|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 04, @06:48PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This bureaucrat just infuriates me,more responsibilities that are guarantee the suicide rate among boys will increase. While females get to do nothing for the country.
It's time to throw this jackass out of office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 04, @08:53PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I beleive this is a good idea . Men should be men Women should not fight in war!! Females can do something for our country !! They can stop slaughtering our children and learn to be mothers like our grandmothers did !! Let's not pretend there's no difference between men and women thats excactly what the feminist's try and do Such a program would be good for young men and of course not all but I'd say most!! Learn about duty and honor with other men not the pc crap that passes for our military these days!! I beleive it would make better citizen's Craig
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 04, @09:44PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I can't help but wonder if we aren't tying our hands, militarily speaking, by *not* drafting women as well as men. (Or at least, tying one hand behind our back and then going out to fight.)
Women make up more than 50% of the US population (the last figures I heard were like 51% - 52%, with the proportion continuing to rise each year). And historically speaking, in both the past and even in present, the militaries that deploy and field more people have a better chance of prevailing in battle. (Not a guaranteed win, or guaranteed advantage, but doing this usually doesn't hurt your chances -- and usually actually helps increase your odds of winning. The amount you increase the odds, of course, depends on various and numerous factors which I won't go into here.)
Not to use a bad example, but the one that immediately comes to mind is Joseph Stalin's quote: "Quantity has a quality all its own." In World War II, both Russia and the US were routinely out-fought in armor and infantry battles, with the Germans typically achieving kill ratios like 10:1, 50:1, etc. Often, the only way the Germans were overrun and/or defeated was because they literally ran out of ammunition killing Allied tanks and infantry, while there were still Allied tanks or infantry left alive to continue the fight against them.
Even modern nations engage in the practice of routinely using women in their fighting forces. This includes our enemies, our allies, and others.
Our enemies most certainly do. Do you think Hizbollah and Al Queda turn down women suicide bombers? If you've been paying attention to the news in the middle east for the past year or so, you would know that several of these suicide bombers and terrorists are women. (I also believe China uses women in its military, but I'm not sure about that.)
An example of an ally who uses women in their fighting military is Israel. All their citizens (both men and women) undergo compulsory military service for a certain time period, and most of these people end up in direct combat roles (regardless of their sex).
A country that has been an on-and-off-again ally who does this is Russia. In World War II, and even today, Russian women serve in combat roles in their military.
Those are just the countries or organizations who spring immediately to mind. I'm sure if I did a little digging, I could find many others. The US and other western nations are the exception more than the rule in the world, in regard to not using women in the military and in combat roles.
Although we might be able to get away with only drafting men for right now, while we're fighting small countries or groups (like Hizbollah, Al Queda, etc.), that strategy will not work with larger organizations or countries. For example, what if we have to fight Russia, or China, or some other large country or organization? Especially one which *doesn't* hesitate to draft females into combat military service?
A couple possible advantages I can think of the US would gain by drafting women (just militarily speaking, not counting the advantages and disadvantages to our society, etc.):
1) Larger military force. Can at least fight on equal (or more equal) terms against nations such as Russia, China, etc.
2) Because our society values female lives more than male lives, there would be more soul searching and thought given to whether the US should or would get involved in a conflict, etc. Also, if we did decide to get involved, we would more likely commit the proper amount of resources to win the action. (i.e. no more 5,000 troop deployments for situations that really required 25,000 troops to accomplish the task.)
A couple possible disadvantages I can think of (again, just speaking militarily):
1) Women have been, and continue to be, held to a much lower standard (physically, mentally, and in other areas) than men. I see no reason to believe this trend would not continue. This would mean a dilution of our military capability, by adding a bunch of unqualified personnel into the mix. (This will result in increased numbers and severity of casualties, reduced capability -- to fight or successfully complete missions, and other such problems.)
2) Our nation would be much more unwilling to employ our military. There are many cases where we can, and should, employ military force. Once it's not just husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons coming home in pine boxes (but now also wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters), we might become a pacifist (if not isolationist) nation -- with all the attendant losses of freedom, failures in foreign policy and external interests, and other such attendant undesirable outcomes.
So I'm tending to think that we *should* include females in the draft, and in combat roles. I like the potential upsides for the military side of the house, as well as the numerous possible upsides on the social front.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not consider life of males less valuable than that of females, feminist and traditionalits are two sides of the same coin, both thinks men are cannon fodder, i will never leave my seat to a woman in life boat, i know i amvery egoist i consider my life equaly valuable than that of a woman, mmm , but it is worst i consider my life even more important, bummer.
Equal rights equal duties, men must not die for feminist countries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 05, @07:36AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Equal rights equal duties,????
Sounds like a feminist!!!!!
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Really? no, feminism is about rights for women responsabilities for men, rights without duties:
the right to vote without the duty to defend the country, the right to have custody of children without the responsability to support them, the right to to have a house without having to work to pay for it, the right to retirment pension without having to contribute to it, etc, etc, etc
Well for a group of people to have rights without responsabilities there must be another group that has responsabilities without rights:
So men dont have the right to have children and educate them but must support the ones women decide to have, men must work without a salary so women can have money without working, (alimony, chilssupport, etc), work to pay a house without the right to use it, (marital property or whatever).
But the way people that have obligations without rights are called S L A V E S.
In R E A L traditional societies women do not have responsabilities neither they have rights, they do not have the right to vote, hold property, decide if they have children or the right to educate them , (ofcourse no rights no responsabilities men are the ones responsible to support them as they are the one that decided to have themm and have the right to educate them).
But the people that called themselves "traditionalist", they are only traditional regarding male role not ofcourse female role they know is impossible to turn the clock back, so what they are supporting is exactly the same as feminist.
Rights without responsabilities for women, thus slavery for men, well no thanks.
I know it sound estrange but i think the live of my son does not worth less of the one of my daughter, sure sounds feminist, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 05, @04:29PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"But the people that called themselves "traditionalist", they are only traditional regarding male role not ofcourse female role they know is impossible to turn the clock back, so what they are supporting is exactly the same as feminist."
Exactly. The traditional male is the bedrock of feminism, and he doesn't even realise it. Women are liberated from traditional female duties while men remain imprisoned by traditional male duties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That´s why i want to see women collecting garbage, risking their lives in combat, working in the bulding industry, etc, etc, etc, just as men; buy the way exacltly this is what is happening in continental Europe.
Not really becouse they want to, but becouse they have to, i mean nowadays very few men are willing to support a woman, and the goverment is not going to support millions of parasites trough taxes, (too much taxes allready, no room for more, neither the posibility to force men to support women stealing some proportion of their wages whithout making them quit working, and that would bankrupt the goverment), no even children are an excuse to avoid working, no work, no children they will lost custody automatically.
Women must contribute equally than men, i would say more to compensate all those years of looting, the days of the parasites are numbered, women should leave the make up and put on factory suits, (they can use it on weekends), they must earn their way sweating as anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 05, @05:29PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd rather have equal-rights, equal-duties, feminist or otherwise, than the gender-role-based, only-men-should-die-on-the-battlefield idea that you're preaching, Craig.
Boy Genteel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 05, @07:58PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd rather have equal-rights, equal-duties, feminist or otherwise
Good lap dog!!
Equal value !! NOT Equal abilities !! That is what I'm actually saying . I'm curios how many women have to leave the battle ground because they are pregnant?? Besides its good for men to learn civic duty away from women and propaganda!! Lets get em focused on that then maybe we can beat the NEA and the garbage they're teaching in school's (and why young men quit in the first place)
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the military feminized, I can't imagine they'll escape that ideal even if they tried! what with seminars on avoiding sexual harassment, watching your female "comrades" required to do less than half of the exercises you are, but being told if they aren't held equal in your eyes you're an evil pig, blah blah blah.
[National Endowment for the Arts?]
I think it would be a better idea to keep young men in schools and change our ways of teaching, than to say "oh, you're better off without it." Perhaps try teaching women the responsibilities of priviledge?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" I beleive this is a good idea ."
Involuntary servitude for men is a good idea?
"Men should be men."
Don't tell me how to be a man.
"Women should not fight in war!!"
Who should defend women's freedoms then?
"Females can do something for our country !!"
There are lots of things they can do for our country. I'd suggest joining the men's movement! (waving to Luna and The Biscuit Queen)
"They can stop slaughtering our children"
So I have to risk my life, and all they have to do is not kill children?
"and learn to be mothers like our grandmothers did !!"
My grandmother worked for a living. In fact, her business ended up being profitable enough my grandfather was able to retire early.
"Let's not pretend there's no difference between men and women"
Just because there are some differences between women and men is no reason to suggest that all differential treatment is automatically good.
"thats excactly what the feminist's try and do"
That's a reactionary viewpoint. I don't care what mistakes the feminists make, I'm not going to make the opposite mistake to try and compensate for it.
"Such a program would be good for young men and of course not all but I'd say most!!"
The ones that live anyway, and don't come away crippled from it.
"Learn about duty and honor with other men not the pc crap that passes for our military these days!!"
Yeah yeah. It's your duty to be a slave to a woman because you believed her when she said she was on the pill. It's dishonorable not to support a system that make you more than twice as likely to die or be injured in the event of war because your life isn't considered as valuable as others. The military teaches not "duty" but slavishness towards the system and our system today does not respect the rights or dignity of men. Sorry if duty to female supremecist countries and the "honor" of slavery are things I don't feel are worth the involuntary servitude of young men.
"I beleive it would make better citizen's"
Turn off the TV, our young men are great citizens! The problem is that schools, banks, and workplaces usually don't realize it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday January 05, @11:01PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday January 04, @07:07PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Letters to the editor can be sent to:openforum@denverpost.com. They ask that letters be no longer than 40 words and you can send email once a month. This is regarding Rick O'Donnell's "Rite of passage".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: letters only need to be 40 words or less if they are put under the "To the point" section of letters. Other letters can be much longer.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but his solution is inappropriate. It would be better to change the educational system to allow boys to learn in the style that suits them best, preferably from male teachers. Single sex classes (or even schools) are a much better solution than simply excluding boys from one semester of the 12th. grade. The former has already been tried in Britain, with promising results.
Of course service is fine for character development - if the service is indeed voluntary. However, a madatory imposition of service for boys will only create resentment and put those boys who do want to learn at a further disadvantage compared to girls.
Steve
BTW, I don't get the Denver Post even though I live in the area. Guess why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Rick O'Donnell's Colorado Voices article "A new rite of passage" [Saturday, January 3, 2004].
Rick O’Donnell at least identifies some of the issues facing men and boys, but his “compulsory service” solution is inappropriate. A feminized approach to education is a large part of what is holding boys back. It would be better to change the educational system to allow boys to learn in the style that suits them best, preferably from male teachers. Single sex classes (or schools) are a much better solution than simply excluding boys from one semester of the 12th. grade. The former has already been tried in Britain, with promising results.
Of course service is fine for character development - if the service is indeed voluntary. However, a mandatory imposition of service for boys will only create resentment and put those boys who do want to learn at a further disadvantage compared to girls.
Steven G. Van Valkenburg
Founder of Men's Issues Online
A voice for Men's Advocacy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This guy kills me. He does not consider the military a respectful institution, keeping us free and whatnot. No, it's where you send the "unintelligent" to be something useful. That's how he's regarding it. Apparently if you aren't good at writing a thesis or calc you aren't good for anything save physical labor/dying for your country to serve the "rich/intellectual." That entire attitude irritates the snot out of me, even if you supply these people by putting up their homes, growing their food, and keeping them free, you really aren't truly human if you don't have a degree.
Aside from all that, apparently girls are the only people worth educating. Have we not tailored education to suit females, if they aren't raising their hands aren't we calling on them anyway? Aren't we encouraging them into science? Aren't we introducing "women's perspectives" into history so girls don't feel sad? But apaprently if boys are dropping from higher eudcation like flies, it's just 'cause they're dumb and are only good for physical labor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have been reading a lot lately about the Selective Service System efforts to find draft board members. I was really taken back when they said men and women can be members. Women draft board member I though, how unfair to men can this be! Women never had to face the draft and it does not appear as though they will today in spite of all the gains they have acheived. But now they can be draft board members and decide what men will be drafted. How absurd are we going to get with this feminist thing? And to top things off I read where 40% of all draft board member applicants today are women. One young lady was quoted as saying " I would not like to see anyone have their education inturrupted by military service but that is their duty (meaning men)and I would support the draft if President Bush decides the country needs it". I cannot help but wonder if she had to get her priviledged little female ass down to her local draft board and register how quick she would be to say it our duty!
This whole issue of the draft is very disturbing to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought that I would post this letter to the editor of the Denver Post that was written a week ago. It was in reference to an article by Rick O'Donnell, who suggested that boys not attend the second semester of 12th grade, in order to do compulsory service.
Here is the letter:
Boys disadvantaged
Rick O'Donnell at least identifies some of the issues facing men and boys, but his compulsory-service solution is inappropriate. A feminized approach to education is a large part of what is holding boys back. It would be better to change the education system to allow boys to learn in the style that suits them best, preferably
from male teachers. Single-sex classes (or schools) are a much better solution than simply excluding boys from one semester of the 12th grade. The former has already been tried in Britain, with promising results.
Service is fine for character development - if the service is indeed voluntary. However, a mandatory imposition of service for boys will
only create resentment and put those boys who do want to learn at a further disadvantage compared to girls.
STEVEN G. VAN VALKENBURG
A link to the letters section can be found at:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E41 6%257E,00.html
www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E416%257E, 00.html
Rick O'Donnell's article can be found here:
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E156% 7E1867274,00.html
www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E156%7E18672 74,00.html
This shows that the media often will print our letters, if we only write to them. Let us men's advocates keep it up!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
