|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 21, @06:29PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
According to Selective Services' website, the draft is considered to be very fair in its choice of those who will fight, as race, religion and creed are not criteria.
How can they consider it fair if women aren't at risk of being drafted too ? Unless they don't consider male human beings as important as female human beings ?
This is a very serious problem. They tell us that there is little chance that the draft will come back, but how can you NOT worry about it when you are in the age range and you hear President Bush say "We're at war" ? They just don't care about men. Men are not important human beings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 22, @01:15AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I once wrote an article on Rostker v. Goldberg and the draft in the UCLA Daily Bruin.
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/issues/00/04.13/ view.angelucci.html.
I miss those Daily Bruin days.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Anonymous user" wrote:
"How can they consider it fair if women aren't at risk of being drafted too ? Unless they don't consider male human beings as important as female human beings ?"
Of course they don't. Why should they differ from the rest of 'Western' society that places a very low value on men's lives.
And that continues further to devalue men through laws that strip away their basic legal rights and protections, and media that demonizes and vilifies them, blames them for any and all societal problems, and de-humanizes them by portraying them as perfectly acceptable targets for violence. Violence against men in not only acceptable; it's actively encouraged.
It's a very old propoganda tool -- once the 'enemy' has been reduced to sub-human status, it's very easy to rationalize away all manner of horror and injustice committed against them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kyle Knutson on Saturday September 22, @11:53PM EST (#4)
(User #32 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that women have the opportunity and privilege to attend West Point, Annapolis, etc., but only men are subject to conscription is one of the greatest outrages of our time -- a slap in the face to all who uphold that rights and responsibilities must always go together.
Senators and Representatives, especially those who serve on the Armed Services Committee of either body need to be flooded with calls and letters urging female registration with Selective Service.
The National Coalition of Free Men, Twin Cities Chapter has posted to its web site (http://ncfm-tc.8m.com/) a few letters that its members have written on this topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 24, @03:40PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I am completely against women being drafted, or women being in combat period. Look at the other article on this site, where it says very few women even have what it takes to be a firefighter, even after the standards are lower. Sending women into combat would be futile. They wouldn't help the war effort, they'd just die. I don't know about you, but I don't want my wife dead. I want her alive, at home being a wife and a mother to our children. It would be bad enough if I went to war and our children lost their daddy, without them being told mommy isn't coming home either. What would happen to our children then, and to all the other children who lose both their parents? Who's going to take care of them? I don't want my children growing up in an orphanage.
I am completely against this letter writing campaign of yours. In fact, I'm going to start a campaign of my own, to counter yours. Women and men are different, we can never be totally equal. A woman's place is at home nurturing home, hearth and children. A man's place is providing and protecting his wife and children. I don't know where we lost track of that.
Carl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rather than drafting women alongside men, Carl, I think a better solution would be to abolish the draft altogether... so no one gets drafted.
On the other hand, if I'm going to be forced to die for my country (rather than being allowed to choose to do so voluntarily), why shouldn't women be forced to do the same?
G. Gordon Liddy, who, like you, is against women in the military, just today said that in WWII they were accepting anyone with two eyes in those days. If they'll accept men who aren't up to par, they should accept women as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p.s. Although you are certainly not the only person on this site who believes men and women have certain roles to fulfill, I tend to be more of the philosophy that a man may fulfill any role in society he chooses. Women, as well, are capable of much more than they are sometimes credited.
Honestly, I believe there are women out there who could perform as well as a man in combat, although I will grant you that men overall are larger and have greater upper body strength. Still, if women have a choice about fighting, so should we.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 24, @06:12PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Women shouldn't be forced to do the same, because their place is to take care of the children. What would happen to my kids if both my wife and I were killed in war, and to all the other kids whose parents are killed in war? I don't want my kids growing up in an orphanage, and I don't think most other parents do either. If I am killed in war, I want them to have a mother left behind to take care of them. I don't want them raised by strangers in an institution, with both their mommy and daddy dead.
My wife and I live a very traditional life, and I think that's what works best. I think the reason why so many men and women are unhappy today is because we've ditched the traditional roles that work best. She cares for the house and our kids, and I provide for her and the kids and protect them. If they started drafting women, I would send my family away to Mexico or Canada to protect them. If they put me in jail for protecting my family, that's fine. I'd rather be in jail and know my wife and kids are together and safe, rather than having my kids in an orphanage and my wife being beaten and raped and killed by the enemy. I can't even bear the thought of that happening to her.
I don't know if you're married and a parent, but I'm thinking you're not. If you were, maybe you'd understand my concerns. A husband doesn't want to see his wife sent to a war, and her captured and raped and killed. A father doesn't want to see his kids put in an orphanage. A husband puts his wife and children above all else, and he is willing to die for them if it comes to that. That's the way it used to be, before this equal rights stuff messed everything up, and IMO people were happier in those days, before men started acting like women and women were told to act like men.
Carl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 24, @06:21PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. My wife needs me just to move the television. I can't even picture her hiking through a desert carrying 100 pounds of equipment. She wouldn't make it. She wouldn't even be able to lift that much. She'd just be captured, and tortured, and raped, and killed. I will not let that happen to the woman I loved enough to marry and make children with. I would never let the government take away and kill the mother of my children. It is bad enough if kids lose their daddies in war. They shouldn't be told that mommy will never come home either.
Men are sent to fight because we are biologically and psychologically equipped for that. Women are biologically and psychologically equipped to have children and take care of them. The place for a woman is behind the home lines, keeping the hearth lit until her man returns from war. If a man doesn't want to go to war, thene he shouldn't be forced to, I would support ending the draft totally, but I will never support any effort to draft women.
Carl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday September 24, @06:30PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
. I can't even picture her hiking through a desert carrying 100 pounds of equipment.
Neither can I picture myself carrying 100 punds of equipement, but that won't stop them from sending me to war.
Men are sent to fight because we are biologically and psychologically equipped for that
No, men are sent out to fight against their will because they are considered disposable human beings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmmm...My grandfather had two eyes that both worked well. Unfortunately, he also had a hernia and a severe sinus condition. Most of the time, he could barely breathe through his nose, and sometimes not at all. It was because of these conditions that he was denied entrance into the military during WWII, despite the fact that he *wanted* to go.
I think Liddy is guilty of hyperbole. *Maybe* the military was willing to exempt guys with minor health problems, and sometimes they still give medical waivers today, but there are certain things that the military just won't accept. I'm also against the draft, period, but I really don't think our armed forces wants to force sick people into situations they are physically incapable of handling. The object is to win the war, not make sure as many of our own soldiers die as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think of the draft as an instrument of national survival, and that the only time anyone ought to be drafted is when the security of our nation is at risk from attacks directly on our soil, and when there are insufficient volunteers. (I know others feel differently, and I respect that. But I'm not willing to debate this.) I also believe that there are things men are better at than women. For example, I believe that men are biologically better-equipped for anything that requires strength, agility, and footspeed, and anything that requires fight-or-flight decisions. Given these things, I believe men make better warriors. For this reason, I see no reason to draft women to be war-fighters. There may be other reasons to draft women, but it makes no sense to draft them for combat.
In the case where a war results in a significant reduction in national population, it is valuable to have women around to re-populate the nation. In fact, though I can't lay my hands on it right now, there was a DoD study done to analyze the aftermath of a global nuclear war, and one of the recommendations was to create a shelter where the ratio of women to men was on the order of ten to one, the assumption that one man could mate with that many women. This was a doomsday scenario, but nonetheless, the re-population of the nation is not an obsolete concept.
Consider the events of the recent terrorist attacks. The female "heroes," Barbara Olson and Madeline Sweeney, could only must the presence of mind to make a phone call, in Olson's case, to her husband to ask him what to do. In contrast, a small group of men on Flight 93 assessed their situation and took real action. They may have saved the lives of the entire United States Congress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 25, @09:09PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that on average women may not make as good of soldiers. But there are certaily women who can make better soldiers than alot of men. It is wrong to and use averages as an excuse to generalize and use only one gender but not the other when in fact there are many males who cannot fight and many women who can. If we insist on having a draft, and if we also insist that women in combat would hurt our military strength, then we could still draft women into other types of duties, like cleaning up the bodies in the aftermath, nursing near battlegrounds, helping with mobility, spying, etc. The reality is that we are still stuck in the mentality that men are the disposable sex.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 26, @03:35PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Marc, my question still is, what happens to my children when my wife and I are both at war? What happens to them if both of us are killed? Even if the women are not sent into combat, they can still be killed in enemy attacks, or die of disease. Enemies attack MASH hospitals you know, and this enemy we're up against now certainly wouldn't have a problem doing that.
I am assuming that our children would be put into an orphanage, and if both of us died, our kids would stay there. The children certainly can't be shipped off to Afghanistan with their mothers. A MASH hospital is not a place for a child. I do not know if you are a parent, but if you were, would you want your children put in an institution? I don't want my children there, not even temporarily. I want them at home, safe, with their mother. If they lose me in war, that would be awful, but at least they'd still have their mother. I couldn't even fight a war knowing that my kids are being raised by strangers in an institution.
Carl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 26, @03:42PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
You are right Claire. Liddy is full of BS. The military won't accept people with diabetes or any other health problem that requires regular medication. They also won't accept people with mobility problems like trick knees, or people who have problems breathing, or anyone with a problem that gets in the way of normal activities. They also won't accept people with mental disorders.
People who are physically or mentally sick not only can't perform, they put everyone else in danger. Would you really want someone who thinks God talks to him through the TV in *your* unit, armed with a semiautomatic weapon? If you were a paratrooper, would you want a guy with a seizure disorder flying the plane??? No you wouldn't, and the military doesn't want that either. They *don't* just take everybody.
Carl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 27, @10:11PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Have you noticed that there are already many women serving in the military? There has been an extensive effort to create opportunities for women who want to serve. Yet when it comes to forcing persons to risk being killed (the draft), only men are used. As Marc points out, that's because men are treated as disposable sub-humans. Men are expendable.
Men who volunteer to let others first into lifeboats when a ship is sinking are heroes. Social and legal rules that require men to be the last off sinking ships transform opportunities for heroism into institutionalize contempt for the value of men's lives.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
