"Allow me to hold the door open for women so they can register for draft" by Ken Herman: Excerpt: "Maybe I missed it, but when was the parade/demonstration in which women demanded to be equal with males when it comes to potential mandatory military service? . . . . So here's where we stand on military service: Men must register and would have to serve if the draft is reinstated. Women do not register and can't be required to serve if the draft is reinstated. Anybody see gender equity here? What color ribbon do I wear to display my support for gender equity when it comes to mandatory military service?" Read the article here: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/allow-me-to-hold-the-door-open-for-146548.html
I would add the following. Does anyone doubt that if the genders were reversed, there would be non-stop demonstrations until this inequity was changed? But the genders aren't reversed, and chivalrous men seem to be largely OK with the inequity in registering. Mr. Herman didn't miss the demonstrations: they never happened. (If the draft were reinstated, I think that you'd see a different reaction -- most fair-minded people would realize that a male-only draft doesn't comport with any of the notions the feminists have foisted upon our culture.)
When confronted with charges that selective service is blatant gender discrimination against males, feminists often fall back on the fact that there is no current draft, so what's all the fuss? And then they add that they are opposed not just to gender inequality in selective service but they are opposed to the draft in general.
This is all very noble sounding, but it doesn't change the fact that when teens turn 18, only the boys have to register. It also doesn't change the inequity when a young man forgets or fails to register. During FY 2007, 158,935 names and addresses of suspected violators of the duty to register with the Selective Service System were provided to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution for their failure to register, carrying a penalty up to five years in prison -- every one of the violators was male -- because young women are exempt from even registering.
That, you see, is what is known as "male privilege."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
52 comments:
They aren't just 'exempt' they are forbidden with threats of fines and prison if they do.
Read the back of the form.
Someday some feminist heroine will 'break the gender barrier' and ride in the front seat of that bus.
I will not rest until women make up 51% of the war dead.
Fair is fair.
Snark, your brilliance manifests itself constantly. At first blush, your commment might seem shocking to some -- mean-spirited, and feminists would call it misogynistic. But why isn't it shocking that males make up almost 100% of military casualties? THAT'S not shocking -- why?
I understand your point about fairness so there is no need to explain it in detail. I already accept that life is not fair and it should not be so I am free of feeling the need to make it that way.
Men get drafted because the military NEEDS men. It does not need women. In a time of national emergency, volunteer women more than sufficiently fill the ranks of support jobs needed. This is especially true when all of the good young men march away first. Any woman who wants one (or more) of those will have to follow.
But as a matter of principle, I am against the military draft for anyone, so you would never hear me suggest adding anyone to the requirement for registration. A nation of free citizens should not be maintained on the blood of slave soldiers. In time of great need, political leaders should make the case of urgent manpower. If volunteers are insufficiently impressed withtheir reasoning, then the country does not deserve to survive, or perhaps it is an indicator that the American free citizens have a different view of what is important than the political class. The draft is an injustice that no free citizen should permit to be imposed on his fellow citizen.
Prof. Hale, the military needs soldiers able to fight, period. Our feminist sisters tell us women are more than capable of fighting alongside men, in combat. Are they wrong? And why are we permitted to declare that the sexes are different in that one respect? In every other facet of life, we must yield to the insistence that men and women are interchangeable except for sex organs and the fact that culture made men more evil than women.
And, sorry, I don't accept your views on fairness. I side with the feminists on this one: no person should be assume burdens because of gender (of course the feminists say it but don't mean it).
You should perhaps read up about Emily Pankhurst... (1858-1928)
http://itech.fgcu.edu/&/issues/vol1/issue1/feather.htm
AfOR
At first blush, your commment might seem shocking to some -- mean-spirited, and feminists would call it misogynistic.
Seriously, I'm kind of an asshole. It's not 'Asshole Game', as PUAs may term it ... I'm just an asshole sometimes.
But I think it helps the cause.
And if feminists can be 'bitches and proud' ... then I declare myself a proud asshole.
And since 'misogynist' is applied to any criticism or questioning of female privilege whatsoever, I most definitely consider myself a misogynist. I am reclaiming the term!
Pride is the opposite and antidote to shame ...
I already accept that life is not fair and it should not be so I am free of feeling the need to make it that way.
Prof Hale, I understand that you are not a misandrist, so this comment isn't directed at you.
But this quote, I could see coming from a feminist on this issue.
"Well, life isn't fair, so just man up and go die for us, guys."
There is nothing in feminism about equality. Nothing at all.
Snark, you are damn right, you're helping the cause! You've injected a breath of fresh air into these issues. Keep it up!
I hav to preface this by saying, I CANNOT enlist or be drafted. (Nystagmus, congenital or acquired; look it up in Army Regs. I tried enlisting...)
Having said that, I'd rather keep women out of the draft, and exempt from selective service. (I'd say abandon SS altogether, but - different rant.)
Seriously, do men want to serve next to a woman who
- can't or won't do the work;
- DOES cause morale issues;
- IS a risk to the unit (psycho-sexual dynamics);
- could get men killed (admittedly, due to the reasons above, not necessarily through her personal fault)
I'd rather keep them out unless they pass the same physical tests, myself. You want the job, you DO THE JOB, same rules male or female.
And spare me the knee-jerk hysteria abuot barefoot and pregnant, I want mine in high heels and sterile... (Get more
s3x that way!) [misogynistic b@st@rd and increasingly proud of it!]
Jean -- separate units. They're so "equal" to us, let's see how they do.
And by the way, I agree with you -- except that I'll be damned if I'm going to be quiet while the ONLY areas where we acknowledge gender differences are in areas where it hurts males.
I'll trade them: they won't get drafted if they drop Title IX and agree to shared parenting.
Whenever a Feminist says she opposes the draft, I say, "Really! Excellent work Feminism has done in the past 100 years. Perhaps after another hundred they will have succeeded!"
Then I give them this quote:
"Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing."
- Edmund Burke
Gogo nostop, you should also read the link I gave above, in full....
feminists were never against the draft, they were what made it happen.
AfOR
Anonymous said...
Gogo nostop, you should also read the link I gave above, in full....
feminists were never against the draft, they were what made it happen.
AfOR
Jan 7, 2010 7:46:00 PM
Good point. I think they were also behind, and to some extent, responsible for all of those young pretty women who booed and hissed at G.I.s returning from Vietnam, calling them baby killers and throwing bags of dog droppings at them.
The draft served feminists well in that it was a way of ending the lives of a large number of young viable MALES.
I understand that the US can conscript women but may not use them for military service.
The controlling instruments are the International Labour Organisation's treaties on forced labour.
The first of these, in the thirties, banned forced labour for everyone but exempted "apparently able bodied males" from the protective provisions. It was deliberately designed in this way to permit conscription regimes. The description "apparently able bodied" has been used to justify forcing twelve year old boys, and younger, to fight in wars.
The second, in the late forties removed the exemption and changed the wording, but still doesn't permit the use of non males for military duty.
The US, incidentally, did not ratify either treaty until Clinton's presidency and then only the second. Australia ratified both. Where both are ratified and any conflict occurs between the two the earlier treaty holds. Thus Australia can conscript only men - but for any purpose - whilst the US can conscript women providing they do not make them fight.
@AfOR...
Emily was also one of the leading protagonists in the introduction of conscription in the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth in 1916.
Jean,
I mostly agree with your arguing points, but they could put women strictly in non-combat postions. 'Support personnel' or whatever. The only thing is that then someone will say that they are taking those opportunities away from men. Then again, for people being drafted they're not really 'opportunities'.
separate units are not a good idea if you mean ground combat. The enemy units would know where the 'weak spots' are and take advantage of them.
Separte females submarine is okay, however.
actually maybe that's not a good idea. Sub sailors have to be able to lift 75 lbs or so, in order to load items onboard and move things around, including 'variable ballast' such as weights. At least, that was true when I was in the navy.
There are other physical taskes as well such as operating machinery that requires strength, especially hand strength. And, you must be able to work in a high-temperature engine room for some jobs.
So based on physical demands, mixed units is better than separate, but then you have a possible morale problem. Some of the military higher-ups seem to think it is a good idea to have women on subs. We shall see.
'Maybe I missed it, but when was the demonstration in which women demanded to be equal with males' when it comes to selective service?
At no time have feminists decried the refusal to require females to be equally drafted or put equally in harm's way ( these things are part of the "real male privilege")
"Real male privilege" = men dying and women being protected, but men get to criticise that state of affairs.
Actually, women get to criticise it too, they just choose not to.
Unless I'm misreading your post, Anon, it doesn't make any sense.
Gwallan,
Conscription in the USA, A sovereign nation, is not dependent on any international treaty or agreement. US law is the sole basis for this. As such, it can be rewritten whenever and however our current political class sees fit.
The root of all law is force. US law is obeyed because it is enforced. No other nation has the power or the will to enforce on America anything as silly as a united nations convention on (fill in the blanks). Even Australia, another nominally sovereign nation) has the power to unilaterally reject any UN convention, in whole or in part, even after they agree to it, because no one with the power to enforce then will care to do so.
@Professor Hale...
There is no impediment to the US changing it's laws. This is what I am talking about. Those international treaties are taken very seriously.
We do not currently have conscription in Australia. The only reason we do not is that successive governments have taken the view that it would be too much of a political liability electorally.
@Professor Hale...
There is no impediment to the US changing it's laws. This is what I am talking about. Those international treaties are taken very seriously.
We do not currently have conscription in Australia. The only reason we do not is that successive governments have taken the view that it would be too much of a political liability electorally.
So why can't women be conscripted for non-combat roles, like nursing and admin?
So why can't women be conscripted for non-combat roles, like nursing and admin?
Because men don't get that luxury.
I agree with Snark.
But I can hear some of our enlightened people saying, "Let's have a draft and give all the easy jobs to women." Of course the young women would get paid the same as the boys putting their lives on the line, and we'd make sure that woman serving in safe offices get their "share" of promotions so that a number of them outrank their same-age male peers who are forced to serve on the front lines in combat. Right? Come on, you know it's true. The guys putting their balls on the line will need to salute these young women and call them "Ma'am!" even though the latter face essentially zero danger. You believe that's a good idea -- leave this site right now and never come back. Seriously. I don't want you here.
And you women: you want EQUALITY? Start acting EQUAL. OR -- better yet -- admit that there are some things men can do better. Just like you can give birth better than men. I repeat my offer: we exempt you from the draft (because we KNOW you don't want to go), and you stop cutting our sons' sports teams under Title IX and give us SHARED PARENTING.
How about it all you chivalrous men? Are you with me? Or are you content to be feminism's useful idiots who make sure men have all the obligations but none of the benefits?
Snark, I'm not suggesting women get the "easy" work.
I'm still of two minds about women being on the front line (social conditioning is hard to break), and most people disagree with it.
Sending women to fulfill other duties frees more men to focus on the war effort. If it ever came to requiring a draft again, this is one way of working things that I believe most people would find more acceptable than sending women to the front lines (if such things even exist any more!).
Pierce, I'd like to see you argue that being a nurse is easier than fighting a war. Administration is not always a piece of cake either, and I'd never want to see such roles receive the same rate of pay as an infantryman. They're as alike as apples and oranges, and each is hard in its own way.
And Pogos (REMF for those in the US) already tend to outrank other soldiers without leaving base, so it's really no different to an existing situation other than gender.
I think one of the biggest issues with feminism is that they state they want equality (same-ness, or equal outcomes), when what they should be asking for is equity (fairness/equal opportunities).
Snark said...
"Real male privilege" = men dying and women being protected, but men get to criticise that state of affairs.
Actually, women get to criticise it too, they just choose not to.
Unless I'm misreading your post, Anon, it doesn't make any sense.
Jan 8, 2010 10:29:00 AM
Anonymous said...
"At no time have feminists decried the refusal to require females to be equally drafted or put equally in harm's way ( these things are part of the "real male privilege")"
Jan 8, 2010 8:09:00 AM
Seeing as feminism, and it's supporters, consider men to have only those rights they, the feminists and their supporters, afford us, being in harm's way and being killed on the battlefield's of war is not considered a right but a privilege. The part about "male privilege" is meant as sarcasm.
You're right women do choose not to criticize it.
Perhaps it is off topic but, I found this to be an interesting read;
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/07/what-an-mra-is-and-isnt/
"The guys putting their balls on the line will need to salute these young women and call them "Ma'am!" even though the latter face essentially zero danger"
It's already that way, Pierce.
btw,
that's the way it was done in the World War II draft, and, guess what...we won!! If we had not won that war, we wouldn't be sitting in our easy chairs right now typeing on our P.C.'s; national defense takes priority over other stuff - go figure.
okay, I just went and heated my coffee, then sat back down here and read over the thread, and you know what? Some of you guys are completely out of touch with reality on this issue. You sound like you are willing to have a thousand Jessica Lynch's in the name of gender equality. NO-ONE will have ANY rights if terrorists or other enemies get what they are after. In wartime, you have to do what works best.
Well, Norm, we're in the middle of a gender war right now, one in which the enemy has already invaded our land and has drawn up battle lines right inside our homes.
Quite frankly, I'm all for putting women on the front lines, in greater numbers than men. Especially feminists. We're fighting against cultures which afford women far less privileges than our own cultures do, so there should be enough rationale there to draft women with feminist sentiments to the front lines first and foremost.
Feminists vs al-Qaeda. That's how the war should be fought, while men do the easy jobs. I simply hope that both sides kill off as many of the others as possible.
I agree with Snark.
Norm is missing the point entirely. Most fair-minded people understand that there is a difference between men and women. I and a lot of people here aren't willing to separate issues -- and give women benefits without having THEM, at long last, assume responsibilities. It's that simple.
And, yeah, Norm, young men do salute young women. But the difference is there's no draft. In the next war, I promise women will be drafted, and they will be inventing easy jobs for them in the military. And they will be paid the same and promoted as much as women.
"Seeing as feminism, and it's supporters, consider men to have only those rights they, the feminists and their supporters, afford us, being in harm's way and being killed on the battlefield's of war is not considered a right but a privilege. The part about "male privilege" is meant as sarcasm."
Anon,
I'm with you. I think I misinterpreted your comment. Thanks for clearing that up.
Snark,
I've been in the military, worked as a GS in defense area, and been a defense contractor, and I can assure you that putting women on the front lines would not work, except in 'extreme' cases (see below). Also, the military would never draft anyone then 'create' jobs. I think you're confusing volunteer/peacetime with draft/wartime.
Pierce, if you agree with Snark, yet you say women and men are different. I agree, they are different - that is why we should not put women in actual combat positions, except in 'extreme' cases like a woman is obviously as physically (and psychologically) as strong as a man. The problem is that I think they lower the standards for women, at least sometimes, so I'm not sure they would ever know if a woman was 'equal' in that regard.
I think it's easy on this board to get carried away with the gender stuff at the risk of being blinded to other things.
p.s.
I think combat usually pays 'extra' - 'combat pay' or whatever (same with submarine pay).
p.p.s.
didn't any of you guys ever watch M*A*S*H? That 70's/80's TV show was similar to reality in that women are on the front lines such as nurses, but are not actually shooting at anyone (unless to defend their 'base' in case of attack). It is not as if there is such a strict division as, 'there are guys in the hot desert toting rifles attacking enemy positons' on the one hand, and 'girls sitting in air conditoned offices filing their nails' on the other.
I am unwilling to have a discussion exempting women from the draft or from combat without also discussing all the other things we talk about on this and other sites: Shared parenting, Title IX, automatic arrest based on a lone allegation of rape, etc.
YES NORM, men and women are different. But I'll be damned if I am going to let the military draft be the ONLY area where this is acknowledged -- and it just happens to be the area where men have always assumed the responsibility and women have been given a free pass. So YES NORM, let's discuss exempting women -- in the context of the other discussions that also need to occur.
Snark, you are not an asshole. You are just spot on that's all! You are an asset to men everywhere!
Thank you for your posts and support.
okay, Title 9. They shouldn't use it to eliminate men's teams in the name of equality. Men are by nature more interested in athletics and competition than women, so no-one should be surprised that more of them go out for teams. Besides, the college and pro women's sports don't bring in near the bucks the men's do.
Is that what you mean?
Someday some feminist heroine will 'break the gender barrier' and ride in the front seat of that bus.
Someday I hope to see pigs fly too.
Jean,
We simply create all female units. Problem solved.
separate units are not a good idea if you mean ground combat. The enemy units would know where the 'weak spots' are and take advantage of them.
If women want rights then they'll have to fight just like the men. Exemption because of chivalry or other stupidity is not allowed.
Way to sum it up,Pierce.
I'm still of two minds about women being on the front line (social conditioning is hard to break), and most people disagree with it.
No,sitting on your ass and playing it safe are what women are good at. If "social conditioning" were really a factor you could have gotten the rest of the sisterhood to oppose it. Women have too much support and too much help to be "victims?" of "social conditioning".
Quite frankly, I'm all for putting women on the front lines, in greater numbers than men. Especially feminists. We're fighting against cultures which afford women far less privileges than our own cultures do, so there should be enough rationale there to draft women with feminist sentiments to the front lines first and foremost.
Feminists vs al-Qaeda. That's how the war should be fought, while men do the easy jobs. I simply hope that both sides kill off as many of the others as possible.
Snark,you sum it up perfectly.
Snark said...
"Seeing as feminism, and it's supporters, consider men to have only those rights they, the feminists and their supporters, afford us, being in harm's way and being killed on the battlefield's of war is not considered a right but a privilege. The part about "male privilege" is meant as sarcasm."
Anon,
I'm with you. I think I misinterpreted your comment. Thanks for clearing that up.
Jan 9, 2010 11:14:00 AM
No problem. I do enjoy reading your posts.
MM,
what will be stupid is if we lose a battle because of forced gender 'equality'.
what will be stupid is if we lose a battle because of forced gender 'equality'.
They have no problem forcing it on us and having men die for a matriarchy is idocy. If women want this matriarchy so bad then let them fight for it.
You're arguing for continued male disposibility and it's getting old.
sigh.
Post a Comment