|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:07 PM April 20th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, If you get drafted don't have a baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"One of the most common distortions that I've heard from feminists, when the injustice of the all-male draft is pointed out, is "Women have all the babies." "
The most common reply that I have heard is, "Men are the ones who start the wars."
And of course this leads to all sorts of counter-arguments.
-So, if a woman is attacking/beating/robbing another woman, men should stand aside and do nothing because, hey, it's not a man that is causing the problem.
-51% of the voting populace who *put* those men in charge are women.
-What about dangerous/life-threatening situations, like natural disasters or animal attacks? Are women going to jump in and help out then? Or will they still have some excuse not too?
Lord of the Rings had a perfect example of this. The "men" (both the race and the gender) were fighting against non-human and evil-spawn creatures while the women were ushered away into safety.
Just more of the flip-flop power that women deny that they have and has to be forced into public acknowledgement.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that men are now starting to insist that if they have to be conscripted and slaughtered so shall women be subjected to the same tyranny...
means that the virus of chivalry is dying if not already dead.
Another great "victory" for feminism!
Long may the feminazis reign...
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"means that the virus of chivalry is dying if not already dead.
Another great "victory" for feminism! "
And good riddance. I dont like the idea of half of the humans born being discriminated against for something that they have no control over. When a "person" is born, they have no say in what gender they will be. It's like being born a female and going "Cha-ching!!! Yes!! I am a female. I dont have to fight in wars!"
The problem with society is that people judge and discriminate against others as "gender" first and as "people" second.
R
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>The most common reply that I have heard is, "Men
>are the ones who start the wars."
Let's take it to its logical conclusion: "Only those who start something deserve to be in it."
Well, men started the government. So only men deserve to be in it.
Men started all the prestigious universities. So only men deserve to be in them.
Men started all the workplaces. So only men deserve to be in them.
Whoops! All of a sudden, women have lost all their historical oppression/victim points! Using modern feminist logic, only *men* deserved all of the above, because *they* had started them!
This is why feminism should more precisely be known as "parasitism." Imagine a group of foreign people coming to this country and saying: we deserve equality! We're equals! We're entitled to all the rights and privileges that American citizens do, we're just as human as you are! Then Americans reply, "OK. We'll give you all the benefits of living here. Now remember that as equal citizens, you have to pay taxes too." Then the new citizens reply: "Excuse me?! Americans were the ones who started the taxes! Why should we be forced to do something when we had nothing to do with it! Americans started the taxes, they're the ones who are going to pay them."
When analyzing feminism, always remember that there's only one principle that guides it: the principle of female aristocracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anytime a feminist brings up an example of past female oppression, such as an X institute in which women weren't allowed, just reply: "Well, men were the ones who started X."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree as an arguement tactic, saying men started these things so only men should get them. However in reality, women also helped start these things by making it possible for men to not worry about all the child raising and domestic areas so they could concentrate on their jobs. That used to be the idea, that both partners supported each other. Feminists need to make up their mind, either men started things so only men do them, or both start things and both do them. They cannot pick based on convenience.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having, due to my age, been one of the ones who thru the 1970's actually watched and participated in the feminist movement - I've seen that many have lost the original premise - equality, not superiority for either side. One of the goals was to have the same opportunity to be hired, to get a mortgage, to even have credit available to you. Banks when you tried to get a home loan asked if you were having children - and used that to deny a loan for a female.
It's about having the same opportunities (which is why I have no problems with men's rights) - without presumptions being made because of gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about equal opportunity for men where *women* hold (and have been holding) all the power - family? Do you support equal opportunity for men to be parents and primary care givers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I do. It is a decion to be made within the relationship - not dictated by society - as to how to best obtain the goals of the relationship.
And there are many children of divorce that would be way better off living with their father than their mother - in fact, I 'financed' a child custody fight for a SO years ago when his ex was moving out of state (she did - but ended up agreeing to give up physical custody when the boy was 13 so he could live with his dad - I still think he should have gotten full custody from the beginning). She was not a druggie or anything like that - he was just the better, more responsible, more capable parent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going out on a limb here - but it has ALWAYS been my view...
I believe that 'mandatory' service either military or through Vista, AmeriCorps, etc should be required of everyone (male and female) preferably with a 3 year committment -- this could be 'delayed' for college or done in the summer with a certain amount of 'hours' required each month. Working out the details would be complicated but worth the effort.
I have never viewed childbirth or having kids as an acceptable excuse to renege on civic responsibilities. And do not get me started on the welfare system...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:24 PM April 20th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the voting public would allow another draft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh really? There is bi-partican support for it in Congress. Kerry has publicly stated his support for it. There are two "Mational Service" bills pending in the Congress right now, one in each house.
Yes, it will happen. There is along war to fight in Iraq and the armed forces has said it will need more troops (men) to do it (to kill and die). If men's rights activists do not rally against this, no one will. The anti-war coalitions have been rendered impotent and the Demo. party has joined the M.E. war cause for all intents and purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./tem p/~c108aY2XPo::
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./tem p/~c108aY2XPo::
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, typed too fast. "National Service", not "National Service". Also the URLs won't work. Go instead to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type "national service" in the "Word/Phrase" box and click "Search". The first two hits are what you want to see ("Universal National Service Act of 2003")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If men's rights activists do not rally against this, no one will.
The last time around (read "Vietnam") many men and women protested together against the draft. While that will happen again, there will be, this time, an emphasis on the murderous discrimination against men. Discrimination against men has made the men's movement necessary. Large scale, clear cut, murderous discrimination against men will, I expect, make the men's movement take off. It's too bad that it will take this, but then discrimination against men is the whole reason for the men's movement.
Right now, feminists are hoping for a million marchers on Washington, DC, in support of abortion. We're hoping for 50 registrants to the Men's Rights Congress by May 15. We may soon see a radical shift in that 20,000 to 1 ratio.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks as if this bill in the House and Senate may die in committee, but it's worth keeping an eye on.
I believe a Draft is coming - I just expect the inclusion of women in the Draft to be a dead letter by the time the enabling act is passed. This bill looks more like a "See? We tried to be gender-inclusive!" bit of legislative sleight-of-hand.
Then again, maybe I am being more cynical than warranted.....Nah.
I'm trying to get a little discussion going on here on the Draft, if anyone is interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that the bill states: "...or a period of civilian service," which is precisely the out given to females as far as combat. Women will emerge with experience and better skilled. Men will emerge shell shocked, maimed, or dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I imagine the rad fems who defend women as "equally capable as men at everything" will be content to sit back quietly and let people like Elaine Donnelly win a few political battles to keep "less capable" females out of combat roles and the draft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:42 PM April 20th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
They talk about having "...all of our citizens..." bear responsibility. However...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...it is so very easy to talk about why we need the draft when you're a full generation too old to be disturbed by it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy enough to be disturbed by the possible return of the Draft, if you were of age when the Draft was last active and you have sons old enough to be eligible.
(Unless you count sons as unimportant, as some seem to.)
Having survived it one's self is all the more reason to see that your sons don't need to face it, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:43 PM April 20th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will she demand that women be drafted also?
Will she demand that women fight on the front lines?
I mean, since Ms. Burk is obviously a staunch proponent of equality, surely she'll be up front demanding that women get drafted too, right? She doesn't believe in "men only" clubs, and the draft is a perfect example of a "men only" club. So she'll do the right thing and petition the government to draft women too, right?
Right?
(Note: It's times like this that we need some "rolleyes" smileys on the board.)
I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for Burk to advocate women being drafted. Since it ain't golf, she probably won't concern herself with it.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know that you will here nothing about the fact that only men are drafted and or only men are made to go to the hot war zones until women find a way to make themselves look like the victims. Once a female finds some kind of spin to make this look like it is discriminatory against women then we will hear about it on every news channel.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
