|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got several points to make here, so bear with me.
As a member of the Military I think the draft is a REALLY REALLY bad idea. Let me explain why. Our military, feminist social engineering aside, is so potent due to it being an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE. I am not a military historian in the strictest sense, but I do like to read and understand. During Vietnam morale was very low for many reasons. One of which was the understandable perception that poor men of color were disproportionately drafted. People who get waivers for college or other DODGES, which is pathetic and reeks of elitism, went into the 5-7 year programs in college. They just stayed in college pissing on the military. (my dad was a combat pilot and someone SPIT on him when he came back into the states - in his dress uniform) The MEN drafted were usually poor and of color. To say this caused problems in and out of the military is an understatement. This, to me very fair, perception caused escalation of distrust amonst the various "races" in the U.S.
Also, a motivated soldier who truly believes in what he or she is doing is one of the most lethal forces you can rekon with. I could illustrate this, but if you read up on it yourself it's worthwhile. An UNMOTIVATED (read:draftee) soldier is a liability on many levels. This kind of soldier brings down morale, is SOMETIMES not the kind you want to count on in a bad situation.
Also, in our Feminazi socialized military we have failed to "toughen up" our soldiers like we used to. In basic training there are "high stress days" and "low stress days". We even experimented with "stess/time-out cards" in basic training. (I aint making this sh*t up). I went through Infantry School in 1987 and ran a MARATHON when I got out (lol, couldn't walk very well for 3 days afterward) Then after getting out and coming back in in 1990 - well, ... it was a FREAKING CAKE WALK. We are NOT the same Army we had even 10 years ago. We TOTALLY rely on technology instead of willpower, sweat, and pure driven pig headed chutzpah. (the elite units ARE still hard) And while many FINE FEMALE soldiers are complete ANIMALS in the field (I say that with respect and in the best possible terms) many single mothers have found the ultimate welfare state in the Armored Stroller Battalion. Many get "permanent profiles" (a medical disability that limits performance) and ride them SHAMELESSLY. I met a lazy loser who had a (I sh*t you not) "no mopping profile". Now, to be TOTALLY honest here, ***I*** have a permanent profile. But not once, not even a little bit, have I ridden this piece of paper. I am not SUPPOSED to lift over a certain amount, but when furniture needs moving, or a foxhole needs digging, or a ruck march is upcoming, I am ALWAYS on the spot giving 100%. I say this because I DEMAND honest and full disclosure in what I read, so I must demand the same of myself. That being said, I have seen so many single mothers who are there for a paycheck, free housing, and will not get put out (PC sensitivity at its finest) unless they get out on a PERMANENT MEDICAL DISCHARGE. Read: free money for life.
Draftees are brought in with NO DESIRE to be there and that is NOT someone I want to have to depend on when you are so tired the only thing keeping your eyes open is sheer will and patriotic motivation.
And to address the obvious, YES women who supposedly want "equality" should get the harsh side of equality: RESPONSIBILITY. Something Gender Feminists seem to treat as non-issue at best or a plague at worst. EQUALITY means just that, signing up for a chance to die for their country that protects their rights (while stripping away mine)
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steven,
I always look forward to your posts, especially those that give us civilians some insight into life in our contemporary military.
You are performing a valuable service in more ways than one...
I'd like to learn more of your perspectives about gender relations in the armed services.
It sounds like our men in uniform are "in combat" in a theatre that is more bureaucratic and political than anything they would have faced in previous eras of the all-male, "hard-core" forces.
I'm all for G.I. Jane... so long as it's not selling out the lives and tactical finesse of the "real" soldiers.
Keep writing bro'! Good stuff!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @09:09AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, Steven, you are a real asset to this board. Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @09:10PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Kinda OT, but if you want to know a bit more about why draftees aren't that much of an asset to any military force, you might want to read Fields of Fire, by former Navy Undersecretary James H. Webb. It's a fictional account based on his experience as a 0311b Marine Lieutenant right in the middle of the shit back in the 'Nam. Great book, guaranteed leave you speechless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said came in in 1987, got out, and came back in in 1990, that was a typo I meant 1999. Sorry about that. I even proof read what I wrote, but I missed that one.
I want to add something. I want this to be crystal clear. I have women I have served with who are OUTSTANDING. I mean that without reservation. No "ifs", "ands", or "buts" are forthcoming. I know of some men who are freaking "daisy's" who I would NOT want with me.
I WAS in the infantry. When I came back in I went into Personnel (no comments, I get enough at work - the grunts think I am a "pogue" now and the personnel people think I am a rock headed "grunt" - life goes on). I mention this because of this:
Little anecdote here: shortly after Sept 11th our unit (male and female) had a "sensing session" so we could "explore how we felt" (God, this is SO embaressing) and such. We went around the room and the topic turned to "deployment". When my turn came I told them I wasn't worried, that when we got to the combat zone 1/2 of us would go home shortly thereafter. The room got tense, and the Sergeant Major, asked me why. I told her (in an obvious joking tone) that I would shoot half the soldiers in the room in the foot. She asked me why. I told her it was the fastest way to save both them and me if the shooting started. I was promptly counseled on my insensitive nature. God do I miss the Infantry (well, my memory does, I am too old for that sh*t now). Afterwards 2 things happened. 1) many of the single mothers (BUT NOT ALL!!) told the Army that they did not have their "family care plan" ready and it would probably be "unworkable" for them to go to combat (no, I am not in the freaking least exagerating). 2) many of the soldiers (male and female) told me that I was dead on the money.
Kinda makes ya think
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, my whoile take on it is thus: Until they are forced to do my amount of push-ups, and run my mile, and carry my weight in a pack, they aren't soldiers - just playing soldier.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I do think that the U.S. government will try to institute a military draft soon. "There it is!" was a term used by American soldiers in Vietnam during the War In Vietnam. It means: "That is certainly the case!"I served with the U.S. Army;4th Inf. Div.;2/8th Inf.;Republic of Vietnam 1969-1970. I won the Bronze Star, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantry Man's badge among other medals. I am a caucasian male from an upper middle or upper class back ground. I had a college degree when I volunteered ( under pressure from the military draft).My father served in the U.S. Army Infantry during W.W. II. He died of a heart condition possibly related to the multitude of NAZI hand grenade fragments all up and down his body.He was an attorney at law.
When I returned from Vietnam, I was subject to discrimination in employment, personal insult, and discrimination in education ( one of my comrades in Vietnam had a complete nervous break down when he returned from Vietnam because of the the same). Our society waged war on returning Vietnam Veterans!Vietnam Veterans,veterans in general, and caucasian males are subject to discrimination by law and custom in employment,education,in the receipt of social services,through the laws and the enforcement of the same, through the deprivation of individual freedoms and rights, and othewise. At the same time those who did not have to go and who would not have to serve in the military (especially in the combat arms-women and others) received and still receive preferential treatment by law and custom with regard to the same (reverse discrimination).
It is dishonorable not honorable for caucasian males to defend (through military service) a nation which treats the same and those who have served and would have to serve in the military in a dishonorable and discriminatory manner as per the above.
Caucasian males are in a battle in the USA against those who are oppressing them. Military service simply supports the social-political-cultural entity which promulgates the same. A a result, given the above, males should strongly oppose the military draft and military service in general (but support those in the military service).
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @10:02PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Good post, but a bit disappointing to see your emphasis on "caucasian males" as distinct from "males".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @12:43PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Just because the draft went away doesn't mean the Selective Service went away. They're advertising uncompensated volunteer positions. They say nothing about reinstituting the draft, which would take an act of Congress. An attempt was made in the last session to do this, it was laughed out of committee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @02:40PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment13/
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
How is the draft not involuntary servitude?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 04, @02:51PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
This is really just an argument aginst the draft in general. Drafting women into the military would be the total antithesis of all common sense, unless you basically used them as slaves that never see combat. Which then extends to 'The draft is just a form of slavery', which seems like a pretty good argument against it. I suppose the original intention was to just use the idea as a catalyst to counteract women's lib, though I think thats a fallacy, it sooner counteracts the draft itself then it does women's lib, then you have no argument left.
The idea of a draft when an enemy is attacking our borders at least makes sense, I doubt you'd even need it then though because we'd see a huge surge in enlistment, assuming by the time that happens people feel this is a country worth fighting for. That must be the best argument -for- the invasion of Iraq. Its not exactly like the people there took up arms en masse and were willing to die for Saddam. Most of them just stayed in their homes. If Nazi forces had reached America and were rolling through even our rural areas, how many people would have fought them even if they knew it'd mean death?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The idea of a draft when an enemy is attacking our borders at least makes sense, I doubt you'd even need it then though because we'd see a huge surge in enlistment.." --Anonymous
There was conscription during the American Civil War and during the two world wars. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the draft was still used to put thousands of young men in uniform and prepare them for service.
How many out there would argue that they know there is no conceivable circumstance that could arise in which a draft would be necessary ever again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First, who are you, second, the draft is blatant sexism. Why is it when women want to join something, they are given total legal entry, but when women want to avoid something, they are allowed to hide behind the 'oh I am too fragile'crap. I have had two children, one 9 pounds, with no anesthesia. I can handle pain just fine, and if I needed to I could and would serve beside men in the military. With proper training, a woman my size (110lbs) could move a man twice my size. I worked at a nursing home, it is all about using the torque of your body to manuever the load.
Women want rights but don't want the realities. Notice there aren't a lot of women miners, loggers, or high rise construction workers? Gee, I wonder why? Because those jobs are dangerous and they SUCK. They are necessary, and men do the jobs to put food on the table.
Geez, what next, the divorce courts aren't biased against men and work soley for the good of the children?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice one Jen. I just about laughed out my "Funyuns" and Coke when I read the signature. Nice one, caught me unawares considering the Biscuit comment was on the OTHER post.
Damn .... my wife is Japanese and makes great biscuits. Why do I mention that ... I dunno
Peace
The Asian Biscuit Eater
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa there, Biscuit Queen. I'm not saying the all-male draft isn't sexist against men. And I absolutely agree that too many women (including feminists) want rights without equal responsibilities. My point was that even after the US was attacked by the Japapnese, the draft was still considered necessary to fill manpower requirements to win the war in Europe and the Pacific. I also don't think it wise for anyone to argue that the draft will never be necessary in the future. How can they be sure?
I'm fairly certain that women are at a real physical disadvantage when it comes to doing the tasks that men are expected to do in the military where strength, speed, endurance and aerobic capacity are important. I doubt that it's just a matter of proper training -- and I bet that men and women who are or have been in the military would back me up on that. Having said that, I see no reason why women should be exempt from mandatory service (if men are not), whether it be in limited military roles or in a variety of civilian jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that there may be a need for the draft, but making it men only is what makes it sexist. Women actually are supposed to have more endurance than men, but lack the physical stregth. I am sure there are many roles in the military for both.When I was researching WWI for a story I was writing, I saw that many roles, such as trench digging, or marching with heavy packs would have been less suited for women based on stregth. However a role such as messenger or sniper would fit a lighter, smaller person with more endurance. Especially now with all the technology, much of the fighting is not hand to hand. Also, with so many women in the medical field, that is another way of utilizing female forces. I have to say this still leaves men in the more dangerous positions, but it is a start. I think there very well could be a need for forced sevice in the future. If you cannot abolish something, at least change it to make it more fair. I really think we are mainly agreeing here.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @12:34PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
There are other reasons besides inherent physical ability to not draft women into war..
If it is a particularly bad war, and millions of soldiers die, you want as many women alive as possible, you can get by with fewer guys in terms of rebuilding population.
Perhaps drafting them into non-combat forms of slavery would be fair then? Can you imagine all the women getting pregnant to avoid being drafted and the welfare state they'd create?
Furthermore, how many guys would really want women to be drafted? I think the only way that is possible is if your hatred for women's lib were so intense that it clouded over most rational thought.
Besides, to suggest that women are physically equal to men on average just flies in the face of common sense. Not even the most die hard women's libbers go there unless they want to be utterly ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @01:23PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"Furthermore, how many guys would really want women to be drafted? I think the only way that is possible is if your hatred for women's lib were so intense that it clouded over most rational thought."
Have you been here long? Have you read what feminism is doing to us? Do you chanstise feminists as well?
If a draft is reinstitued then both should be included or neither. The draft in its curent form is a violation of the 14th amendment.
Masc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @02:08PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"There are other reasons besides inherent physical ability to not draft women into war..
If it is a particularly bad war, and millions of soldiers die, you want as many women alive as possible, you can get by with fewer guys in terms of rebuilding population."
That's an absolute gem! The feminists don't want women to be drafted because they're worried about population growth! HA! HA! HA! I don't see feminists worrying about population growth when they support the slaughter of MILLIONS of American children in the abortion mills. Nor do they seem concerned about population growth when they destroyed the family unit and made it financially impossible for women to stay at home to rear a family.
By the way, what is "womens lib"? Wasn't that something that happened in the 1960's? Time to look at the calendar. Prepare for a shock. It's 2003!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @08:26PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I think its fascinating that by opposing a military draft on women into combat roles because it flies in the face of common sense I'd be automatically classified a feminist. Look, what you really want is to get rid of the draft period, not just because its inherently sexist, its also forced slavery that in practice disproportionally targetted the lower classes.
Isnt the concession that I think it'd be "fair (aka equal)" to draft them into non combat roles (effectively just as enslaving) some level of indicitation that I'm probably not a feminist? And that I point out a lot of women would probably try to get pregnant fast to avoid it. Is that something a feminist would suggest would happen? Maybe.. I guess. Arguing -for- women into the draft is overall an argument -for- the draft itself, since you implicitly are argeeing with the entire concept of the draft. Doesn't that seem a bit counterproductive?
I'm seeing a lot of real knee jerk responses here that are just picking little pieces of what I said and are totally disregarding the overall context. I kinda ended up on this forum rather randomly and didn't really expect to make a post, I think you guys might be conditioned to expect that anybody with a potentially opposing view point is by default an angry feminist fighting a war against you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dude ... GET A HANDLE. I don't know if you are the same poster or some other ANON. Sign the end of your piece, sign up for a user-name: it takes about 2 min in total
The other part I wish to address: WE OFTEN DISAGREE. That's the beauty of democracy. Until you get a "name" it's just a guessing game on who the heck I am addressing. Pass that one to the left into the circular filing drawer
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I advocate a female draft and such things because it might be a nice wake-iup slap in the face to the female enablers who stand silent and let the pheminists win "victory" after "victory" for them.
It's be piously proclaimed elsewhere that "most women oppose pheminism." Utter twaddle. Those "most women" remain silent, praise with faint damnation when people are watching, and enjoy all the fruits of pheminism while at the same time being able to maintain plausible deniability that they are a pheminist. They pass along the male-bashing, they say "you go, girl" when one of their acquaintances rakes some poor schmuck over the coals in a divorce, and so on and so forth.
So, let's start doing away legally with all the little perqs.
First to go is the presumption of mothers to have custody. Since affirmative action is so good (thus saith NOW) then apply it the other way - when a court doesn't give men custody at least 50% of the time, said judge stands to lose their bench. Watch that crap come to a screeching halt.
Presumption of paternity? No ma'am. No benefits, no child support, without a paternity test. On your dime. Better yet, to even the field on abortion, C4M.
The draft is another. We're now looking for a few good women as well! Yes, your daughters can Join the army, travel to new lands, meet new people, and kill them. They get to come home maimed and mentally and emotionally scarred just like your sons - and, HEY! Bonus! If they are really lucky they might come home in a box, or be captured, thrown in a shithole POW camp, or even raped.
Did I know a few women good enough for military service? Yep. One I remember insisted on doing man's PT, and got really angry if she thought slack was cut her due to her femininity. She eventually got over the short thing. Her favorite saying (Which I've adopted in part) was "I'm a real soldier, not just playing one like Specialist Barbie over there."
Ah, yes. Specialist Barbie. She of the coiffeured hair and painted nails, who always found someone to carry her pack, or in general carry her load. Out for five days a month with "cramps." Princess of the Thought Police. First to break into tears at criticism, first to do the bare minimum of what was required for PT - and claim every "do-over" she could - and first to strut around and preen that she was a "soldier!" Also turned up pregnant within 6 weeks of Desert Storm starting, when it got nosed about we might be going.
Lotta Specialist Barbies. Don't worry, though, under the Gonzo Plan, you'll drop that brat, he'll go to army day care, and you'll be back at the front in no time! Daddy doesn't get an exception for being a new father - so since we're gender blind, neither do you.
There's the answer there - enforce absolute gender blindness,, then sit back, watch the rank-and-file women of this country TAR and FEATHER the pheminazi's, then come back to us, smile sweetly, and start out with, "Things got a little out of hand for a while there...."
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 06, @04:27PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll totally admit its a good point that in the face of the political situation involving feminism it potentially would make sense to put women into the draft, as a move in anti-feminist agenda. But I have to maintain that from a common sense perspective its just a totally bad idea. On the one hand, you could say its just to make a statement, you never intend to use the draft on women, just threaten them with it to say "Hey, heres some equality for ya.."
But think of the international perspective on something like this. Would other countries respect our military as much when our government is pulling bizarre stunts like that? What if you actually did start drafting women? Does the _military_ actually want to deal with that? Does the military care about feminism? If they are drafting people, gender equality issues are the last thing on their mind. Under the absolute equality argument, would you want 50% of the draftees to be women? Can you imagine the increased costs of war in dealing with a situation like that? The military is supposed to be the ultimate expression of practicality, ask yourself if the situation created is particularly practical when it comes to fighting a war.
If you were a guy fighting a war, and you had the option to choose, would you rather have women dying around you or men? The average man probably wouldn't even feel right defending a country that forced women into armed combat because of some politician's agenda that had nothing to do with fighting wars.
You've got tunnel vision, focused in on battling feminism without thinking of all the other ramifications of a change like this. Would that many people even make the connection that this has something to do with feminism? Maybe if it were a feminist that argued for this change, but instead it would perceived as just another old white guy trying to keep women down in a totally senseless move that would be ripped to SHREDS by public opinion. I'm just saying, try to think of the bigger picture.
Perhaps simply phrased: "Eliminate the draft entirely, or add women to it" is something people could universally understand as a line item on a platform statement. But I think I'd avoid including "Let them get sent home injured" style sentiment, I honestly feel that it demonstrates your anti-feminist agenda is overpowering commonsense and logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 06, @09:22PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"The average man probably wouldn't even feel right defending a country that forced women into armed combat".
Nor would he feel right defending a country which kidnaps his children and imprisons him if he tries to see them. Nor would he feel right defending a country which allows murderers of men to go unpunished (if the murderers are women). Nor would he feel right defending a country where he can be imprisoned for life on the basis of a false allegation made by a woman. In general, no man should feel right about defending a country where he had no rights.
WHY is the death of a man on the battlefield somehow more acceptable than the death of a woman? Throughout history human beings have been regarded as lesser beings on the basis of some characteristic such as race, religon, ethnicity etc. The death of those lesser humans was less significant than that of a bona fide human. Your thesis seems to be that humans who happen to be male are lesser beings than those born female, since you contend that their death is more acceptable.
Regards,
anon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 07, @06:20PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting response except that it took one small portion of a larger point and strictly addressed only it. Again, it comes to light that the only real incentive here is to 'equalize' without any consideration of whether or not its actually a practical change. Arguing that its what feminists are already doing all the time won't get you anywhere, it'd basically be saying your reasoning is no better then theirs.
You propose that I'm implicitly saying that women are superior to men because I'd rather see men die. I'm saying that men are superior to women at fighting wars. Therefore, by forcing women into combat, against international military forces that are going to be virtually 100% men, you are creating an insane situation which wastes training, equipment and an overall increase in causalites on our side of a conflict. Furthermore, yes, on average, men have a protective instinct towards women, and they feel a lot worse seeing them die or get hurt then other men. I'm sure there are all kinds of reasons for this, I honestly think that if you argue against that fact you've basically joined the flawed aspects of feministic thinking regarding total gender blindness.
If you really managed to include women on the draft, but didn't do much else, what you'd end up with is a situation where all the combat roles are men and all the noncombat roles are women, can you imagine what that would be like? All the engineering, intelligence, and strategic positions filled by women and the men doing all the grunt work and dying? Therefore, if you wanted more equalit you'd have to institute huge changes within the military in addition to the draft for that to be circumvented and you'd just end up with a total piece of crap. Either that or the military would just deal with the whole situation and honorably discharge a huge portion of the women right off the bat, it'd probably be a huge wasted expense.
If you are going to respond to just one sentance out of my posts, let me at least choose it. "Does the military want 50% of a draft to be women? Would the military want 50% of all draftees put into combat roles?" You want it because you want to stick it to the feminazis, but you really don't care about the military itself at all. You're going to have to come up with some more logical solutions to your issues with the feminist power struggle instead of focusing on this kind of thing which will simply never happen, and if it did, it'd be a catastrophic failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To who ever you are. I think this is more a debate of philosophy than of practicality. Do we really want to see 50% of draftees put into combat women? Well, considering that much of combat is not AS physically (strength)demanding as it was 100 years ago, possibly. The option of all women battallions has been discussed on this board in the past. I think one round of reality and american women would be singing a different tune. And i don't mean one Jessica Lynch. I mean thousands of women who don't get saved by the men in the end, but have to save their own a$$es
There are MANY roles in the military that are non-combat however. While yes it would relegate the men to the dangerous roles, overall it would lessen the amount of men total drafted. This is another option.
I think this is more of an ideological problem. Feminists are constantly saying they must have the right to choice-keep your laws off my body-women should have the right to work or stay home, they should have the right to work in any job they want, join any club they want, go to any school they want. They should be able to kill, give away or keep their child if they want.
Yet when it comes to men they consistantly uphold and support laws which put the law all over male bodies-child support, false abuse allegations, the draft. I think this is a very visable and easily understandable example of the absolute PRIVELEGE! women have over men. Women can kill a baby so she doesn't have to go through a few months of a pretty safe (for most) pregnancy, embarrassment and most likely the result of her own actions, but a man can be drafted for years of extremely UNSAFE, psychologically damaging, and possibly FATAL service for the greater good of the country. Women don't have to DO anything if they don't want.
One of he reasons we LAUGH at the idea of a female utopia-can you hear it now? "You do it" "No , you can't make me, it is my body-you go chop the wood" "No, it is against my personal beliefs, I should not have to be forced to do something I am not comfortable with, you go chop the wood"-while they all slowly FREEZE to DEATH!
Women do not support with their bodies the integrity of this nation, yet they make all the rules. And you wonder why these men want things to change? The point is to hit home that yes, sometimes you HAVE to do things, sometimes other people CAN tell you what to do, and sometimes you just have to LIVE with it.
The biscuit queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 08, @08:26PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm saying that men are superior to women in fighting wars"
If it were shown that blacks were better fighters than whites, it follows from your arguement that blacks only would be sent to the front line (esp when fighting an all black enemy).
"men feel a lot worse seeing women die than other men die"
White people (of the racist variety)may feel worse seeing whites die than to see blacks die. Is this an arguement for sending only blacks to the front line. Society does not accept such racist ideas; nor should it accept your sexist ideas.
"on average men have a protective instinct towards women"
Is this an arguement for forcing men to die on behalf of women? On average women have a protective instinct towards their unborn child. Does that mean that the State should force women to die on behalf of their unborn child ? Not so long ago the State DID force women to so sacrifice themselves, but women have rejected this traditional female duty (as they have rejected all traditional female duties).
"Does the military want......."
What the military wanted or didn't want was NOT allowed to stop women getting equal access to prestige positions in the military. Nor should it stop them getting equal access to the front line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 10, @05:07PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
"To who ever you are. I think this is more a debate of philosophy than of practicality."
I basically conceded this aspect of it from the beginning. That is to say, I agree that philosphically they should be in the draft, for all the reasons that have been posted. The whole purpose of my arguement though is how impractical it would be, and therefore, a bad idea overall. Basically what that means to me is that all the arguments in the world about unfair it is don't really make a difference. You'd have to demonstrate how it'd actually be practical to have a 50% draft of women, and simultaneously not turn into even worse inequality by women disproportionally getting all the better positions.
The biggest concession I'll make is that, if it did come to pass that somebody in power was seriously pushing on something like this, I think I'd enjoy the reactions, if any, feminists would have towards it. I'll fully grant you that aspect of this idea. But if a draft did come to pass and suddenly all these 18-19 year old girls are being enlisted, I'd really be afraid of the consequences on virtually every front to whatever the situation is.
Kinda unrelated to the topic at hand, but I don't really understand this idea that women are making all the rules. Sure, there are a lot of feminist perks in our system, but they wouldn't exist without men supporting them. Women only make up about 10% of the Congress and Senate. Even if they made up 50% of it, and they were all feminists, it'd still require support of men to pass feminist legislature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There are other reasons..."
Ah yes. More of this line of thinking. The "There is absolutely NO reason whatsoever to discriminate against a woman, prevent her from doing something that she wants to do or make her do something that she does not want to do. But there are plenty of reasons to justify discrimination and segregation against men or force them into acting\reacting a certain just because they were born as men." debate.
This has got to be the biggest hypocrisy of human civilization. Women are granted the freedom to act like people because it is every humans *right* to be free of stereotypes and discrimination. Men are forced to remain within the guidelines that society has set down for males for [insert some reason here].
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 05, @04:01PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. Feminism is the ending of traditional gender based discrimination against women while retaining traditional gender based discrimination in favour of women.
Try telling a feminist that her employment oppoptunities should be restricted because her role is to bear children . Yet the selfsame feminist will oppose the draft for women by invoking the usual "women have to bear children" claptrap.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
