War, the Draft, sending men to kill --Is that sexism?
Forcing men to go and kill.
Is that sexism?
In WW2, Japan forced women to become prostitutes to service soldiers --a hideous crime against them. but is it WORSE than forcing men to become murderers?
Looking forward to a free and open discussion...
= new reply since forum marked as read
I do not see, anywhere in the definition, a part about WHO is doing the discriminating, nor do I think it is relevant to the issue.
The fact is that, the view of men as killers on one hand and women as sex-givers on the other, are mirror images of each other and completely entertained.
Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect that women deserve compensation for forced sex in war while men deserve nothing for being forced to kill and die in war.
You imply that all men are responsible for the way things are because men make the decisions. But women have traditionally been the ones who raise children --should I attribute the sexist attitudes (such as that men need to "bring home the bacon" and "do the fighting"
as resulting mainly from how women raise their children? Do women deserve more blame for indoctrinating children with these stereotypical views?
Society's prevailing sexist stereotypes guide our decisions.
The belief that men are aggressive, violent and disposable (see "women and children first" and "every man for himself" has a bookend; women are passive, indispensible helpless victims. Thus it is morally wrong to draft the latter into the military, and a bad idea to boot.
Sexism is all one thing. We're never going to get equality so long as the convenient stereotypes are internalized and promulgated.
It might be worthwhile to look up "passive aggression". While you're at it, try "projection".
of male privilege.
Maybe the next major war we can send only women so they can be equally privileged.
Lucky bastards.
/you confuse the privilege of a tiny fraction of a fraction of men (how many men out of the total population are running things?) with the entire gender. Men in charge aren't looking out for men. They're looking out for themselves.
(unless they've changed this)
Men who do not register could be prosecuted and, if convicted, fined up to $250,000 and/or serve up to five years in prison. In addition, men who fail to register with Selective Service before turning age 26, even if not prosecuted, will become ineligible for:
Student Financial Aid - including Pell Grants, College Work Study, Guaranteed Student/Plus Loans, and National Direct Student Loans.
U.S. Citizenship - if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.
Federal Job Training - The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) offers programs that can train young men for jobs in auto mechanics and other skills. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service.
Federal Jobs - men born after December 31, 1959 must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service.
In addition, several states have added additional penalties for those who fail to register.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/draftreg.htm
It seems to apply only to men. FWIW, I wouldn't seek to change it to include women, but I would seek to eliminate it altogether as part of a huge reduction in our military expenditures.
Not sexism. Just genetics.
I also take exception to those of you who labor under the belief that those in the armed forces are somehow forced to become murderers. I'm sure if any of you that held such views actually interacted with a group of service members for any length of time would realize how utterly ignorant and myopic such statements are. Very shameful such statements are aired on DU. Supposed to be better than that here...
...then you have a serious misunderstanding of the situation.
It's not just pointing an 8 lb rifle. It's carrying 75 - 100+ lbs of gear, rations, water, and ammunition to go along with it. The body armor with SAPI plates alone is 40+ lbs. Sophisticated communications and other electronics takes batteries....LOTS of them. Women have a tendency to shift loads lower towards their hips because they don't have the absolute torso strength to support a load up high. This puts much more stress on the hips, knees, and ankles as they adjust their marching gait. 30 - 40 lbs there isn't much difference between men and women. 50 lbs and more it becomes significant. Nobody is going to the field with less than 50 lbs anymore, that's exceeded with IBA, rifle, ammo, and water easily. Muscle doesn't just move a load it also supports and spreads the load evenly through the body structure. Men do handle austere environments better and anyone with a basic understanding of the physiological differences understands why. Killing and murder maybe just a matter of semantics to you (your are obviously no lawyer) but it makes a difference especially since nobody is drafted against their will these days and hasn't been in several decades. Outdated thinking entirely but it is only your opinion. I think you need to think much harder though.
It has been common knowledge. Unless you are stating all of the testimony of Korean and Chinese Comfort Women were lies. Or that Japanese soldiers, who took photographic evidence of doing this, photoshopped these photos? Maybe you think Japanese soldiers and officials were admitted to these war crimes were just making it all up?
You do realize that your asking that is as appalling and insulting as asking me to post a link to where I got information showing Jews were killed by the Nazis? If you don't realize that, then I feel very, very sorry for you.
No, I won't post any links, just like I won't post links showing the devastation to Pearl Harbor, or the Rape of Nanking, or the firebombing of Dresden, or Nagasaki. or London being bombed, or the piles of bodies at Bergen-Belsen. These are historical facts, not some kind of propaganda, no matter how much modern Japanese Fascist groups try to say it's all lies lies lies!
My God.
...is volunteer. I think it was a bigger wrong having a draft at all.
I do however like an exchange from the movie The Recruit between Al Pacino and Colin Farrell.
Farrell is being recruited by Pacino for the CIA and asks, "Would I have to kill anyone?"
Pacino asks Farrell, "Would you like to?"
Discriminating based on gender is inherently sexism and the drafting of men to go into war while forcing women to stay home is inherently discriminatory. Even though men (usually the wealthy of politically powerful ones) have been facilitating it, it is still sexism. Whether or not it is worse than forcing women to become prostitutes (Non Sugar-Coated Version: "turning women into sex slaves" all depends on whether you'd rather shoot people to bits yourself/get shot to bits or be raped repeatedly by multiple men.
I'll let you decide on that last one. Personally, I'd rather kill and be killed than be raped. It isn't "just" a way of violating someone - it's also torturous and can lead to bleeding, which can cause slow and painful death just as much as a mortal wound can.
Anywho, the way I see it, if a draft were to ever be instated again, the only way to make it "fair" to both sexes would be to make it based on merit. And, by that I mean, prior training or, failing that, overall health. The more qualified parent from each family. Single parents (male or female) would be excluded so that children would be taken care of. Single men and women would be equally examined/tested/etc. for strength and training. If a woman just so happens to be strong/fit/trained enough to be a soldier and either single or married to a spouse less suited than she, then there's no reason she wouldn't be drafted. Likewise, if a man most definitely were not healthy or trained, then that would make him less eligible than the aforementioned woman.
Naturally, of course, my merit-based draft method would be difficult and costly to implement. From the government's perspective, it's easier just to round up the men. Always has been. Can't say I'm happy about it though. It basically means not even bothering to look into half of the population for viable (and even, in some cases, willing!) soldiers. Silly, considering the fact that there have been skilled female soldiers. Textbook Example: Joan of Arc. For a pragmatist like me, that's just downright wasteful.
tl;dr version: Yup. Fits the definition of sexism perfectly. The women forced to be raped repeatedly are probably getting the worst part of the deal though, but then that might just be the way I see it.
