Feminists - A question.

[joft]

Are you sure you aren't a women?

are you even slightly aware of the possibility that you're a raging misogynist?

Demos: let me take this opportunity to welcome you to the intraknots. also, how will stupid/wrong people ever learn if nobody ever indicates just how stupid and wrong they are? should I compile a list of sources for them to review the literature? (hint: they won't read a single one)

[Darus Grey]

are you even slightly aware of the possibility that you're a raging misogynist?

Demos: let me take this opportunity to welcome you to the intraknots. also, how will stupid/wrong people ever learn if nobody ever indicates just how stupid and wrong they are? should I compile a list of sources for them to review the literature? (hint: they won't read a single one)

And yet people like me do it anyways(assemble sources and back up their bullshit...most the time).

It's called class.

If you weren't such a raging misandrist you'd see that.

[Pepsodent]

I had a class called issues in American society. The topic came up about what women want in America. As a joke, I said "The draft." The room fell silent, leading me to believe that no one understood the point of what I said. So basically what you're getting at here is exactly as it seems. Just a hunch (a hunch I'd bet a decent sum of money on) - I think non-feminist women would be more likely to argue for a draft than hardcore feminists.

Edit - didn't bother to notice there were more than a few posts to this thread, so if my point is null please ignore.

[miokomioko]

The actions of our ancestors and their effect on modern society have ultimately screwed us out of ever being able to speak up against anything unjust towards us.

Insta-ostracism for anyone who starts any type of move revolving around being male, white, etc.

[aduidarnenye]

I am reading a book called "Half the Sky" by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn (it was a Colbert book actually). It's about the oppression of women throughout the world right now, with a focus on sex slavery.

There's a big section in it on maternal health and a bit caught my eye in relevance to this thread: "During World War I, more American women died in childbirth than American men died in the war." I decided to do some research. I discovered there were about 150,000 maternal deaths in America during WWI and about 117,000 male soldier deaths.

Naturally, since then maternal morality has gone down significantly so I looked something else up. The Iraq War has taken about 4,300 American soldier's lives in the last seven years at the rate of a little over 600 a year. The number of women who die in childbirth and child bearing related issues in the USA per year now is around 500 per year, which is fairly close to the number of soldiers who die in war (some of whom were women) for the same period of time (yes, I realise it's still 100 less but the women die regardless of a war currently happening or not).

I still don't feel that men should be drafted into the military at all or that it is particularly fair that women don't get subjected to the draft, but I thought the comparison was an interesting one, especially in light of the numerous remarks concerning women "having it easy".

[Draylo]

Women have a choice whether or not they want to have a baby, that isn't a valid point.

[Darus Grey]

You're comparing rates among hundreds of millions of women to a couple hundred thousand soldiers. A soldier is hundreds of times more likely to die in your example.

Statistics is hard.

[Draylo]

The actions of our ancestors and their effect on modern society have ultimately screwed us out of ever being able to speak up against anything unjust towards us.

Insta-ostracism for anyone who starts any type of move revolving around being male, white, etc.

Yes this is very true. This applies to a lot of situations not just standing up against something. Men are severely restricted in terms of what they can enjoy, do, be, etc where women don't face the same criticism. If men do something that is against the norm set for males they are labeled instantly, women have more freedom in that regard.

[Alleya]

Yes this is very true. This applies to a lot of situations not just standing up against something. Men are severely restricted in terms of what they can enjoy, do, be, etc where women don't face the same criticism. If men do something that is against the norm set for males they are labeled instantly, women have more freedom in that regard.

hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahah
ahahahahahhahahahah

aaaaaahhhhh....oh that was good. /wipetear

[Cadsuane]

I am reading a book called "Half the Sky" by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn (it was a Colbert book actually). It's about the oppression of women throughout the world right now, with a focus on sex slavery.

There's a big section in it on maternal health and a bit caught my eye in relevance to this thread: "During World War I, more American women died in childbirth than American men died in the war." I decided to do some research. I discovered there were about 150,000 maternal deaths in America during WWI and about 117,000 male soldier deaths.

Naturally, since then maternal morality has gone down significantly so I looked something else up. The Iraq War has taken about 4,300 American soldier's lives in the last seven years at the rate of a little over 600 a year. The number of women who die in childbirth and child bearing related issues in the USA per year now is around 500 per year, which is fairly close to the number of soldiers who die in war (some of whom were women) for the same period of time (yes, I realise it's still 100 less but the women die regardless of a war currently happening or not).

I still don't feel that men should be drafted into the military at all or that it is particularly fair that women don't get subjected to the draft, but I thought the comparison was an interesting one, especially in light of the numerous remarks concerning women "having it easy".

Yeah maternity is a health risk that men aren't subject to, but your comparison was stupid and disingenuous for a hundred different statistical reasons. Women are more susceptible to whole gamut of health concerns that men aren't, and vice versa, yet somehow women have higher life expectancy than men pretty much uniformly around the globe and I can't think of a time where that hasn't been the case.

[Draylo]

hahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahah
ahahahahahhahahahah

aaaaaahhhhh....oh that was good. /wipetear

I'm glad you enjoy the truth.

[Alleya]

Is that what you call it? How adorable.

[nervous]

Personally, I agree with you completely. However, I think the fundamental reason behind this is that the military simply does not hold the same kind of attraction for women as it does for men. In a way, the military is a system where you either will or will be perceived as getting ahead by doing less because you are a woman and the military has some kind of diversity quota to meet. What person who strives to achieve wants to either a) have their successes handed to them without truly proving themselves to be the best, or b) have all of their success tainted because even though they may have been a top achiever and did indeed earn their rewards, people will still view them through the same lens as every other woman who skates by in the military? Nobody wants that. That fucking sucks.As a man, you can distinguish yourself in a number of ways. You can achieve a certain level of credibility that no woman can ever have

So i think basically we used a lot of words to say that we are in complete agreement with each other on 99.9% of the issues involved here. Still, there are a couple of points i would like to bring up.

I think that we are more respectful and less sexist than you give us credit for, which is what originally motivated me to post. We live and work with our fellow soldiers day in and day out. We know them quite well, and we are perceptive enough to figure which females are serious about what they do and which ones are out to skate by. I respect any competent, intelligent female who will work hard on equal terms with a male without expecting any breaks. In some ways you respect them even more because you know they have the option to skate by. The vast majority of the people I knew and associated with felt the same way, and would gladly take orders from a fair and competent female leader. I know that the few highly motivated, competent, intelligent, physically fit females in the co-ed units i was in were held in extremely high regard. Sure you've got the minority of people who aren't going to respect a woman on any terms but A, they are generally inbred throwback hicks that are in the wrong century, why would you want their respect anyway? B, they are a small minority, C, you've got that minority share of moron bigots wherever you go, not just the military.

because no matter how successful any woman will ever be in the military, all she's ever done is be a paper pusher. There's always been a side you're excluded from, and for a lot of men, if you lack a combat facet to your career, in their opinion you lack the ability to tell them what to do. They might do what you say, but there's a huge amount of resentment there.

I think it's worth mentioning that if a woman really wants to see combat in the army she can do so with ease. I'll be the first to admit that putting women in combat while not letting them take the title of infantry is most unfair and Orwellian doublethink of the highest degree. It's a bad system and it does need changing, even though i don't have any solutions to offer up.

Nevertheless the fact remains that a female who wants to see combat can see combat. If you want to deploy, start telling superiors that you would like to deploy and you'll be in Iraq or Afghanistan pretty quickly, male or female. Volunteer for your Quick Reaction Force and you will almost certainly be accepted. They are always looking for people who want to be there, and you'll certainly see combat from there. Not your thing? Sign up to be a black hawk or Chinook door gunner. i guarantee you you will see combat regularly.

As for the resentment, again, i think we are more perceptive and fair-minded than you give us credit for. We can tell whether a female has skated to her position or earned it, and if she has earned it, the majority of us will follow orders resentment-free. As for the true sexists, if the positions were reversed and i was female, i wouldn't want that resentment to stop. I would savor it like a delicious dessert. I will add that my experiences were with the army. I don't have personal experiences with the marines and your mileage may vary.

Women also don't ever truly belong or fit in with most military settings due to policy and attitude. When everyone else has to make concessions simply because of your presence, like taking down their bikini model calendar, it makes you separate and apart. There isn't a sense of camaraderie, my life for the soldier next to me. You will not be welcomed into the fold -- at least not in a complete way. Perhaps people will be civil with you at work, but you're not being invited to go have beers at the titty bar later with the other dudes.

I'm not saying that serving in combat would solve all of this, just explaining why I think many women choose to gain success in places where they're not perceived to have gotten to the top while avoiding all the difficult work.

I absolutely agree with you that forcing policy changes over women fosters resentment and is the wrong way to go about things. Some of the sexual-harassment and gender relations classes we had were truly lolworthy. Similar to an incident i think you mentioned earlier in the thread, subsequent to a series of rapes reported in the army times, we actually had to attend classes informing us that it was not OK to rape women. ...yeah.

Still, i don't think women will ever be treated as one of the guys. We're just different in some respects, and i think that we are evolutionarily wired to look at girls differently than guys. the courtship instinct will never go away, and it will always affect the dynamic between men and women. I think you said earlier in the thread that we will never be exactly the same. I do think, though, we did treat females in the service no differently than we would treat them out the service, and that we considered them to be on equal ground.

As for inviting them to titty bars--sorry, wouldn't know anything about it, not my scene, i don't even drink, lol. Mabye i could invite her to a rousing game of Magic: The Gathering instead? I do think, though, that it's possible to welcome a girl into the fold completely without treating her as "one of the guys." I think the groups of people that i associated with did exactly that. Once again, though, the "Skate-by" women will indeed be treated with resentment. that's a different subject altogether. If a guy managed to "skate by" in the same manner, i don't think he would be treated very well either.

I don't doubt that could be the case, but I also think that a willing volunteer is probably a better soldier than a draftee. There are some women who would gladly step into this role, and would perform better than a hastily trained and scared shitless male who is there because of the draft. Also, I don't think working smarter necessarily means it would work for men. Modifying gear to function differently for women, who have a differently placed center of gravity and overall different bodies, simply might not work in the same manner for men.

Also, I'm not arguing that this is the best possible idea to ever be had in terms of what it would do to a budget. Integrating women into the military at all isn't fiscally responsible, even when they are not serving in combat-related roles. My argument is simply that if anyone is going to say that women should be drafted and held to the same physical standards as men, that women should be allowed to perform all the same jobs as men if they so choose. Otherwise, it just seems there is very little point to any of it.

Knowing the reality of the situation already, where women are just not desired by pretty much anyone in the military for a variety of reasons, this whole idea seems totally pointless to me.

Well if you were drafting women, you'd probably be drafting fewer men, who would just stay behind and continue doing the jobs they were doing before, or take up factory jobs and the other misc bits that women have taken up in the past. Completely discarding the idea of women going into combat, if you did draft a number of women for non-combat positions, I'm sure it would suffice. I don't think it would be the best of all possible options because of the current attitudes and ideas about women in the military, but I think it could be workable.

Is that to say it's a good solution? No. There is no real problem to solve. This whole idea presented has only been presented because some civilian asshole with penis-related anger doesn't understand shit. Is that surprising? Nah.

Oh no, I don't think those women are currently in the military. I simply think those women exist, but they've chosen to succeed in other places rather than struggle under the burden of gender in a system not designed to include them. I think you agree with the crux of that idea. I think that being able to distinguish yourself like a man, and be part of a unit that is actually capable of experiencing a similar bond and camaraderie like male units have would be instrumental in changing how women feel about military service, and also what kind of women the military attracts. Personally, for me, if tomorrow there was a huge summit that announced they were allowing women to choose combat positions and making some female-only units, I'd be the first fucking person in line, regardless of anything else going on in my life. I would want to be part of something like that, because regardless of the price I might pay for it, nobody could ever say to me that I haven't given 110% of myself like any other man in this country is given the opportunity to choose to do. I know I'm not the only woman that feels that way.

I also think that if one wants to hold women to equal standards as men and then draft them into the military the same as men, there has to be a justification for doing so. I honestly don't see why anyone's upset about women running their mile a minute slower than a man in their physical fitness tests. It has no bearing on anything. You're not going to allow them, let alone make them do any kind of strenuous physical work, so who really cares? I'm just saying if A, then B. If you're raising the physical requirements for women, make a suitable reason for it or you're just spinning your wheels. Women have lower requirements because people have lower expectations of them. Simply, don't. Expect better results. Stop putting stock in the idea that women can't. They can if you make them, because they sure as fuck won't on their own.

Edit: that last paragraph was more directed toward other people who have pointed that out over and over, not so much you personally.

I am in complete agreement with all of this. If you removed the economic and physical constraints that make women in combat currently impractical, i'd have no problem with it at all.

[miokomioko]

Is that what you call it? How adorable.

case in point.

[Priran]

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9930/vain.gif

this thread almost raped me

[aduidarnenye]

Women have a choice whether or not they want to have a baby, that isn't a valid point.

If they have access to birth control and abortion, yes.

You're comparing rates among hundreds of millions of women to a couple hundred thousand soldiers. A soldier is hundreds of times more likely to die in your example.

Statistics is hard.

In modern warfare, a civilian woman living in the warzone is a lot more likely to be raped during war than a soldier is to die. Also in that book I mentioned.

And actually, I was comparing the rate of pregnancies, not all women possible to get pregnant. Statistics can be difficult, yes.

Also, I admit the WWI comparison is more valid than the Iraq War comparison. During WWI all the young healthy men were were subject to conscription and all the married women (and unmarried) not yet reached menopause or otherwise infertile were subject to pregnancy. And the health care in the US today betters the odds for American women, and the men are also more likely to survive a war as well.

Yeah maternity is a health risk that men aren't subject to, but your comparison was stupid and disingenuous for a hundred different statistical reasons. Women are more susceptible to whole gamut of health concerns that men aren't, and vice versa, yet somehow women have higher life expectancy than men pretty much uniformly around the globe and I can't think of a time where that hasn't been the case.

The idea was to compare a single death risk only women undertake to a single death risk generally only men undertake and show that just because women don't die in war doesn't mean they don't die in another avoidable way. Most maternal deaths are due to poor health care and are completely avoidable, just as war is technically avoidable. Just attempting to show that women don't have it easier than men just because they're not draftable in the US. I don't think that the longer life expectancy of women make life easier on women; quite the opposite as elderly women are more likely to live in poverty than elderly men.


Again, to clarify: I don't feel that men should be subject to a draft regardless and am rather glad my American husband is now a permanent resident of Canada.

[miokomioko]

Women have a choice whether or not they want to have a baby, that isn't a valid point.

If they have access to birth control and abortion, yes.

WAT?

[aduidarnenye]

WAT?

If you use birth control and have access to abortion, you can choose to not have a baby by either avoiding it or terminating it. I did not think that was difficult to comprehend?

Women fought for those things. Men (and women) can fight for the end of the draft too, yes?

[miokomioko]

does not compute.

http://blog.jkbutcher.com/wp-content...ing-head-9.jpg

[aduidarnenye]

Ah well, I tried. Time for bed.

My husband says that short of invasion by aliens there's not likely to be a draft in the US for as long as Obama is president, which he claims will be two terms, so I don't think any of you really need to worry for a while.

Use the time to fight the draft if you want. I'll make sure my husband signs any petition since I can't being Canadian.