The Conservative War On Women

The Conformist wrote:

Oh don't get me wrong, I know there are isn't a family out there who WANTS their child going to war, I'm simply saying that there would be more of an outcry if women were made to go along with the men.

Good. More outcry is a good thing. People *should* be pissed that their kids are being sent to foreign countries to be shot at, regardless of the kid's configuration of genitals.

Tanglebones wrote:

Laws being what they are, this might end up leading to an all-Trans army.

Funny you should say that. Trans people enlist at a higher rate than the cis population (the going theory is that it's a good outlet for affirmation for trans men and attempted suppression for trans women.) Yet being transgender is still grounds for discharge in the U.S. military.

weswilson wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

And in the 70's when the suggestion of women for selective service requirement was on the table, feminists did not seem to be lunging at cameras when anti-feminist women called for the governmental patriarchy to protect women from combat.

While I have no links to confirm or deny this, it seems like a strawman. Were there many men "lunging at cameras" to be drafted?

Well the draft had been the law since the 40's. Selective service was a step up, in my opinion, compared to the draft system-mandatory 18 month service.

And I would say that sitting idly by as women like Phyllis Schlafly were making speeches against women in the selective service for very anti-feminist reasons is probably the biggest blotch on American Feminism that I can think of.

The message that carried was women have no place in combat, in harms way. And so we have the exemption for women. I do not agree, yet I have not uncovered much public outcry from feminists at the time to refute.

Anecdotally, a large portion of the trans people I know are actually ex military.

KingGorilla wrote:

The message that carried was women have no place in combat, in harms way. And so we have the exemption for women. I do not agree, yet I have not uncovered much public outcry from feminists at the time to refute.

The last time the draft was relevant was in the 1970s, a time when women were still effectively barred from many professions that seem silly today. We still don't have equality for women in the military forty years later, it would've been an utterly futile battle then.

Feminists, particularly outspoken feminists, tend to be liberal. I'm guessing there was a lot of overlap between those feminists and war protestors -- in other words, instead of arguing that women should be drafted, they would've taken the stance that no one should be drafted, which is completely consistent with feminism.

Seth wrote:

Anecdotally, a large portion of the trans people I know are actually ex military.

Ditto, and my dad remarked on this once too for his generation (Vietnam-era).

Jonman wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

Oh don't get me wrong, I know there are isn't a family out there who WANTS their child going to war, I'm simply saying that there would be more of an outcry if women were made to go along with the men.

Good. More outcry is a good thing. People *should* be pissed that their kids are being sent to foreign countries to be shot at, regardless of the kid's configuration of genitals.

I know this is off topic but, sometimes no matter what happens, war can be unavoidable in certain cases when dealing with madmen. Sometimes for our own protection we must fight.

weswilson wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

I do not agree, yet I have not uncovered much public outcry from feminists at the time to refute.

As my memory serves, I think recall MEN making a public outcry that they should be drafted and delivered into "harm's way". I think your expectations for women are a bit unrealistic.

Women are just people. If the bill Carter signed said that Gingers are exempted, I would not expect the Irish Anti-Defamation Federation to protest either. But that is why we do not have women in combat all the same.

I think on the ACLU lawsuit it offers any court prima facie arguments that women in combat is not an Equal Rights Issue, but is instead a democratic issue. Meaning, it is for congress to decide.

KingGorilla wrote:

I do not agree, yet I have not uncovered much public outcry from feminists at the time to refute.

As my memory serves, I can't recall MEN making a public outcry that they should be drafted and delivered into "harm's way". I think your expectations for women are a bit unrealistic.

The Conformist wrote:

I know this is off topic but, sometimes no matter what happens, war can be unavoidable in certain cases when dealing with madmen. Sometimes for our own protection we must fight.

If war is truly unavoidable, then someone's kids, someone's friends, someone's family has to go risk their life. It's cowardly to say "Yes, someone must fight this unavoidable war, but not MY family."

If war isn't unavoidable, then yes they should take a long hard look at themselves before being willing to send other people's sons and daughters off to die when they wouldn't be willing to send their own.

Demyx wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

I know this is off topic but, sometimes no matter what happens, war can be unavoidable in certain cases when dealing with madmen. Sometimes for our own protection we must fight.

If war is truly unavoidable, then someone's kids, someone's friends, someone's family has to go risk their life. It's cowardly to say "Yes, someone must fight this unavoidable war, but not MY family."

If war isn't unavoidable, then yes they should take a long hard look at themselves before being willing to send other people's sons and daughters off to die when they wouldn't be willing to send their own.

I always liked the idea that my rabbi friend once suggested. She said that for every month that our nation was at war, every lawmaker who voted for it should have to give a pint of blood....drawn with a dull needle.

The Conformist wrote:
Jonman wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

Oh don't get me wrong, I know there are isn't a family out there who WANTS their child going to war, I'm simply saying that there would be more of an outcry if women were made to go along with the men.

Good. More outcry is a good thing. People *should* be pissed that their kids are being sent to foreign countries to be shot at, regardless of the kid's configuration of genitals.

I know this is off topic but, sometimes no matter what happens, war can be unavoidable in certain cases when dealing with madmen. Sometimes for our own protection we must fight.

Absolutely agree. However, how many of the wars of the last 50 years that the US has been involved in have qualified to that criteria?

Jonman wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
Jonman wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

Oh don't get me wrong, I know there are isn't a family out there who WANTS their child going to war, I'm simply saying that there would be more of an outcry if women were made to go along with the men.

Good. More outcry is a good thing. People *should* be pissed that their kids are being sent to foreign countries to be shot at, regardless of the kid's configuration of genitals.

I know this is off topic but, sometimes no matter what happens, war can be unavoidable in certain cases when dealing with madmen. Sometimes for our own protection we must fight.

Absolutely agree. However, how many of the wars of the last 50 years that the US has been involved in have qualified to that criteria?

Edit: off topic, not helpful to the subject at hand.

She said that for every month that our nation was at war, every lawmaker who voted for it should have to give a pint of blood....drawn with a dull needle.

I like the needle idea, but I think two months is the medically accepted safe zone. Losing a pint a month could kill the politicians, eventually. Maybe that's the idea, but I'm not sure it's such a good one.

But every two months? Absolutely. And they should have to watch the nurse stick them, too.

I agree with the comments about not relaxing the standards to allow women. We should never relax standards, especially not in a fighting unit. Figure out a way to bring the women up to speed, don't make the force less effective.

I suspect that probably a surprisingly high percentage of women could meet the physical standards, if they wanted to. They'd probably have to Hulk out a little, getting much more muscular than our culture generally finds attractive in women, but I think we'd all be impressed at just how well they could do, when motivated to succeed.

The fundamental assumption seems to be that most women couldn't hack it, but I suspect that assumption is incorrect.

Malor wrote:

The fundamental assumption seems to be that most women couldn't hack it, but I suspect that assumption is incorrect.

The fundamental assumption is that most people couldn't hack it.

Only 15% of 17-24 year olds are eligible to join the army. The primary reasons for ineligibility are college, health and criminal record. (source - TIME magazine article: the online version of the article is shorter and doesn't contain that stat, but I pulled it from the print edition in my bathroom, which is conveniently mirrored here).

I think that if you're pushed hard enough to face conscription, you should be facing annihilation - an existential threat.

In face of such a threat, I think there has to be a realization of a very basic thing - as far as human survival is concerned, men are more expendable than women, since it's the number of women that determine the maximum birth rate possible, which may need to be accounted for in a generational war for survival. At that point, I don't care whether or not a woman is stronger than a man - she's too valuable to risk in open combat. You don't risk a general in an infantry position, especially if he's a brilliant strategist.

For voluntary action meddling in the affairs of other people? I'm kind of against that on principle wholesale.

LarryC wrote:

I think that if you're pushed hard enough to face conscription, you should be facing annihilation - an existential threat.

In face of such a threat, I think there has to be a realization of a very basic thing - as far as human survival is concerned, men are more expendable than women, since it's the number of women that determine the maximum birth rate possible, which may need to be accounted for in a generational war for survival. At that point, I don't care whether or not a woman is stronger than a man - she's too valuable to risk in open combat. You don't risk a general in an infantry position, especially if he's a brilliant strategist.

For voluntary action meddling in the affairs of other people? I'm kind of against that on principle wholesale.

For that rational to hold true then women should be conscripted too, but they should be conscripted to brothels.

Yonder wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I think that if you're pushed hard enough to face conscription, you should be facing annihilation - an existential threat.

In face of such a threat, I think there has to be a realization of a very basic thing - as far as human survival is concerned, men are more expendable than women, since it's the number of women that determine the maximum birth rate possible, which may need to be accounted for in a generational war for survival. At that point, I don't care whether or not a woman is stronger than a man - she's too valuable to risk in open combat. You don't risk a general in an infantry position, especially if he's a brilliant strategist.

For voluntary action meddling in the affairs of other people? I'm kind of against that on principle wholesale.

For that rational to hold true then women should be conscripted too, but they should be conscripted to brothels.

I get the extreme you're taking Larry's point to, but I seem to remember like points being made in my history classes in college concerning the value of women to a society. Heck, the point is even illustrated in some fiction. What was that book that was all rabbits? They realized pretty quick that their sausagefest of a new colony had a fundamental problem pretty quick after they established themselves and the rest of the book was their battle for mates from another colony. Looking back, that was a weird book for me to read in junior high.

Watership Down.

Yonder:

Not to brothels - negatively affects fertility, and brothels aren't good places to raise children anyway. It's not sex for the sake of sex. It's reproduction in the most elemental way - to carry on the human species, or at least your tribe's part of the human species.

In an existential crisis, even women conscripted to child-bearing cannot afford to just be child-bearers. They will have to work to keep the economy and industry going right up until they give birth, and if they're natural bearers, back to work within the week. Designated child-rearers will raise children in communal, well-protected strongholds.

Demosthenes:

I think many Westerners no longer really understand what an existential crisis really is because it's gone from popular memory in many areas. I don't think there's a point anybody living remembers in these areas where it's either the only women alive have to bear children or the only people in the area die out.

It's not at all a worship thing. It's not sex. It's people having to do what they need to do to live on.

Considering one of the biggest problems facing the world today is rampant overpopulation, I'm not sure how much thought we need to be putting into situations where we're living in mineshafts with ten women to every man.

Demyx wrote:

Considering one of the biggest problems facing the world today is rampant overpopulation, I'm not sure how much thought we need to be putting into situations where we're living in mineshafts with ten women to every man.

IMAGE(http://www.fastcodesign.com/multisite_files/codesign/imagecache/inline-large/post-inline/tumblr_lex3s2CgQN1qe0eclo1_r9_500.gif)

I am not sure how much of an issue is over-population due to births. The global rate is 2.5 kids per woman. Even in the developing world, birth rates are declining fast. The areas with the highest birth rates tend to also have the highest infant mortality.

Our real issue of over-population is from people living longer, not babies.

There is a fun Ted talk on this, with visual aids. Basically, as the world gets ever closer to mere sustainability birth rates, and the population ages the world as it is today could support about 9-10 billion people.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_roslin...

So as people live longer, with a greater quality of life, 2-2.10 births on average will almost happen automatically. Access to family planning is expanding even in the developing world, and independent of religious pressures. The fertility rate in the Middle East for example, is in the range for the world average.

What is a global, national, and feminine issue is the fact that access to family planning, lower birth rates strongly correlates with higher quality of life, longer life, stronger economy. Based on the date, prosperity does not necessarily cause birth rates to decline, the reverse may in fact be more truthful.

Tanglebones wrote:
Demyx wrote:

Considering one of the biggest problems facing the world today is rampant overpopulation, I'm not sure how much thought we need to be putting into situations where we're living in mineshafts with ten women to every man.

IMAGE(http://www.fastcodesign.com/multisite_files/codesign/imagecache/inline-large/post-inline/tumblr_lex3s2CgQN1qe0eclo1_r9_500.gif)

I can't help but find myself absolutely mesmerized by that. Are there side effects to starring at George C. Scotts face for too long?

Dr. Strangelove gifs class up any thread.

The Conformist wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
Demyx wrote:

Considering one of the biggest problems facing the world today is rampant overpopulation, I'm not sure how much thought we need to be putting into situations where we're living in mineshafts with ten women to every man.

IMAGE(http://www.fastcodesign.com/multisite_files/codesign/imagecache/inline-large/post-inline/tumblr_lex3s2CgQN1qe0eclo1_r9_500.gif)

I can't help but find myself absolutely mesmerized by that. Are there side effects to starring at George C. Scotts face for too long?

For more gifs like this, check out If We Don't, Remember Me (the site of the person that made this one).

Moved here from the How to be a Woman thread, since it wasn't in Cleveland, and it applies to women as well:

If you dress as the opposite sex at the Brussels Institute of Higher Education University HUB, it's kinda your fault a bit if you get raped.

I think making a joke out of drag should be banned for another reason. But the response if giving me a similar vibe to:
"This scandal is not about celibacy,

Spoiler:

it's about homosexuality."

KingGorilla wrote:

I think making a joke out of drag should be banned for another reason. But the response if giving me a similar vibe to:
"This scandal is not about celibacy,

Spoiler:

it's about homosexuality."

I got more of a "but she had on a tight bathrobe" vibe out of it. It's his fault for dressing like a woman. The rapists couldn't help themselves. Poor guys.

The comment by the Brussels regional Secretary of state responsible for equal opportunities (what a cumbersome title!) was spot-on. I like the guy already.

I feel that HUB is sending out completely the wrong signal. By reacting in this way they are at least implying that the rape was the victim’s fault. “He should have known that this is provocative to certain people”, What? And so this justifies someone being attacked of rape? What about transgender men and women then? Should they also “adapt””?

"As a society we should make it clear to the victims that they have our support and say to the perpetrators that their behaviour is unacceptable and that they will be severely punished."

“The HUB should immediately send out a statement saying that it has made a mistake