A Voice for Men: we’ll support women in combat only if the proper percentage of women get killed.
Woman officially not in combat role.
As everyone reading this blog no doubt already knows, feminists have hailed the Pentagon’s decision to open combat jobs to women, which will allow women the same opportunities to serve as men. The decision is also a backhanded acknowledgement that, for all intents and purposes, women are serving in combat today already. (Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth lost both of her legs in combat in Iraq – but officially, what she was engaged in wasn’t combat.)
It seems inevitable that, as a result of this decision, young women will be required to sign up for selective service alongside men. While virtually all feminists I know oppose the draft, most agree that as long as registration is going to be required, it should be required for both men and women. Indeed, when selective service was reinstated in 1981, the National Organization for Women brought a lawsuit demanding this sort of equality.
Reaction amongst Men’s Rightsers to the Pentagon’s announcement has been mixed. Some have welcomed the change, as a “what’s good for the goose” acknowledgement of equal rights and responsibilities. Others, like most of the regulars on The Spearhead, predict catastrophe, as inherently unqualified women are sent to the front lines. Regular Spearhead commenter Uncle Elmer joked:
After this experiment runs its course, how many men will have died while bringing tampon supplies up to the front?
Can anyone tell me the additional garbage load from tampon-related issues on all-women submarines? Could a mission fail if some gal flushed her tampon down the toilet instead of following the proper mil-spec procedure?
But the most telling reaction has come from A Voice for Men, which in an editorial suggested that it would only support the move if women were required to die as often as men.
No, really. Here’s what the editorialist, presumably site founder Paul Elam, wrote:
AVFM supports the spirit of the new Pentagon Directive … However, any blanket approval of the new measure thus far would be premature. …
[T]he only way this new policy will have any meaning will be if it is mandatory that women face combat on the front lines. With 20% of the military being comprised of women, that means roughly 20% of combat related fatalities should be female. 1 in 5 of body bags being filled overseas should contain the bodies of mothers, sisters, daughters, wives and girlfriends.
AVFM isn’t alone in hoping that one result of the Pentagon’s new policy will be increased injury and death for women. On his blog the self-designated “counter-feminist agent of change” Fidelbogen quoted – with a weird sort of semi-approval – one comment from an unknown person he says he found online:
I know this isn’t a laughing matter but this is pretty fucking sweet. Now those very same women who complain about how hard childbirth is get to experience real pain and misery by getting their arms blown off by enemy fire or their legs blown off by mines. Or getting infections when they have to stay at their post for days at a time without taking a bath. Those same women who say all men are rapists can now see what real rape is when they are taken as POW’s and gang-raped by foreign men at gun point and passed around like a piece of meat and then their heads blown off when they are done. This is real war ladies, are you ready for your cup of true equality?
In the comments on AVFM, meanwhile one Rick Westlake helped to make clearer the vindictive subtext of the AVFM’s editorial, suggesting that the Pentagon’s decision could be good for men if it served to
rub … some high-ratcheted, ‘entitled/empowered’ noses in the misandric, disposable-male double standard of the Selective Service system.
Our current society, including our military, makes mock of ‘equality’ by divorcing ‘opportunity’ from ‘consequences,’ ‘choices’ from ‘costs,’ and ‘benefits’ from ‘responsibility.’ Princesses are awarded all of the opportunities, choices and benefits and are excused from all the responsibility, costs and consequences. ‘Draft-pigs,’ meaning men, are made to shoulder all those dirty, nasty, dangerous and demeaning responsibilities, consequences and costs on behalf of the Entitled Empowered Princesses.
Putting women on the combat line would be disastrous for the military … But the fact remains, enough Princesses have clamored for the ‘opportunities and benefits’ of serving in the front line, heedless of the consequences and the costs.
By requiring Princesses to register for Selective Service, before they can claim the benefits that ‘draft-pigs’ can only receive if they’ve registered – and by declaring them liable for the same fines and penalties as the draft-pigs, if they don’t – we at least remind them that freedom isn’t free, that choices have costs, and that true equality includes responsibility and consequences.
I can already hear the thin, reedy screeches from the Princesses. Fine. Let them learn what it is to hump 35-pound fifty-cal ammo cans to feed Ma Deuce in a firefight. Or let them scuttle back to the home and the hearth, and give thanks for (and to) the Brave Men who will defend them.
Elam himself echoed this vindictive “let them eat equality” stance in a sneering comment posted under his own name suggesting that in the wake of the Pentagon’s new policy plenty of women won’t find the “aroma” of equality to
be so sweet … This is what feminism was always about, and now, after three waves, the chickens are going to come home to roost. Because feminism never was about anything but creating tax paying, laboring, consuming, bleeding and dying servants to the masters of corporatocracy.
They lured women in with visions of corner offices and autonomy, and now that they have fully taken the bait, the doors are going to be slammed behind them and locked. They will be left to languish in their “freedom” as corporate wage slaves, and when needed they will be forced to contribute to the rivers of blood required to keep it going.
NOW and others will likely succeed in keeping the last part “optional” for while, but it won’t last.
The grand daughters of today’s college woman is as fucked as any man in history.
To which every feminist I know would say: bring it on. Feminists are well aware that equality, along with its many benefits, brings certain costs. Putting more women into combat roles means, inevitably, that more women will be injured or killed. The feminists supporting the Pentagon’s decision are aware of this. Unlike many MRAs, though, they look at combat injuries and deaths as one of the sad but inevitable consequences of war — not as something to rub anyone’s face into.
Here’s a hint to any MRAs who think that either AVFM or the more blatantly sadistic commenter quoted by Fidelbogen has a point: Civil Rights activism is about uplifting everyone, not making others “pay.”
When the American civil rights movement took up the issue of voting rights, civil rights activists demanded that black people be allowed to vote without harassment or other obstacles like “literacy tests” standing in their way.
Civil rights activists didn’t demand that whites be kept from voting.
The Civil Rights movement called for historically all-white colleges to be opened up to blacks. It didn’t call for white people to be banned from these colleges too.
This is how you can tell that the Men’s Rights movement, as it stands today, is not a true civil rights movement. Because insofar as it is about anything other than complaining about (and sometimes harassing) feminists and women in general, it’s about tearing down rather than building up.
Instead of trying to build domestic violence shelters and other services for men, for example, the MRM is more interested in defunding shelters for women – even when their efforts in this area directly harm male victims.
It’s telling that when Father’s Rights activist Glenn Sacks had an issue with the advertisements being run by one DV shelter, he encouraged his followers to bombard the shelter’s donors with phone calls in order to cripple the shelter’s fundraising efforts – even though the shelter in question also provides services for men. It’s telling as well that MRAs rail endlessly against the Violence Against Women Act, and have celebrated Republican opposition to it – even though the act is officially gender neutral in everything but its name, and would provide funding for men’s shelters if MRAs got off their asses to build any.
Instead of fighting for the rights of male victims of rape, the Men’s Rights movement is more interested in downplaying the rape of women, wildly exaggerating the number of “false rape accusations,” and in endless discussions about whether or not having sex with women incapacitated with drinks or drugs is really rape. All of these things contribute to a “rape culture” that harms male victims of rape as well as female.
Not that most MRAs actually care about male victims of rape except as a debating point — perhaps because that would require acknowledging that the overwhelming majority of their rapists are other men. (MRAs do get outraged in the rare cases in which women are the culprits.) The group that does more than any other to fight for male rape victims is the anti-prison rape group Just Detention. Try to find even a mention of this group on any of the leading Men’s Rights sites. (The only mention of the group on AVFM is a comment in a post attacking a feminist writer noting that it isn’t part of the Men’s Rights movement.)
There are endless other examples, because this is in essence the way that the so-called “Men’s Rights” movement does business.
When you take a certain pleasure in the notion of women being “made to pay” or otherwise harmed when they seek equality, you’re about as much of a civil rights movement as the Klan.
Posted on January 26, 2013, in a voice for men, antifeminism, are these guys 12 years old?, douchebaggery, feminism, gloating, hate, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, paul elam, princesses, reactionary bullshit, taking pleasure in women's pain, the spearhead, women in combat and tagged a voice for men, antifeminism, men's rights, misogyny, women in combat. Bookmark the permalink. 1,143 Comments.
If this isn’t him then I think we just found him a girlfriend.
Aw, it’s so cute how dumbass is trying to educate us.
“All you have done is achieve what I term equality of suffering.”
Except you’re blathering about something that doesn’t exist and hence doesn’t cause suffering.
Have we had this song yet?
Cassandra – that means we export Cassie to wherever Boring Schticky lives, ‘cos I’m darned if I’m having him come here and maybe breed Boring Twigs.
“You don’t get to go from the specific to the general just because your *cough*argument*cough* doesn’t hold.”
Why, why can’t I abandon an argument that didn’t work and present a new one? Or in this case an example. Seems like honest arguing to me. I don’t think it is shifting the goalposts so much as discussing things.
That was what proved you’re an idiot. Military leaders know in advance how many personnel they’re going to need in order to wage a campaign. Whether they get what they need is another story, but the actual commanders know they need a certain number of personnel to accomplish certain goals. The people in charge are given the estimates of how many people will be needed to wage a certain campaign, and that’s how many people are deployed. In cases like Vietnam, when the existing army didn’t have enough people, the draft was used to reach the goal number.
Case in point: when the US engaged in the surge in Iraq, they didn’t have to suddenly institute the draft to scare up soldiers from out of nowhere. They used existing trained combat personnel to do it. That was a situation where more soldiers were needed to complete a certain campaign. It did not result in tons more people suddenly becoming soldiers, or even tons more people suddenly becoming combat units.
Your entire argument that somehow having a larger pool of potential draftees would mean there would be more soldiers drafted is ludicrous. A military draft is in order to meet an established quota, because if they could meet the needed numbers without doing a draft, they’ll do it.
They don’t look at the pool and think “OK if we added people in a higher age bracket/different race/different gender, we could kill a lot more of these people!”
Your argument shows you have no actual knowledge or understanding of anything related to military action, and you’re also too stupid to bother learning before you made an ass of yourself on the internet.
How will the breeding happen? Given the attitude to offspring I assume that will require sperm jacking.
“You don’t know how this works, do you, Cassie? Go find your own info.”
You don’t know how this works do you hell? You have to provide evidence to support your assertions. No shifting of the burden of proof.
@ Kittehs
On behalf of my adopted nation I reject your offer to export Cassie to us. We have enough stupid people already.
But you are asserting that more people would die in war if women were drafted. (If it wouldn’t, then your entire argument about how drafting women would increase suffering falls apart.) So you need to demonstrate that this is the case.
You can’t just shift the burden of proof onto the people who question your premises like this. That’s not how logical arguments work.
To derail this thread further into music, I’m happy that Spotify is now not recommending One Direction to me when I login. :)
“That was what proved you’re an idiot. Military leaders know in advance how many personnel they’re going to need in order to wage a campaign”
That is simply not true, the amount of troops in afghanistan and iraq has changed often and without the foresight back at the start of the campaign that this was going to occur.
Cassie: I’m not making the ASSertions, you are. are your arms tired from all the goalpost shifting?
“Except you’re blathering about something that doesn’t exist and hence doesn’t cause suffering.”
I still don’t understand why you continue to insist that men being required to register for the draft is something that doesn’t exist. Clearly it does.
Citation needed, twit.
“Citation needed, twit.”
Sorry it isn’t my place to educate you, Use google.
Ahem.
Imma go cook, have fun tossing the troll around while I’m gone.
I mean, sure, if you don’t want to actually convince anyone, you can just keep raising increasingly abstract hypothetical scenarios which support your muddled and constantly changing assertions. If, however, you want to convince people, you bring some facts to support your argument, and make that argument consistently.
Just saying.
@Cassandra, tandoori chicken chaat…
*wipes drool from chin*
I have to wait 3weeks until my (otherwise much-adored) mother- in-law leaves before i can make Indian food again. Also, the Indian food outlets here are awful. Thank the recipe book deity for neelam batra.
From the troll who has no understanding of military history or current military theory.
Because clearly drafting up people means that you can deploy them in any rank or trade at short notice. Because all military jobs are easy.
Not only are you insulting our intelligence, you are also insulting current and past members of the military. Fuck off.
Actually I think Cassie is getting exactly what they came for.
Cassandra – didn’t think I’d be able to smuggle her over there. Curses! We really need Reddit Island to ship ‘em both to.
“Why, why can’t I abandon an argument that didn’t work and present a new one? Or in this case an example. Seems like honest arguing to me.”
LOL if you were being honest you’d have admitted you got facts wrong. Changing tack and changing subject isn’t honest, just the opposite.
“But you are asserting that more people would die in war if women were drafted.”
No I am not, go back to the start of the conversation. Someone asserted that there would necessarily be the same body count. I asked for evidence of this, as I don’t tend to just assume things are true because someone stated it was.
“then your entire argument about how drafting women would increase suffering falls apart.)”
No this was not my argument. My argument was that the “wrong” thing of requiring people to register for the draft is not solved by requiring both men and women to do it. The equality of suffering I am referring to is requiring both men and women to register not anything to do with body count, which I think is an entirely seperate issue.
“You can’t just shift the burden of proof onto the people who question your premises like this. That’s not how logical arguments work.”
Actually it is they who are shifting the burden of proof onto me, as are you. If you think it won’t change the body count please present evidence to support that assertion.
“LOL if you were being honest you’d have admitted you got facts wrong. ”
I admit I was wrong about Vietnam. At least for the purposes of this argument. It was a poor example. However it doesn’t matter. The person who asserted it would not change the body count still needs to meet their burden of proof.
“Because clearly drafting up people means that you can deploy them in any rank or trade at short notice. Because all military jobs are easy.”
I never said or even implied anything of the sort.
I don’t get that. Why wouldn’t a person at least try to convince other people their arguments are correct? Instead, we get this:
I guess that’s why I’m not a troll.
There was never an original comment about having women serve increasing the body count. The original comment was:
See, the argument was that the total would be the same, but within that total there would be a higher percentage of female casualties.
Reading for comprehension would be a good start, troll.
Clearly Cassie doesn’t get what the site header means, she thinks this is Debate 101.
Tedious troll is tedious.
And no one here has argued that requiring both men and women to register for the draft negates the fact that having a draft at all is a bad thing.
“I mean, sure, if you don’t want to actually convince anyone, you can just keep raising increasingly abstract hypothetical scenarios which support your muddled and constantly changing assertions. If, however, you want to convince people, you bring some facts to support your argument, and make that argument consistently. ”
The abstract scenarios were not meant to convince anyone of my argument they were meant to illuminate my thinking on the matter as people did not understand it and were making the assumption I was saying women make incompetent soldiers.
My assertions are a little muddled yes, but it is difficult to respond to half a dozen or more people all saying different things at the same time. The nature of the beast of this kind of forum unfortunately.
I will make my argument as clear as possible…here we go
1) wrong thing (register for the draft) is also unfair (only men are required to register)
2) making the wrong thing fair does not mean it is no longer a wrong thing.
3) making a wrong thing fair can be damaging. As it spreads the wrong thing to more people.
4) it is analogous to lowering men’s wages, rather than raising women’s to achieve pay equity, the wrong thing is now fair but everyone loses.
5) It is better to have less people experiencing the wrong thing rather than more, the problem is in the fact it is a wrong thing not an unfair thing and that is what should be addressed
6) (conclusion) It is better to target the wrong thing than unfair thing. Just as I disagree strongly with MRAs when they want to defund women’s shelters because men don’t have shelters (afterall if no one has shelters it becomes fair) because the wrong thing still exists, it just spreads it to more people
Your premise 3 is incorrect. Increasing the number of people registered (e.g. doubled) does not mean that twice the number of people would actually be drafted.
@Cassie – No. You’re wrong. And you’re an idiot. And I strongly suspect you’re a returning troll. You’re either willfully not understanding what you’re saying or you’re throwing shit against the wall without rhyme or reason because you want attention.
This isn’t a courtroom. It’s a blog that mocks misogyny. There is no “burden of proof.” Nobody here has to prove anything to you with facts or citations. It’s not like you’ve offered any yourself, and even if we did offer them, you’d reject them for whatever reasons you can pull out of your ass.
If you want to feel smugly superior about how you’re so much smarter than us for that reason, go ahead. Nobody here will care, if it means that much to you. Fold your arms and smirk at the computer and enjoy trying to get the Cheeto dust out of your t-shirt and fedora, but you’re not worth my time.
@everyone else – I had a chicken sandwich for dinner, because we were rushing to go see “The Hobbit” this evening. I found the movie rather dull – felt like I’d been there, done that, but this time there was a sad lack of attractive men to distract me from how much the movie was dragging. ;)
“And no one here has argued that requiring both men and women to register for the draft negates the fact that having a draft at all is a bad thing.”
Refer to my previous message, I think it makes my position as clear as I can make it.
Your analogies and arguments are still nonsensical. Buh-bye.
Except the “wrong thing” here is an entirely hypothetical thing which does not actually harm anyone in real life. And so it would be entirely stupid to treat it as a real harm.
Sigh.
@drst if this is a place where trolls keep pulling stuff out of their arses, then I believe we can call ourselves proctologists :)
“Except the “wrong thing” here is an entirely hypothetical thing ”
No no, the wrong thing to which I refer is not the draft itself or whether it will ever be put into effect but the fact there are requirements to register to the draft. That is not hypothetical. That is fact.
And what kiwi girl said too.
Cassie has been here before, as Cassie. I don’t necessarily think she’s a sock, just annoying and immature.
Has she been here before? Guess she needed more attention.
No one has to register for the draft.
“Your premise 3 is incorrect. Increasing the number of people registered (e.g. doubled) does not mean that twice the number of people would actually be drafted.”
I never stated it would increase the number of peopel drafted, I said it would increase the number of people required to register to the draft.
I have to sign a loyalty oath as a condition of my employment. It is a relic of the 1950s, which no one has ever been actually prosecuted under. In practice, people violate this oath openly without any adverse affects.
This loyalty oath, that I oppose on principle, is a hypothetical problem in the real world. As an activist, I would be stupid if I focused on this oath rather than the actual injustices my employer does practice on a daily basis.
The difference is between activists who want to make a difference, as versus those who want to just JAQ off on the internet. I don’t have a lot of respect for the latter, sorry.
Cassie, registration may not be a hypothetical thing, but in the current circumstances it is a pretty much meaningless thing, as the chances of a draft returning in the foreseeable future are remote, to say the least. Were the draft to return I and I think plenty of others here would put a good deal of energy towards doing away with the draft for men, not towards extending the draft to women.
As it stands, no one here is actually doing anything about it one way or the other because it seems like registration for women is simply inevitable, as there is no longer any coherent legal argument against it. I think this will be handled by the courts.
Backing up thebewilderness, there is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States"No draft in the US.
So there is no wrong.
“No no, the wrong thing to which I refer is not the draft itself or whether it will ever be put into effect but the fact there are requirements to register to the draft.”
So you really are whining about someone signing a paper even though it will never be acted on. You’re every bit as stupid and childish about the “we shouldn’t be made to vote” idiots.
Christ, just GROW UP.
Darn, at least I got half the links right…
“@Cassie – No. You’re wrong. And you’re an idiot. And I strongly suspect you’re a returning troll. You’re either willfully not understanding what you’re saying or you’re throwing shit against the wall without rhyme or reason because you want attention. ”
No, I have only been on here under my name and I strongly believe in my position.
“This isn’t a courtroom. It’s a blog that mocks misogyny. There is no “burden of proof.” Nobody here has to prove anything to you with facts or citations. It’s not like you’ve offered any yourself, and even if we did offer them, you’d reject them for whatever reasons you can pull out of your ass. ”
Agreed, they don’t have to, but if they don’t I am not going to just accept what they say is factual. Also you may want to tell HellKell that since she demanded citations from me.
“If you want to feel smugly superior about how you’re so much smarter than us for that reason, go ahead. Nobody here will care, if it means that much to you. Fold your arms and smirk at the computer and enjoy trying to get the Cheeto dust out of your t-shirt and fedora, but you’re not worth my time. ”
I am really confused about why you are insisting on putting all these ill intentions on me. I don’t feel “smugly superior about how you’re so much smarter than us for that reason,” I just feel like I am arguing my point on a blog I enjoy reading. On that point however you can read every comment I have written on this blog and at no point have I denigrated someones intellect. When you scroll back on this thread you can count how many times people have called me dumb. You may need a calculator.
“Cassie, registration may not be a hypothetical thing, but in the current circumstances it is a pretty much meaningless thing, as the chances of a draft returning in the foreseeable future are remote, to say the least”
I do agree with that, however you nonetheless expressed an opinion on this subject which I strongly disagree with and I wanted to argue my point.
David, a bit on biodegradable plastics here, I assume you wish to keep the moisture self-contained within the murder room: http://www.plastics.org.nz/environmental/degradableplastics/
You need to read back to what you have said and then it will all be made clear.
HAHAHA. You may enjoy this blog, but you’ve clearly learned nothing from it. Quick: what’s the header of the blog again?
“So you really are whining about someone signing a paper even though it will never be acted on. You’re every bit as stupid and childish about the “we shouldn’t be made to vote” idiots.”
If you don’t oppose people being required to register to the draft my arguments were never directed towards you I was merely addressing this assertion…
“While virtually all feminists I know oppose the draft, most agree that as long as registration is going to be required, it should be required for both men and women.”
As for the vote thing, I don’t have an opinion on that one way or another. Arguments for and against are pretty compelling so I will stick to the fence on that one.
This just seems like a really weird point to go to the mat defending on a blog that you enjoy reading. Registering for a non-existent draft. Huh. I would pick other battles, personally.
“This just seems like a really weird point to go to the mat defending on a blog that you enjoy reading.”
Why?
I have commented before and nobody challenged what I said so I didn’t really need to go to the mat.
I’m nothing like caught up yet, but Cassie’s Mr. Al right? The “teach me!”, the goalpost shifting, the tedium, if not Mr. Al then the two of them should really go have coffee and leave the rest of us alone.
Properly on topic, my father was ranting earlier about liberals being unsuited for war, and women, and non-Christians (cuz crazy religious believes that lead to killing for their god *ahem*) — so apparently we’re going to have a draft of Christian conservative males. Hey Pecunium, you were never fit for duty anyways, being a liberal and all! (Yeah ok, you really shouldn’t ever meet him)
That right there? Conservative paranoia at it’s finest, makes me enjoy MRAs and their simple hatred of women, so much easier to just point and laugh. I’m not really sure how childbirth makes cis women less suited for war, you’d think “able to grunt through severe pain” would be seen as a perk.
And seriously, bathroom panic all over again? Hey MRAs, you know what people without flush toilets think about when they need to go? Finding a bush and wtf to wipe with (bring a flashlight, cuz poisin ivy) — can’t imagine it’s much different in combat, besides the obvious “avoid getting shot” factor.
Er, read the sentence after the one you quoted I guess? Like, why dig in your heels and alienate everyone over something that has no impact on any human beings?
If you can’t see that, I’m done talking to you. No offense; there’s just no point.
Kiwigirl
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/draftreg.htm
“r, read the sentence after the one you quoted I guess? Like, why dig in your heels and alienate everyone over something that has no impact on any human beings? ”
If people are alienated because I disagree with them over “a non existent draft” as you call then I am not really fussed. It is quite shallow. I’m not going to hold back on my opinion just because people may not like me. I would never get to say anything!
I also disagree it has no impact on human beings. If you do then my argument was never directed towards you, it was directed towards David when he stated…
“While virtually all feminists I know oppose the draft, most agree that as long as registration is going to be required, it should be required for both men and women. “
“You know who Cassie reminds me of? Those people who oppose legalizing gay marriage because they think the institution of marriage should be abolished entirely.”
Yeah, I knew a gay couple like that, it was why they weren’t officially married (they’d had a very lovely private ceremony) — neither of them gave a rats ass if anyone else got married, they just weren’t doing it themselves. In other words, Cassie’s got less brains than that crowd, or at least the people like that that I’ve known.
And I’m fairly sure eating small amounts of glitter is harmless (shit is impossible to get off your hands after all) — probably best to stick to play-doh, or the flour and water glue.
What cloudiah said. At this point in my life I just don’t have any time for immature wannabe activists who get stuck on hypotheticals instead of focusing on real-world problems. Such people turn up in any activist group, and they’re always an irritant that the more serious activists have to work around. I resent them wasting my time.
“RIDDLE: There’s this thing, a thing that men don’t take seriously, and women don’t either, but it would be a huge human rights violation to extend this thing to cover more people.
WHAT IS THIS THING?”
Using blue or black pens to fill out forms!
Dinner was 90 second rice because my dumb ass got up at 10 pm. I do have coffee that’ll put hair on your chest though (with hazelnut creamer, whipped cream and cinnamon). Coffee anyone? :)
@ Argenti
Wow, that’s a pretty small military your Dad’s hoping to create. Guess it’s lucky that the US is under no danger of invasion.
From http://www.sss.gov/ABOUT.HTM
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System
So, not a draft.
Do men’s rights groups want to get rid of the draft? Seems like if they are against this ‘disposable male’ concept, fighting the draft might be one of those things they should really get on.
IME they don’t really care about the draft, just about the hypothetical feminists who they think support it.
“What cloudiah said. At this point in my life I just don’t have any time for immature wannabe activists who get stuck on hypotheticals instead of focusing on real-world problems. Such people turn up in any activist group, and they’re always an irritant that the more serious activists have to work around.”
I feel like addressing some assumptions you continuously make about me. One at a time.
” I just don’t have any time for immature wannabe activists”
I’m no airmchair warrior, I particiapate in campaigns for refugee rights, palestinian rights, indigenous rights, women’s rights, LGBTI rights, etc. I have been to protests and been kettled by police, been assaulted by police, been dragged off by police. There is nothing wannabe about this activist.
” who get stuck on hypotheticals instead of focusing on real-world problems. ”
So because I asserted an opinion you didn’t like you assume I don’t focus on any problems (cassandra approved problems of course, which you refer to as real-world)? Are palestinian rights not real world problems? What about indigenous rights?
“Such people turn up in any activist group, ”
People who disagree with you turn up in any activist group? Wow! That is amazing.
“they’re always an irritant that the more serious activists have to work around”
More serious being only those who agree with you about all things at all times?
“I resent them wasting my time.”
I resent your churlishness and your spite.
RE Kiwi girl’s quotes, that’s yet another reason why the draft is a shitty way to defend a country. Nearly 200 days is much too long to wait in the event of an actual crisis.
Oh, I’m sure you care about a few actual problems. The thing is that people like you are never any real help, because your focus is off.