incredibly serious):
People in NH may want to consider joining forces with Mexican-American or immigrants' rights groups.
Marc is right. There are now many men's rights groups, and there are other rights groups with legitimate concerns. It's pretty obvious that the masculinist/egalitarian movement has achieved critical mass. This year should, in part, be a time of consolidation and bridge building. Working with Mexican-American and immigrants rights groups could reinforce us. (Note that this is "Mexican-American" and "immigrants," not "illegal immigrants.") This is a time to build our strength by forging alliances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @03:02PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm.
There are two problems with joining with other egalitarian movements as I see it:
A. Egalitarian means equal opportunity and treatment under the law, not destruction of standards or equal outcome. Alot of these groups don't know this.
B. It's hard to separate the legal immigrant groups from the illegal immigrant groups as alot of these organizations work together.
In my opinion, the whole "Open borders" policy needs to be scrapped, immigration fraud severely punished, the amount of legal immigrants reduced to about a quarter or less of what it is today, citizen ship standards revised, and some movement made on deporting those who aren't sposed to be here in the first place.
Right now , the Democratic and Republican parties are falling all over themselves trying to give handouts to Hispanic groups to try and attract the "hispanic vote". Not to pick on Hispanics. Group politics has long been the bane of this country, and is slowly destroying us. As is radical multiculturalism. And if anybody doesn't think this is a problem, go to Google and type in "Reconquiesta", and see what you get.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to make any friends here with this opinion but here goes...
"Male students can not get Federal financial aid in this country unless they register for the draft"
This is ok by me, because not registering for the draft is illegal and makes you a criminal, no matter how you feel about draft laws, they ARE the law.
And another point about drafting males vs females: it's bad enough most of the time serving with women who WANT to be here (what with the hostile, PC, gender normed society it has created), I REALLY don't want to serve with women who have been drafted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I enjoy reading your insights, Captain Pistachio. I think you reveal a threat that we face. If and when we have a war which requires a draft (a war with mainland China would not be settled by pushing buttons), if we don't draft women for combat, men may revolt, but if we do draft women for combat, those unwilling women may destroy our military.
Hmmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an ideal world I'd fully support drafting women, and either training them physically until they passed an (equal) standard or shuffling them off into paper pushing and medical jobs (away from the front lines) freeing up men for combat. Plus they'd have to be punished for their inevitable misbehaviors(sp?) the same as the male soldiers (draftees make awful soldiers).
Unfortunately our gov't is too cravenly PC to do anything like this. In today's world on this one issue I have to hope that the genfems manage to keep women out of the draft. I think I'm going to go be sick now...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In my opinion, the whole "Open borders" policy needs to be scrapped, immigration fraud severely punished, the amount of legal immigrants reduced to about a quarter or less of what it is today, citizen ship standards revised, and some movement made on deporting those who aren't sposed to be here in the first place."
These issues are irrelevant, though, because I'm talking about joining in coalition, which means you are joining another group on a particular point, not that you agree on all points. Mexican-American groups have shown opposition to the draft-DMV law in CA because they feel that it unfairly hurts Mexican immigrant men, whether legal or illegal. We object to the law because it unfairly treats men. Our reasons do not have to be the same. All it takes is to contact them, tell them about the law and why they too might be opposed to it and that similar groups in other states have opposed it, and tell them you're going to write letters objecting to it and would like to invite them to do the same. It's a joint effort behind the scenes. It does not mean you're agreeing with them on anything except that this law should not pass. It is powerful to have different groups opposing the law for different reasons. In fact, NOW at some point opposed the male only draft laws, though it was because they say it makes women 2nd class citizens, while men's activists said it was because it made men 2nd class citizens. We can totally disagree about the reasons while agreeing that the law is bad and work together on that one point. It's a matter of diplomacy and it can be very powerful.
If we took an approach of never joining in coalition with anyone unless we agreed on every point, we'd hurt our own cause. That would mean I couldn't join with ifeminists, for instance, since I don't agree with everything they say. But I support the laison of ifeminists with mensactivism.org because we emphasized that it was specifically on the issue of men's rights and balancing gender issues that we joined together.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The male only requirement for draft registration was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1981.
This is a carrot/stick issue; the problem is there is only a stick, no carrot. So I propose the following: men who do not register can't get state or federal jobs, licenses, or loans. But men who do register get first choice over all others when applying to colleges, for jobs, and for loans. Carrot/stick. If feminists don't complain about selectively punishing men who don't register, they shouldn't have a problem with selectively rewarding them when they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about if you don't register you're breaking the law, you're a criminal, and either go to jail, pay a huge fine, or get deported.
Nobody should be rewarded for following a law. If you don't like the law you can either follow it, break it, or try to get rid of it legitimately.
Meanwhile, we still need to draft, thanks to 8 years of EX-President Clinton's gutting of the military. If we ever have to fight a real war with a real adversary we're either going to use the draft or lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that women should be required to register also, and I think that, when it's time to draft, then we draft women into Americorps and require them to do humanitarian service as an auxilliary to the military and that they be used to augment the current military OOTW (operations other than war), for example in Bosnia. Further, I think where a woman fits the criteria for a given set of military requirements, she be required to serve in the military. I also think that the current practice of offering voluntary combat and combat support roles to women be eliminated, and that all assignment for women be no more voluntary for women than it is to men.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, it is a point in men's favor that the state has to impose negative incentives to get men to comply with an obviously misandric law.
The point in men's favor is that it dispels the urban myth that men are brutes who love and crave war and conflict because of excessive testosterone I guess.
The state has to use threats of imprisonment or withholding licenses (notice there are not positive incentives like special set aside scholarships or special job internships for those who do comply with the registration law) to get men to become candidates for a military funeral and the Purple Heart thus making the nation safe for femmunists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So I propose the following: men who do not register can't get state or federal jobs, licenses, or loans. But men who do register get first choice over all others when applying to colleges, for jobs, and for loans. Carrot/stick. If feminists don't complain about selectively punishing men who don't register, they shouldn't have a problem with selectively rewarding them when they do."
I LOVE it. While it's true that in theory we should not have to 'reward' people for obeying the law, we do need to do it in some cases. Military heros are given awards for doing military acts that are actually their military duty. We also give veterans benefits to Vietnam Vets even if their service was involuntary but required by law via the draft. We give awards to police, firefighters and others even when they simply did their duty. Although registering for the draft is not necessarily heroic in itself, doing so is an act of compliance with a law that is discriminatory on its face, and the act is being done by the those who are being discriminated against. Their doing so without protest is a form of sacrifice to their country, perhaps even chivalry, and they deserve some kind of benefit (carrot) rather than just avoidance of punishment (stick).
Meanwhile, I'd like to see some kind of "don't register 2005" campaign where we get high schoolers nationwide who will turn 18 in or after 2005 to sign a (nonbinding) brotherhood stipulation promising that, if 10 million others (say) sign it by 2005, all participants will refuse to register for the draft until the law stops discriminating or until males are also rewarded in some way for registering.
Given our current resources, maybe we should make it 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women should be required to register for the draft if men are. Women should be called up for service if men are. Simple.
Men who don't want women to be drafted and/or do't want women to serve in a drafted capacity in the military, have no basis to complain about "unequal" treatment under the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, time to be a heretic:
One of my pals asked me a question about this, to quote:
"why should women have the right to vote if they don't defend their country?"
Don't flame me to a well done crisp ok? :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 25, @11:31PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny, you know. I was listening to CNN this morning and they had a feature on the recent report about how female managers are being paid so much less than male managers, and how it's actually gotten worse since the beginning of Bubba's second term. There were two Congressman there, a woman from... somewhere and a man from Michigan, both Democrats (er.. is it Victicrats?). They were talking about what to do legislatively to fix the "problem" and the ERA came up. I damn near rolled on the floor laughing. I'm convinced that, if the feminists demand the ERA, they better be careful what they ask for, because the all-male draft will QUICKLY disappear. And that will only be the first thing to go.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FrankH ___ We already went through this a few weeks ago but "feminist" at least their most widely known organization alread call for the equal draft in their platform. Have done for 20 years or so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True, Lorianne, and I was part of the conversation. It was just amusing to me to listen to this Congressman talk about the ERA as though it was going to solve all the feminists problems, when if they really considered their position, they are way better off without it. On that very note, though, I'm pretty-well convinced that their position is one of convenience, because they seem to have convinced themselves that men and women are equal on the battlefield. Supporting the draft of women makes sense from their perspective, because it enables women to compete with (and possibly replace) men for military careers. Reality doesn't back this up, of course, but then the feminists have never let the facts get in the way before, have they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frankky Frank, you nor I know what a female draft would bring. Your speculation is as good as mine.
I suspect that women on the whole would not be as good at battle, but we don't know this do we? Also, I've read that women as a group have shown themselves to be very good at specialized tasks, such as lay-and-wait marksmanship. (Hunter friends of mine have also remarked on this). So it could be that women might be stratified into different fields, such as sniper duty. Who knows.
The point is that the military already does this. It separates out MEN by their abilities. It does not take the best warriors and put them in the mess hall peeling potatoes does it? It doesn not take its brightest technological experts and put them on the front line of battle. The military is highly specialized and they wisely put people were they will do the greatest good for the group. Rememeber Radar O'Reilly from MASH. Would he be good on at jungle guerilla warfare? No, but in his capacity as a communications officer he could advance the entire effort, and save lives overall by being good at what he was his best talent.
I had an uncle who was drafted in during Viet Nam. He thought he would get off because he is profoundly colorblind. Not so. They put him in arial reconaissance. Turns out color blind people are advatantaged in not being fooled by camouflage, their vision is mor atuned to texture and value (kind of like blind people reportedly have a heightend sense of hearing). Over the years the military figured this out. They happen to know that color-sighted people are "disabled" at arial recon.
It seems to me that the military has learned how to discern how to use the individual talents of people and do not just willy nilly throw everyone into combat positions. I personally have heartened to know they approach things in such a pragmatic and not reactionary manner. It gives me a lot of faith.
Perhaps learning how to discern and use the best talents of individuals is what makes former miltary persons so highly prized as managers in civilian corporations? Perhaps we can learn a few things from the military in this regard and not automatically pre-ordain that 1/2 the population is utterly useless before we have a chance to find out. It seems shortsighted at best and downright dangerous at worst to simply speculate that 1/2 your population base have NO talents that the military would benefit from exploiting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 26, @05:47PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"Your speculation is as good as mine."
> Agreed, and it is likely that neither one is very good :-)
"It seems shortsighted at best and downright dangerous at worst to simply speculate that 1/2 your population base have NO talents that the military would benefit from exploiting."
Well, I agree and I disagree. I certainly do agree that women may have unique abilities that could prove useful on the battlefield. However, while Radar O'Reilly is not your typical model of of the exceptional warrior, he still may pass the physical test better than most of his potential female colleagues. Not every warrior is Chuck Norris, Howie Long, or Mel Gibson. I met, through business, a number of special forces guys who did NOT look to me to be special forces types. They looked downright geeky to me. Again, I'm not trying to say women in battle are worthless, but at the outset, which force would you send it? If you were setting out to train a force, which individuals would you pick to train? Right now, there is little supporting evidence for the notion that women in battle do as well as men, in general terms. As for exceptions, large, physical women or women with unique abilities, they always exist as do exceptionally weak or unfit men. I would not take a chance in sending in a measurably weaker force as a matter of experimentation. So, in essense, we agree, Lorianne, but I do take the position that we should field the force with the highest likelihood of success and the minimum amount of casualties.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank___ You turned the argument again into one of purely combat (and traditional combat at that). In order to engage in any miltary campaign you need people in scads of other positions to support the effort. Again, a person who is an ace at repairing military hardware and equipment is going to be more useful behind the lines repairing equipment than in combat where he would more likely get killed or injured, and therefore no longer useful to the military. The military is not going to send this person into combat until they are down to their last man. By this time, they can't afford to be choosy can they?
By the same token, the military do not put their ace pilots and aircrart maintenence people in the direct line of fire. They need them to do other things. A person who is good at tranlastion and code breaking is more useful in intelligence gatehring and analysis than dead or wounded on the front lines where they are of no use to you at all. Meanwhile you can't find anyone else qualified to do their job so it's a double loss. And it endangers more people in combat not to have the intelligence you could have had if you didn't send in our top intellligence officer to fight.
The military understands this already. They've gained this information over hundreds, even thousandes of years of military experience. They know that there is a lot more to a military effort than just combat. They need all the talent they can get in many different areas.
Also, in regards to draftees. I'm certain the military also realizes that with a draft force they have to weed out the talent. Good leaders bring out the best possible in young 18 year old draftees, most of whom probably don't know what their own talents and capabilites are. Good leaders also recognize the vast differences in inidividual ability and aptitudes. They pick out the from the creme of the crop the new leaders to follow them up the ranks. They pick out the not-so-bright but extremely loyal for other things. Not everybody meets any standard whether physical or mental.
That's why the military is a hierarchal system, with officers, nco's and non-officers. That's why you have cooks and medics and supply clerks and chaplins, and doctors and nurses etc etc.... and combat personell in the military. Everyone has a job to do and they are by no means all combat jobs. But everyone's job is to perform toward the success of the goals of the entire effort whether in combat or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 26, @07:10PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Somehow, I've managed to convey to you that I think women do not belong in the military. That's not what I think and I agree with what you say regarding the notion that there are many jobs to be filled, each requiring a different skill set, and that many types are needed.
Although I DO disagree about the ace pilots. The best pilots are the ones who get sent DIRECTLY to the line of fire: combat aircraft. And flying an airplane is one area where it's hard to say that the male qualities of size, strength, and speed are the most critical.
Ummm... Are we done yet ? :-) I'm not sure where we disagree anymore, and I'm trying to figure out how we got from a simple comment on some dim-witted Congressman's position on the ERA to whether or not women are fit for combat or fit in general for the military. Are you reacting to my comment on drafting women into Americorps? Well, that was a brief flight of fancy. I think that the military might well not have enough need for women during times when the draft would be required and so I merely propose that there are humanitarian jobs that also need to be filled during those times, and that assigning women draftees to those roles might be more appropriate. As you say, there are men who also might well be unfit for military duty, and perhaps those men could be utilized there, as well.
Peace?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because the 19th Ammendment isn't worded that way. They certainly could have worded it that way but they didn't.
Or thay could have given women 3/5 of a vote for example. No doubt they thought about it. I'm sure it was discussed.
My guess (and this is pure speculation) is that they realized how double standardish it would be to say that women can't vote because they don't defend their country, and then say we won't legally let them defend their country. Just like how it's double standard now to say we don't want women in the military, but then turn around and say women don't want equaility.
Anyway, Ammendments can be changed and modified. People certainly have a right to lobby for such a change to the 19th Ammendment.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
