|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 28, @05:57PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This guy seems to oppose the draft on a basis of innate human rights. As such, any mention of sex is unecessary.
If you say "thall shalt not murder," there's no need to say "though shalt not murder men, and though shalt not murder women."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If women are NEVER "murdered" anyway, it's then redundant to cover them in the blanket statement "thall shalt not murder". This masks the fact that ONLY men have been "murdered" in the past. Know what I mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday March 28, @11:58PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Under the hypothetical murder situation, it depends what you mean by redundant. Maybe it might be unecessary to say, but it would be correct, and true to the belief to say that NOBODY should be murdered.
Likewise, for conscription, it is his belief that NOBODY should be conscripted. The status quo is irrelevant when constructing this belief, because the belief is all encompassing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This guy seems to oppose the draft on a basis of innate human rights. As such, any mention of sex is unecessary.
The draft ONLY applies to men. It is therefore negligence on his part to NOT mention it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I wonder if the author might have undermined his persuasiveness among most circles by being too gender-specific with regards to the draft. By referring to the draft almost as if it were gender neutral, he allows one to contemplate the reality of what the draft is with perhaps less gender-bias. Specifically refer only to "young men" getting drafted, and too many people might think only of the young scumbags and "slackers" who commit most of the crime and waste most of the space in our society. ("Good for 'em!") But, by simply referring to "our kids", we think of all young people - the good and the bad, the virtuous and the criminal, etc. It makes his argument more compelling, I think. Therefore, I can forgive his negligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By referring to the draft almost as if it were gender neutral, he allows one to contemplate the reality of what the draft is with perhaps less gender-bias. Specifically refer only to "young men" getting drafted, and too many people might think only of the young scumbags and "slackers" who commit most of the crime and waste most of the space in our society. ("Good for 'em!")
If that's the case, Hawth, then we're allowing the readers to get away with stereotyping young men, aren't we? Ignoring the truth of the draft to make it more appealing is just as bad, in my mind, as ignoring the issue altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...then we're allowing the readers to get away with stereotyping young men, aren't we?
We're allowing readers to separate the concept of a military draft from the antipathetic image of the gender which is uniquely vulnerable to it - and thus assess the draft more objectively. The author of this article clearly does not intend to persuade his audience that the draft is wrong because it happens only to men, but simply because it is a violation of Constitutional principles and is therefore wrong regardless of who it affects.
Also, too - I think you're overstating the extent to which the author is "ignoring" the male identity of the draft. Most people should know that the draft is currently male-only, and it simply goes without saying, as the author well knows. Had he belabored the point that it only affects men, it would have sounded like he was arguing that the draft is wrong because it affects men - which would probably not have increased anyone's receptivity to his argument, due to current ideological sentiments in our culture.
Which, I think, is what you were objecting to - that perhaps I condone this antipathy. I don't, but I just don't think it's the issue here. Keep in mind that the men's movement is trying to de-gender-ize many so-called "women's issues" - domestic violence, etc. - so that men can also benefit from laws and policies which counteract said transgressions.
If the draft is, indeed, "wrong", then it should be abolished for the sake of everyone, not just men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the draft is, indeed, "wrong", then it should be abolished for the sake of everyone, not just men.
I'm certainly in agreement with that, but I think the draft--unlike most other so-called "gender" issues--really IS a gender issue, precisely because it only affects one gender, so I'll simply have to disagree with you on this one. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough, and your point is well taken also.
Sometimes, disagreement is good! ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
