Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DWC]

Plenty of feminists are obviously sexist themselves and there is also a lot of systematic discrimination against males in society.

Men have greater rates of conviction for similar offenses, often have extreme difficulty gaining custody of their children due to entrenched biased in the justice system. Violence against men is acceptable or even humorous, while violence against women is shunned. And then you have the draft and conscription sending exclusively men off to war.

[Neonivek]

I will apologies for my irrational ranting.

 

then you have the draft and conscription sending exclusively men off to war

I have to say... if it wouldn't turn out badly... I wouldn't mind seeing a combination of the "should women be in the army" and this thread.

[Scoops Novel]

I've heard people mentioning disliking the terms of the draft, aside form only men. What are those terms?

[misko27]

As I recall, a Democrat who wants the Draft reinstated (To discourage wars.) also wants women in it too.

[Scoops Novel]

What potential wars was he planning to discourage?

[Neonivek]

What potential wars was he planning to discourage?

The between the United States and its Citizens?

[penguinofhonor]

What potential wars was he planning to discourage?

I assume any war against the US? Saying "Hey, we can conscript quite a few million extra soldiers if you attack us" could be a pretty convincing deterrent.

[misko27]

What potential wars was he planning to discourage?

The between the United States and its Citizens?

STOP BEING SIMILAR. NOW.


Anyway, the Draft is unpopular, and he is wishing to tie that unpopularity to wars. It likely would only discourage people from voting for him though.

[Glowcat]

Sometimes I feel like we might be better off coming up with new words instead of using two identical words for different but related things. That's basically a recipe for misery in communication, and this is an area  where communication, clear communication, is of pretty vital importance.

There's no need to create a bloat of vocabulary so long as people define their language for a particular argument. Personally I'm mixed about Gail's response (as relayed through the journalist). Systematic sexism against men isn't universally impossible but rather unlikely given the state of modern societies. Even if there were a situation that benefited women at the expense of men, it would be largely overshadowed by the reverse. It would still fit into a layman's definition of sexism based entirely on Samsung calling it 'Evolutionary Husband?', but if Gail wanted to argue anything it should have been that the discrimination there wasn't equatable with the sexism that feminists argue about. Comparatively... it is a joke to compare a single advertisement saying that men can be slobs and that a woman should be responsible with an entire culture backing restrictive social roles and punishing attempts at self-empowerment. Until men are restricted to a few roles which overall benefit women in terms of control over their own lives the worst a man-hater can do is give dudes mean looks and not get invited to parties.

then you have the draft and conscription sending exclusively men off to war

I have to say... if it wouldn't turn out badly... I wouldn't mind seeing a combination of the "should women be in the army" and this thread.

It'd probably come up eventually.

The draft shouldn't even be a thing imo, but if it was I'd rather people not be limited in how they can serve unless those are based on real considerations for abilities that don't rely on poorly reasoned generalities. However, the draft isn't necessarily sexist because it's not done for the benefit of women at the expense of men, but rather benefits some men at the expense of other men. If we were to simply call any negative effect like that an "ism" we'd have to call all of humanity 'everythingist' for using and abusing each other constantly, and that doesn't help us understand anything.

[DWC]

The draft would discourage wars by making them politically unpopular. People will care about and scrutinize the reasons for going to war a lot more then they could possibly be sent to fight, instead of sending off a professional army to do the dirty work for them.

I knew a businessman who was democrat that believed only veterans should be allowed to vote, they'd understand the realities of war enough to know the difference between a just and unjust war and the cost of waging either, but a universal draft does the same thing.

Wars are easy to start and really hard to end. People are way too eager to start them (this is democrats and republicans alike) when they have zero stake in the matter. Not even a tax increase for this last 11 years of war.

So people will look at something like the Syrian war or Rwandan Genocide and instead of thinking "Oh no, we should go in and stop this horrible slaughter!" they'll think more like "Well shit, maybe France will do something, I'm sure as hell not going over there."

[Scoops Novel]

So if you let your government start a war, you'll fight in it? Hey, i might like the guy, though i don't trust it. Neonivek's proposal seems hard to implement.

Fakedit: DWC's provided the flipside i was looking for. This shouldn't be an excuse not to fight when necessary.

[Eagle_eye]

So people will look at something like the Syrian war or Rwandan Genocide and instead of thinking "Oh no, we should go in and stop this horrible slaughter!" they'll think more like "Well shit, maybe France will do something, I'm sure as hell not going over there."

Those are exactly the sorts of wars that we don't want to discourage. The morality of putting a stop to mass murder seems pretty unambiguous to me.

[DWC]

So people will look at something like the Syrian war or Rwandan Genocide and instead of thinking "Oh no, we should go in and stop this horrible slaughter!" they'll think more like "Well shit, maybe France will do something, I'm sure as hell not going over there."

Those are exactly the sorts of wars that we don't want to discourage. The morality of putting a stop to mass murder seems pretty unambiguous to me.

Well, if there was a universal draft and they were willing to trade their lives for the folks overseas then it'd mean the system would be equitable and functional, I suppose.

[Scoops Novel]

Not that i think they'd be able to include such legislation, but the necessity of drafting for smaller wars is questionable, particularly given where military's are going with decreasing personnel.

[Nadaka]

Not that i think they'd be able to include such legislation, but the necessity of drafting for smaller wars is questionable, particularly given where military's are going with decreasing personnel.

Decreasing personnel increases the need for a draft because because there will be a lack of soldiers in the event they are truly needed.