|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
``The discrimination is kind of in favor of women,'' she said yesterday. ``But this is kind of an ethical thing. If you say women have the same rights as men, you're going to have to take the good with the bad.''
A ray of light, or just misdirection couning on the fact women even if drafted will not be put in harms way?
Feminism is not equality, it's privledge for women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a 17 year old girl... not as likely to be corrupted by the radical feminists. I take it as a ray of light, similar to the trend we're seeing in young women to reject the radical feminist NOW gang.
These young people realize that equality doesn't mean "more for me", it means "the same for ALL"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've got a bridge that you might be interested in. Or possibly some swamp land in Florida. You have to remember that many of these girls are being brought up in single-parent homes by women of the eighties who still firmly believe that there's no 'nature' about it; it's all 'nurture.' They're growing up, feeling their oats, probably egged-on by a thickly feminist public school teacher, and ready to hire a lawyer. And what have they got to lose, really? Thomas is right: these women will never see combat. The Armies here, in Great Britain, and in Israel are starting to wise up on the notion of women in or close to combat: they're just not as durable or as physically capable. So what jobs are they going to get? The ones that require brains but little brawn: medicine, technology, administration. They will be FAR better prepared by their military training and experience to work in the private sector. What will become of the men? Men who were taught little but to kill? They will be disposed of, sent to prison, or work as trash collectors or busboys. After all, the world will still needs them, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your logic was some of the same used to protest blacks being integrated into the military. And many people resented the educational and other benefits allowed to blacks during and after service.
Not every man who is the military has the same ability, physically or mentally. But everyone has a vital job to do. The military uses the best talents of the individual person. They don't put logistics genius on the front line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your logic was some of the same used to protest blacks being integrated into the military. And many people resented the educational and other benefits allowed to blacks during and after service.
Not every man who is the military has the same ability, physically or mentally. But everyone has a vital job to do. The military uses the best talents of the individual person. They don't put logistics genius on the front line.
Utter hogwash.
I'm a decorated combat veteran. You, nor your daughters, nor your sisters, nor your mothers were never picked up, under threat of jail or the gun, and forced to go to a place where you didn't want to go, to kill or be killed by people with which you had no quarrel.
You never had to flee your country to avoid exercising the most basic right of all, the right to say: "I will not kill today."
I went and killed, in hopes that my son wouldn't have to do it later. But my son is still registered to go off, and you're exempt by sheer virtue of your gender.
And you wonder why I spit on your pious claims of "rights?" MEN paid with blood so WOMEN could sit on their ass and whine about how "unfair" life is, and how hard they have it.
What utter hogswallop. The idea that your "contribution" in any way equals the final sacrifice of men laying in unmarked holes here and abroad is contemptuous, and cheapens them.
Of course, they're only males, eh?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You, nor your daughters, nor your sisters, nor your mothers were never picked up, under threat of jail or the gun, and forced to go to a place where you didn't want to go, to kill or be killed by people with which you had no quarrel.
You never had to flee your country to avoid exercising the most basic right of all, the right to say: "I will not kill today."
Isn't it awful how oppressed Lorianne is because she's a woman?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 10, @07:59PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you guys are being a little harsh here. War is horror on a scale unheard of to those who have not expirienced it. Many people die painful, atrocious deaths, and yes, the vast majority of them are men. But you HAVE to look at the context of the time.
Until the last 30 or so years, during which there has not been conflict requiring a draft, men and women had very predefined roles. Men were the wage earners, and were the only ones thought capable of financially keeping the family afloat. Women were the caretakers, the only ones thought capable of rearing the children.
This simply was the reality. If both men and women died in any of the large conflicts in history, the populations would have taken far longer to recover. It takes one man to inseminate many woman, and men can be fertile their whole lives. Women have a window,one that up until the last 100 years stopped in the their 30's and if the 18-25 yr old women all went to war, it would decrease drastically the reproductive capabilities of the society.
Up until recently, war has required a large, strong build. Ever try to swing a broad sword? Ever try to shoot a flintlock? Not things most women were physically capable of doing. Not to mention toting the weapons, ammo and supplies on foot for hundreds of miles.
Before you all start slamming on the keyboards, let me finish ;-)
This has been the norm up until the last 30 or so years. Up until then, you did NOT hear women complaining they could not go to war. Women and men understood they each had roles to play.
With technology, the lines became blurred for several reasons. One, women no longer were kept busy in the home, and two, most professions became available for both sexes.
Until the last 30 years or so, women were fighting for equal rights like voting, the right to an education, the right to leave truly abusive situations, the right to be treated with dignity in the workplace, etc. These were VALID things to fight for.
Now? I think women got all of what they were fighting for. Now women physically could go to war. I believe that a draft should include both men and women. Why? Because times have changed.
My point here? I think that by putting all women into a 'they are purposely trying to kill off all men' light, which is what the top previous posts have done, is insulting all the men and women in the past who did what was needed. Yes, men fight and died in wars. Yes, women died in childbirth. They all did the best they could. You CANNOT hold people of the past to today's societal norms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
putting all women into a 'they are purposely trying to kill off all men' light, which is what the top previous posts have done
Wrong and absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If both men and women died in any of the large conflicts in history, the populations would have taken far longer to recover. It takes one man to inseminate many woman, and men can be fertile their whole lives.
This isn't true since men and women tend to live in monogamous relationships. It would be better for the population if an equal number of men and women died, as opposed to twice as many men. Look at the Soviet Union after WWII.
Up until then, you did NOT hear women complaining they could not go to war.
True. Historically, however, women have complained when their men did not serve in the military in wartime.
Until the last 30 years or so, women were fighting for equal rights like voting, the right to an education, the right to leave truly abusive situations, the right to be treated with dignity in the workplace, etc. These were VALID things to fight for.
These would be good points if they weren't all wrong. Women have had the right to vote for nearly a century (not 30 years), the average woman has been better educated than the average man for well over a hundred years (at least), men have faced as much if not more indignity in the workplace than women. Historically, work was work. It wasn't fun for anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now? I think women got all of what they were fighting for. Now women physically could go to war. I believe that a draft should include both men and women. Why? Because times have changed.
Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.
I've been there. Women get softballed in the military. The PT requirements are a fraction what they are for males? Why? Because if it wasn't, the amount of women washing out of basic would exceed 95%. And I am being generous.
Ever been on a 10 mile hike? 15? 20? Now how about with a full pack. Plus your weapon. Plus your ammo. Plus your communication gear. Plus ... plus... plus... Hey - someone has to carry that.
Ever loaded shells into a field piece?
Ever loaded missles onto a missle rack?
Ever carried a heavy machine gun?
Ever carried someone bleeding and unconcious in a crouch so you can stay under cover?
Again, your ignorance is showing.
The problem and source of my anger isn't really the fact that women don't go into combat. They can't. Unless you searched far and wide for the elite of women, the best name you could find for a unit of all-females in a combat environment would be "speed bumps." And that "elite" unit would be a one shot deal. And the bare equal, if at all, to the average male unit.
My anger is the dismissing and the "ain't so much" attitude of women, or people who have never sat in a place with bullets flying about them. The jobs they talk about women doing are all jobs that could be done by a civilian, with no military training. WTF? And this is the equal of coming home burnt, with an eyepatch or blinded, deafened, missing limbs, having a colostomy bag because your guts were destroyed, a victim of Gulf War Syndrome, Agent Orange - or in a bag, assuminmg they find your body?
Or one of those who was never suited for killing, but did it because they were drafted to do so, and now talks to imaginary people?
No. You're dead wrong.
Play again?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 11, @09:57AM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
I did not insult you personally, sarcasm and telling me I am ignorant is uncalled for.
You are basically telling me all the arguements women have given for men not understanding childbirth as well. They cannot do it and they do not understand it, so they should respect it.
That is a given, on both sides and I do not think that a few feminazies should be taken as the voice of all women just as a few KKK should be taken as the voice of all southern white men. They are just more vocal than the rest of us.
"Ever been on a 10 mile hike? 15? 20? Now how about with a full pack. Plus your weapon. Plus your ammo. Plus your communication gear. Plus ... plus... plus... Hey - someone has to carry that. Ever loaded shells into a field piece? Ever loaded missles onto a missle rack? Ever carried a heavy machine gun? Ever carried someone bleeding and unconcious in a crouch so you can stay under cover? Again, your ignorance is showing. "
Excuse me, but the majority of men in this country either have not or cannot do these things either. They are not lesser men for not having done this. And many, many men in the military have had safe jobs, and have gained benifits like education for those jobs, especially during peace time. They are not lesser men for having had those jobs.
Also, if women in Russia were in the military, and that proves your procreation point, then wouldn't it go against your next point about women not being able to physically handle war? Just noticing a discrepency.
You are right about monagamy, point made.
Women in the US have not been more educated than men until the last 30 or so years. I disagree with you there. And yes, I know the right to vote was nearly a century ago.
My point was to remind you that feminism once DID have a valid purpose. Just because NOW has turned the word into a sick joke, doesn't meant it started out that way.
None of this is relevent. All I was pointing out was that things were not always like they are now, and blaming all women for not appreciating all men for all time is simply unrealistic. Most of these problems are reletively new. And most everyday women DO appreciate what men do in the military. Even if the media or NOW tries to say otherwise.
I think that plain talk and telling exactly what you mean instead of sarcasm would serve this board well.
The fact is I am agreeing with you with your main point. Men who fight in war are to be respected and honored for what they have gone through and what they have done for their country. Period.
You do know the old saying, you catch more flies with honey than viniger?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AU. Since you don't identify yourself, and you don't quote the statements to which you refer, it's impossible to know to whom or what you are referring, or what you've said in the past. If you want to carry on an intelligent conversation, try doing both (use quotes and a handle). If you are referring to my statements my responses are:
I did not insult you personally, sarcasm and telling me I am ignorant is uncalled for.
Then who are you falsely accusing of "putting all women into a 'they are purposely trying to kill off all men' light, which is what the top previous posts have done?" If you make blatently false interpretations of what other people say and attribute those false interpretations to them, don't expect to be handled with kid gloves. Again, who mad any such generalization about "all women?"
You are basically telling me all the arguements women have given for men not understanding childbirth as well. They cannot do it and they do not understand it, so they should respect it.
Again, utterly false. If you falsely attribute statements and beliefs to me, I will point out that you are a liar. Bottom line. Non-negociable. I believe that women are capable of fighting in war, though their groups would have to be differently structered (lighter weight, faster transport, etc.)
I do not think that a few feminazies should be taken as the voice of all women
Maybe I missed it. Where did anyone do this?
feminism once DID have a valid purpose
It also always bore the seeds and even saplings of hatred.
Men who fight in war are to be respected and honored for what they have gone through and what they have done for their country. Period.
Wrong. They deserve far more. Perhaps they should be given lifelong pensions on which they can comfortably live. Would that be a burden on those paying for it. Yes. But it would be less of a burden than serving in combat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Ever been on a 10 mile hike? 15? 20? Now how about with a full pack. Plus your weapon. Plus your ammo. Plus your communication gear. Plus ... "
Excuse me, but the majority of men in this country either have not or cannot do these things either.
A majority of men haven't done these things but a majority of men *can* do these things. A majority of women cannot.
Women in the US have not been more educated than men until the last 30 or so years.
Yes, they have. In 1920, for example, when a high school diploma was the sign of a good education, 5.1% of girls but only 3.3% of boys graduated from high school. The data are skewed like this at least as far back as 1870. While it's true that more men than women went to college in the early 1900's, so few people went to college that the numbers are negligible (e.g., everyone who obtained a PhD in 1870 was a man - all two of them). If you compare the average years of schooling at any time during the last 100+ years, the average woman has always been better educated than the average man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 11, @02:22PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm another veteran of armed conflict, and not only was GK not being sarcastic to you, he was being kind.
He's dead right, and you are dead wrong. And as another thing, just because many man couldn't or haven't done such things, so what? The amount of women who could keep up with men in the military, under the same demands made of men, is statistically zero.
Not only is your ignorance showing, you have your head is up your ass. You've obviously never been in the military, let alone in a combat arms unit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You are basically telling me all the arguements women have given for men not understanding childbirth as well. They cannot do it and they do not understand it, so they should respect it."
Since when were woman drafted into childbirth? Last time I checked becoming pregnant was usually a completely voluntary decision on the woman's behalf. Woman aren't fined and sent to jail if they don't give birth to a child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point here? I think that by putting all women into a 'they are purposely trying to kill off all men' light, which is what the top previous posts have done, is insulting all the men and women in the past who did what was needed. Yes, men fight and died in wars. Yes, women died in childbirth. They all did the best they could. You CANNOT hold people of the past to today's societal norms.
Otherwise we might have to agree with feminists that men have been universally oppressing women wilfully and maliciously, and that womens' oppression has been a trans-cultrural, trans-geographical, trans-historical invariant, allowing us to hold the men of the past to today's societal norms. That's a fundamental tenet of feminism: that the universality of women's oppresion transcends relativistic or otherwise local value judgments. Assuming the universal invariance of women's oppression, we can make the comparision between women of today and other times, locations or cultures, make the determination that the women of those other times, locations or cultures should be considered oppressed, and draw the moral conclusion that men most certainly did not do what they could have done, independently of class, time, geography and culture.
There is something troubling about the claim that everyone did what they could--it sounds conceptually empty, devoid of explanatory value, amounting to nothing more than the tautology that people did what they in fact did. It makes more sense to examine the facts on a case by case basis, and then make some determination about what might have been otherwise. Especially now that death in childbirth is not an issue, there is some question about whether chivalrous attitudes influence our thoughts concerning which gender is an appropriate target of violence.
I must find an article written by a woman feminist who lamented that, thanks to nuclear war and the intercontinental ballistic missle, women everywhere were now the targets of war. Apparently she was lamenting this as if it meant that women were effectively subject to the draft as much as men.
Of course my recollection could be faulty...nevertheless I would like to propose the use of thermonuclear weapons to redress gender imbalances in military service. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @12:59AM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
You Wrote:
"I think that by putting all women into a 'they are purposely trying to kill off all men' light, which is what the top previous posts have done, is insulting all the men and women in the past who did what was needed."
My Reply:
O.K. let's just apply that to the feminists of the last 30 years. Now send their buts off to war, while I watch baseball and play with the kids and, Oh dear, I must wash the dishes and clean the house. I suddenly feel so oppressed.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @01:48AM EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
You Wrote:
"Excuse me, but the majority of men in this country either have not or cannot do these things either."
My Reply:
Historically, when called on men have been whipped into shape and have performed these things again, and again, and again. Your comment is patronizing and unfactual. Don't expect men to live down to the wimpy physical capabilities of women just so your physical deficiencies will be more politically correct and socially acceptable.
I have been there when the men have been seperated from the boys and seen men do things 1st hand that you question here. Very few men wash out of the "regulars", If your talking Rangers or Special Forces that's another story.
On what do you base your observation, wishful thinking, or is it just feminist male bashing ideology? I would say the average woman is as unfit to physically serve with men in a regular infantry unit as the average man is unfit to serve in Rangers or Special Forces. The Marines are also physically at least a cut or two above the average grunt and I doubt that any woman could survive their physical rigors either.
I apologize if I have overlooked some other regular or tough male dominated area of the military where women can't cut it. Let's see there are the U.S. Navy seals and here's one for you Navy Hospital Corpsman. When some downed Marine shouts "Corpsman," all you have to do is run out into the midst of a blazing gunbattle and start figuring out which pieces of his body are suppossed to go where and try to save his life. I had a boyhood friend who took his Christianity so seriously he wanted to serve his country, but didn't want to kill anyone. He became a Corpsman and died going to a wounded Marine.
I really think Corpsman would be a great job for any big mouthed feminist eager to put her money where her mouth is. Oh but then you can't carry that big heavy male brute out on your back. Maybe if you leave a limb or two behind you could do it, and no one would hold it against you because you've been so oppressed. Oh gosh I hope I'm not being sarcastic or hurting your feelings, and to heck with that guy who thinks he should have his leg(s). He's got some nerve. It's very hard to reattach ripped off limbs anyway.
Only 8 women died in all of Vietnam, while 58,000 men died. "LEVEL THIS PLAYING FIELD."
I take my hat off to all the women nurses who have unselfishly served our military servicemen. They are about the only real women of any substance I have ever noticed in this area, and I admire and respect their hard work and dedication, as I admire and respect them.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your comment is patronizing and unfactual.
Actually, the comment was "matronizing" and unfactual. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I say I think women who can complete the exact same physical requirements of men in all aspects of military training should go into combat, would you agree to it?
Out of curiosity, if women had the same physical requirements during training would it make a difference in combat?
I've seen the records of military performances in women, though, pathetic.
if I say the draft is one of those nightmarish things just because I love and adore someone who could very well end up with one of those possibilities, because we have a corrupted system of being able to send men, against their will, to do for whatever reason we deem fit when they might not even be out of highschool?
Do I think women are equal in the military? No, they're given lower standards, which they seem to have problems meeting anyway, and seem just fine with the fact they're proving they can't cut it over and over again. do I think that makes either gender better? No, it makes us different. Big deal. Do I think previous military men didn't do a whole lot in comparison to women, who were um... raising kids - having to be on the Home Front? NO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 15, @09:40AM EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
I think that if a woman can meet the physical requirements for any given job, they should be allowed to do it - just like a man.
I think if they can't meet the physical requirements they should wash out - just like a man.
I think if they can do the lifting, the run, the pushups (and boy pushups!) and so on, more power. Let 'em be cops, firemen, military, play in the damn NFL, whatever. But hold them to the same standard as a man. When you dumb it down, there's where you get the "Shut up and look pretty, you're only the token pair of tits here anyway" attitude.
And until the double standard is removed, the attitude is justified, because the question is begged: "Does she deserve the job, or is she just here on the pussy program?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @12:52AM EST (#60)
|
|
|
|
|
You Wrote:
"And you wonder why I spit on your pious claims of "rights?" MEN paid with blood so WOMEN could sit on their ass and whine about how "unfair" life is, and how hard they have it."
My Reply:
I couldn't add a thing to this except to say it bears repeating.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who is keeping women out of harm's way now? We're all in this together if we can judge by Sept 11. Women aren't being sequestered in bunkers. Ditto children. Everyone is affected by war, and in this day and age everyone is potentially more at risk than in previous war times. However, even in Europe during the World Wars, civillian women (and children and old people) were at great risk and millions died. Being out of the military is no gaurantee of safety when war is right on your doorstep. I don't think we can assume any longer that our wars will be in remote lands and traditional battlefields.
Personally, I'd rather at least have a shot at protecting myself and my family than to be left a sitting duck hoping someone else would do it for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who is keeping women out of harm's way now? We're all in this together if we can judge by Sept 11.
Here we are, in the feminist mindset. The fact that women are threatened by attacks on the US, and men are threatened by attacks on the US and forced to go to war, must mean that women are bearing as much as men.
Personally, I'd rather at least have a shot at protecting myself and my family than to be left a sitting duck hoping someone else would do it for me.
A trivial claim to make for someone who has never and will never be forced into battle.
I knew a woman/feminist who claimed that women suffer more from war than men do. When I asked her to justify the statement, she said, with a snide smile, "We women have to live without you after you're dead."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I knew a woman/feminist who claimed that women suffer more from war than men do. When I asked her to justify the statement, she said, with a snide smile, "We women have to live without you after you're dead."
Thomas, your friend has the same mindset as another, better known “equality” minded American:
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat."
- Hillary Clinton, First Ladies' Conference on Domestic Violence in San Salvador, El Salvador on Nov. 17, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My friend beat her to it by two decades (a lesson for those who believe feminism was a wonderful thing that has been highjacked). Such statements make it clear just how deranged feminists are.
Thanks for the quote, A.J.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, I never said women were the primary victims of war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, I never said women were the primary victims of war.
Did anyone claim you said women were the primary victims of war? I've seen people here point out that an acquaintance and Hillary Clinton have said women are the primary victims of war.
Your statements do, however, ignore or trivialize the far greater burden that men bear in time of war. Do you ackowledge that men, because they face the same dangers as women at home and far more dangers in battle, are the primary victims of war?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your statements do, however, ignore or trivialize the far greater burden that men bear in time of war.
I do not trivialize anything to do with war.
Do you ackowledge that men, because they face the same dangers as women at home and far more dangers in battle, are the primary victims of war?
Historically yes, in the future, not necessarily. Do you aknowledge that men determine that they will be the primary victims of war by excluding women from participating?
Your logic is simply not sound. An analogy would be disallowing redheads and blonds from the draft or battle and then saying that brunettes are the primary victims of war. ????? While true, it doesn't tell the whole story does it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not trivialize anything to do with war.
Yes, you do. You trivialize the far greater burden borne by men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you aknowledge that men determine that they will be the primary victims of war by excluding women from participating?
Women have had the vote for nearly a century. Women are the government moreso than men, even if women do hire men to do their governmental work for them. Also, women have raised the children moreso than men throughout history and instilled the fundamental values. So, men are somewhat responsible, women are moreso.
To ask "Do you aknowledge that men determine that they will be the primary victims of war by excluding women from participating?" and not ask if women also determine that men will be the primary victims of war is a sick copout.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Try holding women responsible too, Lorianne.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 11, @10:13AM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
Tom, I see your points here. You are right that men are in far greater danger than women in times of war. Men have the most to lose.
But what do you want? Do you want women to go to war also? Or are you looking for women to publicly admit the above point? Which women do you want to have doing the apologizing?
Hillery Clinton does not represent all women, just as Martha Stewart does not represent all women. They are just louder than most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you want women to go to war also?
Yes. In separate groups (battalions, divisions, etc.) with all female support so that the lion's share of the danger doesn't just fall back onto men. I believe that, if they had to, women could fight quite effectively on the battlefield. This is the only way that the terrible burdens of war can be equitably shared.
Either that or men should be given tremendous social benefits not available to women in order to repay them for shouldering the horrible burden all their lives. And being raised from childhood knowing that you could be taken and possibly forced to kill others in hand to hand combat, to be horribly maimed, to be captured and tortured, and to be killed, is a terrible burden, albeit one that most women can't even begin to imagine.
As for Hillary representing all women, I have never in any way stated or implied that she does. She is an extremely powerful and influential mainstream feminist, whose ideas on the burdens of war are profoundly misandrist, they are profoundly dismissive of the murderous oppression of men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To ask "Do you aknowledge that men determine that they will be the primary victims of war by excluding women from participating?" and not ask if women also determine that men will be the primary victims of war is a sick copout.
It's not a copout. Yes, many women do not support draft registration for women and many men do not support draft registration for women. I don't know the percentages, but I'd say it's mostly people in the older generations who hold onto those beliefs. And the older generation has a powerful hold on the military due to the way the military is structured by seniority. And the military at present and for all of history prior has been overwhelmingly males.
If you look at the people who are influential in blocking female draft registration thus far it is overwhelmingly the top military brass. They are from a very different generation and mindset.
All this is changing but it hasn't changed yet. I think we'll see this change as they older generation retires and passes on. But to hold women responsible for not being required to register is simply wrong. First of all when this question first cam up around 30 years ago, most of the adult women are of the same generation as the men who oppose the female draft. It's not a male/female thing but a generational thing. People like my mother would not (and still does not) support the female draft because, well, it just doesn't make sense to them in their way of seeing things. They have very different views on gender roles, as do the men of that generation.
Secondly, you have a huge contingent of peopel opposed to the draft period. So they're not going to support increasing the number of people who have to register. Again, its not a male/female thing, its a whole outlook thing. They're not trying to "save" females from the draft, they just don't believe in the draft period.
Then you have the "politics makes strange bedfellows" phenomenon of people who oppose female draft in cahoots with people who oppose the draft period and you've got a large enough block of people (and politically influential older people) who aren't going to get on board for a female draft.
Again, all this is going to change. But until it does, I don't think you can insinuate that women are trying to dodge the draft. That would be like saying saying men were dodging full time child care when they went to work. They weren't. That was just the social norms of the day. And there wasn't even any law to prevent them from doing that, it just wasn't done. Likewise, drafting women wasn't even on the radar screen until about 30 years ago. It was an alien and radical concept and one that has taken this long for people to get used to enough to even talk about it seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote: "But to hold women responsible for not being required to register is simply wrong."
If women are indeed without culpability, why did women not so much as make *soft* noise that they be required to register with Selective Service even as they made *loud* noise that they be allowed to enter the service academies (West Point, Annapolis, etc.)? Here would have been *the* golden opportunity for women to put their money where their mouth is with regard to "equality", but they shamefully did not. I don't think that it's too radical of a notion to uphold that if women are good enough to be Generals and Admirals, they're good enough to be conscripts. If not, then female privilege rules the day ... yet again.
Lorianne further wrote: " ... I don't think you can insinuate that women are trying to dodge the draft."
The historical fact of women clamoring for the right to give orders to draftees (a.k.a. men) by virtue of being West Point graduates coupled with the absence of concomitant clamoring that they be draftees themselves leads me to conclude that well ... yeah, women are trying to dodge the draft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 12, @10:28PM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
OK, you want separate units for women. Would that be possible given the way shrinking units are often pieced together in the field? How would they handle the integration if needed?
So far, isn't the military mainly run by men? So could it be that these men are the ones who put women in the safer jobs?
I am honestly asking, I do not know these things.
While I do know that feminists have been trying to get more women in the sevice, I have heard nothing from them saying women should not be on the front line. Given that I really do not listen to them all that closly, I could have missed it.
Most of the women I have either talked to or read about who went in the military would step up to the plate and go to combat if ordered to do so.
Could it be that no woman in the US has been asked, so we really don't know if they would go to war or not? Certainly the nursing staff inside warzones do not shrink from potentially deadly duty.
It seems to me this conversation (ie the whole thread)is like yelling at men for not staying at home with the kids. Men have not ever been asked nor normally given the opportunity to do so. So can you blame them for not doing so?
I agree with you about compensation but I am not sure it would be doable. One of those 'in an ideal world' things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @12:39AM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne wrote:
But to hold women responsible for not being required to register is simply wrong.
My reply: Registering is not enough. I want American women to serve in combat until the same number of American women have died in wars as American men have.
I hold women responsible for being hypocrites who do not raise the same clamor over being denied this area of service (conmbat) as they do when they yell about, and get, all of the equal rights entitlements in other areas. ...a very very strange silence indeed. Let all of the feminists go fight all of those bad men from other countries, since they don't want to be reasonable, enlighten them, and I'll stay home and raise the kids and tend the home front. It's about time American women paid their dues in war and about time American men got a break.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, you want separate units for women. Would that be possible given the way shrinking units are often pieced together in the field? How would they handle the integration if needed?
Experience has shown that when women are in combat, the male casualties often go up. The exact method for segregating men and women will have to be worked out by the military. They will have to rethink combat units to account for the far lesser average strength of women. If something happened (this is a thought experiment) to reduce the average strength of men to that of women, the nation wouldn't surrender the moment some other country threatened us with an attack. We'd restructure the military to account for different level of strength. If the situation changes, so that men demand that women bear their share of the burden, the military will have to modify its strategy to account for units that have less physical strength. Perhaps a more frequent and differently planned use of lighter, faster armored divisions and surgical strike units, etc.
So far, isn't the military mainly run by men? So could it be that these men are the ones who put women in the safer jobs? Chivalry is definitely part of the problem. But never forget that the military is ultimately responsible to the voters in this nation. The president is commander in chief. The government is elected by the majority of voters, and women are the majority of voters. Women bear a great deal of the responsibility. (There are feminists who will, of course, interpret that last statement to mean "women bear all of the responsibility.")
While I do know that feminists have been trying to get more women in the sevice, I have heard nothing from them saying women should not be on the front line. Given that I really do not listen to them all that closly, I could have missed it.
They want women to be able to fight, if the individual women choose to. Their demands to force women, through the draft, to fight have been few and far between, however, and pale in comparison to their demands that women be able to do whatever they want.
Most of the women I have either talked to or read about who went in the military would step up to the plate and go to combat if ordered to do so.
There are a lot of records now of women expecting to be relieved of combat duty, once things start getting serious. Check out Warren Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power," where he sites the jump in pregnancy rates near the frontline once the shooting was about to start. Pregnancy combined with abortion is women's get out of combat free card. (Subdermal contraceptives will probably be necessary. Removal, in time of war should probably be considered a treasonable offense.) And with respect to feminists demanding that women be allowed to fight, never forget that they are well aware of the fact that women have this get out of combat free card.
Could it be that no woman in the US has been asked, so we really don't know if they would go to war or not?
Women have been asked to join the military, though not for combat. Look at the ratio of men to women in the volunteer military. However, I do think women can fight well on the battlefield. Society just needs to stop pandering to women, to stop relieving women of such duties.
Certainly the nursing staff inside warzones do not shrink from potentially deadly duty.
Many women working in combat areas are courageous. Don't be so sure that there aren't a number who flee though, once things start to get very ugly. Check out the jump in pregnancy rates immediately prior to combat in Operation Desert Storm.
It seems to me this conversation (ie the whole thread)is like yelling at men for not staying at home with the kids.
Wrong to an extreme. Women are welcomed into the workforce and into the military. Men are being systematically forced out of the family by the majority (read "female") elected government, particularly the courts.
I agree with you about compensation but I am not sure it would be doable. One of those 'in an ideal world' things.
The question is, "How long will men submit to murderous oppression?" If men stop submitting, some sort of compensation, or drafting of women for combat, may be necessary to avoid tremendous social upheaval. And remember, the compensation should be given to all men for bearing the burden through of the threat of being forced to fight in war. (Feminists, of course, pretend that the burden of this horrible threat is irrelevant. It is, however, a terrible cross to bear.) The greatest compensation should be given to those who eventually are forced to fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @04:01PM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
".... if women are good enough to be Generals and Admirals, they're good enough to be conscripts."
Well said. Would you mind too much if I use that quote on occassion?
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hobbes -- by all means, go right ahead and use the quote "If women are good enough to be Generals and Admirals, they're good enough to be conscripts." as freely as you please. Thanks and good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, I never said women were the primary victims of war.
I wasn't responding to anything you said. Thomas shared an experience and I was responding to a quote from his post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women are not the reason women are drafted. So you're reasoning is faulty.
As I said, I'd rather at least have a shot at defense, than to sit around waiting for someone else to protect me. Many women feel the same way. We don't ask to be excluded from the draft.
And there you go again collectively imputing to larger groups the views of some or even one woman!
Not all women want women to be drafted. Not all men want women to be drafted. Not all men and women want men to be drafted. But you know that.
Anyway, it's a moot point. Even the secretary of the Selective Service has admitted that the female draft is inevitable and the military cannot do without women conscripts in the dire case that we must use the draft to begin with. He advocates going ahead and setting up the requirement to register now to save time later. It's only the top dogs in the military now who are preventing even a registration requirement from occuring. I predict that will change in the next 15 years or so, as many of these older generals retire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women are not the reason women are drafted. So you're reasoning is faulty.
What in God's name are you talking about? I hate to break it to you, but women aren't drafted. Your entire post is utterly confused.
And there you go again collectively imputing to larger groups the views of some or even one woman!!
To whom are you talking? Where and how did someone impute "to larger groups the views of some or even one woman!"
Anyway, it's a moot point.
As you well know, it's not a moot point. You choose to ignore the fact that far more men than women will be drafted to kill and die, while far more women than men will be drafted to get good educations at government expense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The purpose of the draft is not to give people good educations. If we actually draft people, it will mean we are in dire straights, in deep kim-chee.
In that event, it has already been acknowledged by the chief of the Selective Service Administration, all hands will be needed on deck, and the military will need men and women both. I'll see if I can dig up a link to his comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In that event, it has already been acknowledged by the chief of the Selective Service Administration, all hands will be needed on deck,
We'll see. My bet is that men will be dying in battle at a far, far, far higher rate than women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @03:12PM EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
The purpose of the draft is not to give people good educations.
lorianne is right. the purpose of the draft is to fight a war so if women also get educations more than men and men die it doesn't matter. women must stop being aftraid of men and say these things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My bet is that men will be dying in battle at a far, far, far higher rate than women.
Well, that would make sense if women are excluded from battle deployments now wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My bet is that men will be dying in battle at a far, far, far higher rate than women.
Well, that would make sense if women are excluded from battle deployments now wouldn't it?
It would make sense if women are excluded from battle deployments by the majority (read "female") elected government, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If women are excluded by the fact they can't meet the physical requirements needed, that would prevent their deaths - and mean more men would be put out there. Blah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And there you go again collectively imputing to larger groups the views of some or even one woman!!
To whom are you talking? Where and how did someone impute "to larger groups the views of some or even one woman!"
I'm still wondering...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 10, @09:36PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
wow, talk about not getting it. wow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does men being forced to register and fight on the front lines have to do with protecting yourself on the homefront? When men are drafted into war they pretty much have an understanding that they are going to die. Especially in the present time, now that we have technology that can wipe out entire battalions with the push of a button. The only thing you learn as a foot-soldier is to kill as many people you can before you get killed. I don't think this information is going to help anyone protect themselves from a jetliner flying into a building.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @03:17PM EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
... so, by now, you must have registered for the draft, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 10, @08:42PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
`The discrimination is kind of in favor of women,'' she said yesterday. ``But this is kind of an ethical thing. If you say women have the same
rights as men, you're going to have to take the good with the bad.''
Keep in mind that this is a young, "uneducated" woman with little public influence. Contrast her analysis with that of Anna Quindlin, former NYT columnist, thought to been offered the editorships of NYT, best-selling author, weekly newsmagazine columnists, etc. Quindlin presented the all-male Selective Service Registration as "discrmination against women", because womyn can do everything men can, etc.
Quindlin's sort of BS is the stuff that passes for conventional wisdom among "educated" persons these days. The idiocy of feminism is astonishing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorrianne will attempt to deflect any reasonable discussion with her feminism. Keep the focus, good people. The government may be about to start rounding up young men for the slaughter and young women for their personal betterment, while claiming that the women are bearing their share of social burdens. This should be a focus of anti-war rallies.
During the Civil War, there were anti-draft riots in New York and, as far as I know, a number of other cities. When the draft is protested, it should be pointed out that it is brutal, murderous oppression of men, even if women are drafted to get cushy educations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't like Lorrianne much do you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 12, @09:12PM EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
There was an enlightened woman in the parade on Saturday in L.A. carrying a sign that read something to the effect: WHY NOT DRAFT THE TWINS (Bush's daughters) AND LEAVE MY TWO SONS AT HOME.
Good question,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 12, @09:29PM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
You Wrote:
During the Civil War, there were anti-draft riots in New York and, as far as I know, a number of other cities.
My Reply:
Timely info. The current movie now in theaters "GANGS OF NEW YORK" points out this bit of history. Ken Burns in his documentary on the civil war also mentions this bit of our history. People got really tired of all the men being drug off to war and being slaughtered. Lincoln once said, "It is good that war is so terrible lest we like it too much." I'm sorry to say Abe, we still like it too much, and as smart weapons lower our casualties and our personal involvement in the deaths of others we seem to be minding wars less and less. We seem to have slipped into the role of global Sheriff and top gun.
It is tragic that our global community has not evolved to the point where we live at peace and manage our limited resources along with our insatiable desires to procreate so wars would be unecessary.
With the ever increasing population of this earth we will lose more and more personal freedoms and rights all the while living in a more depleated and polluted world. I have to go now, I'm late for my meeting with fellow optimists.
Cheers, RAy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I get to this website I actually begin to feel good about the future. The US is actually beginning to get on most other peoples nerves (just ask the Europeans or the Asians, or the Africans or...). You really need to fix your internal problems.
Most of the ordinary people in US are quite nice when you come to think of it, but they tend to be a little to easy to manipulate by the media. This even extends to those calling themselves "intellectuals", in many cases these people are worse than the rest...
Keep up the good fight for true democracy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I get to this website I actually begin to feel good about the future.
Thank you, Ssargon. It is appreciation from people like you that helps make the efforts worthwhile. This is a fine site, in part because of participation from folks like you.
There is, in fact, great hope for the future. I have no doubt that the evil known as feminism has seen its day, though it will cause great suffering during its demise.
Keep the faith. Technology, particularly reproductive technology, has scattered all the cards, but we will build a better world. We've just got to get used to living in future shock. We have to, once again, take control of things as some sort of unified species.
For all its faults I believe, hell no, I know that humanity can and will do it. We stumble but, overall, we stumble forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 10, @10:02PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
If women want true equal rights, then they should go to the front lines with our sons. But as we all know, what feminists are truely fighting for is special rights that enable privilages without merit.
Men have suffered the most brutal oppression in the form of war throughout history in the name of protecting the viability of their nation and therefore their offspring... and it is nasty a form of revisionism when the media or a politician (or whomever) refers to the losses of war as 'the men and women that have sacrificed for their country’ when in reality it was mostly (as in almost) men who have suffered this injustice. Men are not naturally pugnacious militants. The majority of men on this planet want peace, and the comfort and love of a good woman, unfortunately these things are not always possible....and men have have always been forced into combative roles as a result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are we in the USA fooling around with talk of war against Iraq? Why are we so concerned with North Korea? We have a terrible enemy that has already infiltrated our society: gender feminism aka female supremacism.
You are correct, Steve. The true enemy resides within our borders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the post Steve. I agree with it completely. The most obvious proof of one's commitmant to principles of republican democracy is one's willingness to go to war and, if necessary, to die in defense of the same. Females are categorically unwilling and/or unable to do the same. This clearly infers that they do not respect nor adhere to republican and democratic principles. In general, however, females adhere to and promulgate laws and customs which are antiethical to republican and democratic principles. This implies that gender femiminism is just as much an enemy to republican and democratic principles as other forms of authoritarian and oppressive political movements against which the USA has declared and/or waged war. The most insidious and dangerous enemy which democratic republicanism has now, in my opinion, is gender feminism which takes many forms and is well organized and led. As was stated during the American Revolution, "We must all hang togeather or we will hang separately!"
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 12, @09:07PM EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote:
The majority of men on this planet want peace, and the comfort and love of a good woman, unfortunately these things are not always possible....
My reply:
Your whole post was very insightful, but I refer to the above.
In late 2001 they were still pulling bodies from the World Trade Center when the email arrived on my computer at work (a college) from the women's center/women's studies dept. referring to our activities in Afghanistan in partisan political terms, and undermining the support for those men (and to a far lesser degree women) in harm's way.
What reason impoverished wretches these women are to blame only men for violence, reap all the advantages and special privileges of this country, then undermine the support of our men in combat when they are in harms way.
Another sign we had at the march on Saturday in L.A. was "NO EXCUSE FOR A MALE ONLY DRAFT." One middle aged woman came up to me and told me she didn't believe in what I was saying pointing to all the signs we had laid out, and wanted to know where I'd be at the end of the march. "I'll be around," I replied, "Look for my sign." "...but we can talk about this now," I added. "No," she said, "later." "Fine," I said.
It was a great day. I knew there would be a ton of feminists at this march since they were promoting (exploiting) this issue so heavily for "their political reasons." (doesn't mean the march was bad or good).
We interacted with a lot of feminist's and none got a verbal victory. Most went away informed by statistics and other information of how men are discriminated against by war and an all male draft, etc.
I'll be watching to see where there is an assembly of feminist's next so I can go and poke my finger in the holes of their "swiss cheese looking" arguements. I have a conversation to finish.
All day I told myself, be nice, stick to the facts, don't waste time on the hysterical, reach the reachable.
42% of the signed letters we got in support of a Men's Commission were from women.
Another sign that may have provoked the ire of die hard feminists was, "MEN ARE 99% OF COMBAT DEATHS. LEVEL THIS PLAYING FIELD."
My favorite was a poster size blow of a Purple Heart with the words, "99% A MEN'S CLUB. WHERE IS EQUITY."
In closing, don't hate me for saying this, but it got so hot before the start of the march that I pealed down to a short sleeve, white tee shirt that one of our members had made special for us. He used six bumper stickers (3 front, 3 back) and each read, "NCFMLA.ORG and Equal Justice for Men" There was a dome shaped government bldg. next to the words. In as much as we were well photographed all day I'll probably wind up with others on the feminist's "10 most wanted list," or "least wanted" depending on how they spin it. What a shock to be villified by feminists.
At the end of the parade route and back (5 miles) the signs started to feel a little heavy so I turned to the NCFMLA member (buddy)I was with and said, "Lighter than an M-16."
Cheers, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @10:17PM EST (#71)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
That is exciting news! I sure would have liked to have been there with you and Marc. For my part, I'll just keep arguing with all my stupid feminist professors each time they propagate hate in the classroom. :)
Great job, and thanks.
-hobbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we only registered blacks there would be a huge cry of racism. Why do so many people not see that it's the same thing when we only register men?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take no issue with registering women. But again, you have to ask what is the practical use and what is the outcome? The military, faulted as it may be, tries to fit capabilities to needs. There are obvious biological differences between men and women that result in the simple fact that women are less fit for combat than men, just as men less fit for childbirth. The places that women would be the most useful are, as I said before, medicine, technology, and administration because in those roles they are not exposed to the rigors of combat.
So, go ahead and register and draft women. But be DAMN careful that upon discharge these women do not have a broad, over-reaching advantage over their male colleagues in the employment market. Being the most fit for combat should NOT be a handicap in the aftermath of war, especially if you are asked to risk your life for your country while others are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aren't you mixing up issues?
In any case, in the 40's and 50's some people had a lot of problems with the fact that black GI's were to get the same perks as white GI's after service (low interenst home loans, education opportunities, Selective Service preferences). They feared blacks would "get their jobs".
As we've seen over the last 40 years, the US ecomony can more than handle vast increases in numbers of workers entering the paid workforce. The whole economy grows proportionally. More people with jobs gives more people more money to buy things which creates more jobs. The "employment market" scaremongering of the past been proved to be just so much hoo-haa.
And anyway, any discharge perks given to Veterans was never delegated based on whether or not they served in combat or were ever even deployed!
If we want to give special compensation to those who serve in the most risky positions I have no problem with that. (But some people may see it another way as coercing poorer people into taking the more risky positions and wealthier persons going persuing less dangerous jobs).
The key I think is to let the military decide who to use in what capacity but charges of unfairness have always plaqued the military in that regard. It's not something new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And anyway, any discharge perks given to Veterans was never delegated based on whether or not they served in combat or were ever even deployed!
Just to clarify, because I want to be sure what we're discussing. I didn't get that previous posts were making the case that perks were distributed by virtue of service in combat. What I got was the concern that women (who may not be suited for combat) would, if registered, take positions in administration or other non-combat duties. The skills that these women would acquire during their service would be more likely to serve them well after service in the private sector. On the other hand, the skills gained by those in combat aren't necessarily as useful in employment opportunities once they get home.
At least, that's how I took previous comments.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe that is what was meant by the comment.
In any case the military today contracts out much of their work to the civilian sector. And many of those jobs go to women already. So civiliian women (and men) are already getting plenty of job experience indirectly via the military.
The argument is still the old economic bugaboo___ "finite piece of pie" from long ago ... the fear that one group will get all the peacetime jobs or the plum peacetime jobs. This just hasn't proved true. The more people in the workforce the more the PIE expands. The more people making good money in the workforce, the PIE expands even more as people spend the money they make, thereyby creating jobs.
And after a war, the economy could use a boost. Women who earn money buy stuff. The larger number of people buying stuff ratchets up industry and production and creates even more jobs (for women and men).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 13, @03:08PM EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
The argument is still the old economic bugaboo___ "finite piece of pie" from long ago ... the fear that one group will get all the peacetime jobs or the plum peacetime jobs. This just hasn't proved true.
i agere with lorianne. if you say women will get more of the peacetime jobs or the plum peacetime jobs then you are saying that women will get "all" of the peacetime jobs or the plum peacetime jobs. you can't complain that men are cheated because if you do you say that men get nothing and women get everthing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to state that I'm certain that women will get all the best jobs after wartime. Just wanting to clarify things a bit.
Even if that were the case, it still wouldn't change my viewpoint that either we have registration for both sexes (or all genders, depending on your point of view), or none. If there is a draft, then men and women should be placed where they will be most effective, regardless of where that might be.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday January 11, @08:22PM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
Friends:
Some NCFMLA members did a great job of tabling at a war protest march today, while Marc and I went off to "march in the march." As our group took no stand for or against the war, you might say we were hitch-hikers. Obviously our issue is that men are called on to disproportionately fight the wars of this country, then are denied many of the rights and priveleges (under law, etc.) that women have.
Special thanks to one member for telling us about this march, providing much useful info, and working with us today.
Marc and I each grabbed a handful of flyers before we took off to march and gave all but two or three away before we got back.
Special thanks to whoever got those 15 signed letters to the Board of Supervisors requesting a Men's Commission (we had a clipboard set up for that).
We all had a lot of interaction today, gave out about 400 hundred NCFMLA flyers, many NCFMLA personalized pencils, men's issues bumper stickers, and a number of NCFMLA membership applications.
Most of all, it was very educational for the people we interacted with, and a whole lot of fun from my perspective.
The sign Marc carried had an image of the "pointing" Uncle Sam from the WWII recruiting poster and it said "SAVE THE MALES." On the same stick below this poster was another sign that read "WAR IS JUST ANOTHER EXCUSE FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN" We had a number of other signs with us that we left at the tabling site. I think we had a total of 15 men's issues signs, mostly relating to how war affects men.
My sign read "THERE ARE NO PRIVILEGED PATRIARCHS IN COMBAT JUST MEN." We both had another poster stapled onto the back of our posters that read, NATIONAL COALITION OF FREE MEN, L.A.
The parade route was about 2.5 miles from Olympic and Broadway to downtown to the Federal Bldg. just beyond City Hall.
Where there any feminist there? You betcha. The only person who really gave us a hard time was some man who walked off shouting when he kept looking foolish after we professionally rebuted his every fallacious, feminist contention (sore loser).
Lastly, I gave an interview to a reporter from the UCLA Bruin (University newspaper) who came up to me and ask, "What does it mean?" I was holding the posters that Marc later carried in the parade. I think it was a good interview. Our pictures were taken lots of time (still and video).
It was a very eclectic gathering with many people there from many different groups. One estimate I heard was 10,000 people. Could some people have been there just to get coverage for their issues? Could be.
I have to go now, my lazy boy recliner is beckoning my weary legs.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Way to go, Ray and everybody else at the march!
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
