HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » War, the Draft, sending m...

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:09 PM

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...

81 replies, 15906 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 81 replies Author Time Post
Reply War, the Draft, sending men to kill --Is that sexism? (Original post)
Bonobo Jul 2012 OP
Lionessa Jul 2012 #1
Bonobo Jul 2012 #2
Lionessa Jul 2012 #3
Bonobo Jul 2012 #6
HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #11
Lionessa Jul 2012 #13
Bonobo Jul 2012 #17
Lionessa Jul 2012 #28
antigone382 Aug 2012 #62
Lionessa Jul 2012 #25
HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #8
Lionessa Jul 2012 #10
HereSince1628 Jul 2012 #15
Lionessa Jul 2012 #27
uppityperson Jul 2012 #51
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #24
Lionessa Jul 2012 #26
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #37
Lionessa Jul 2012 #39
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #40
Lionessa Jul 2012 #42
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #43
uppityperson Jul 2012 #52
loli phabay Jul 2012 #4
Lionessa Jul 2012 #7
loli phabay Jul 2012 #14
Lionessa Jul 2012 #16
loli phabay Jul 2012 #18
Lionessa Jul 2012 #19
loli phabay Jul 2012 #20
Lionessa Jul 2012 #21
loli phabay Jul 2012 #22
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #33
Lionessa Jul 2012 #35
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #45
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #32
Lionessa Jul 2012 #34
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #44
Lionessa Jul 2012 #46
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #47
Lionessa Jul 2012 #48
Major Nikon Aug 2012 #64
Lionessa Aug 2012 #65
Major Nikon Aug 2012 #66
Lionessa Aug 2012 #67
Major Nikon Aug 2012 #68
NYC_SKP Jul 2012 #5
Lionessa Jul 2012 #9
Kaleva Jul 2012 #12
Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #29
limpyhobbler Jul 2012 #23
Warren Stupidity Jul 2012 #30
limpyhobbler Jul 2012 #31
Dokkie Sep 2012 #72
caseymoz Jul 2012 #36
ZenLefty Jul 2012 #38
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #41
Clames Jul 2012 #49
Bonobo Jul 2012 #50
Clames Jul 2012 #60
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #53
Bonobo Jul 2012 #55
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #56
Bonobo Jul 2012 #57
obamanut2012 Jul 2012 #58
Bonobo Jul 2012 #59
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #61
uppityperson Jul 2012 #54
discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #63
4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #69
lumberjack_jeff Aug 2012 #70
Dokkie Sep 2012 #71
ChaoticTrilby Oct 2012 #73
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #74
Bonobo Dec 2012 #75
Pterodactyl Dec 2012 #76
Upton Dec 2012 #77
Bonobo Dec 2012 #78
Upton Dec 2012 #79
Macoy51 Jan 2013 #80
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #81

Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:11 PM

1. Uhm, you fail to recognize who decided men should be forced to go and kill.

 

That would be, uhm, y'know....


MEN!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:14 PM

2. Doesn't make it any less horrible or sexist. nt

You can't really mean to say that men can't be sexist against men and women can't be sexist against women and blacks can't be racist against blacks, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:17 PM

3. I don't think you can call the gender that is making decisions about it's own gender, sexist against

 

that gender.

What exactly do want, for women to unitedly become equally stupid and force men to allow us to be forced?

We're not talking about individual sexism, we're talking about a group making a decision about a group. If you don't like it, see the folks who head your group and get it to stop. Simple as that. Surprisingly though women needed the help of men to get the right to vote, men haven't needed anyone else to have that right and make changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:27 PM

6. Yes, men. Usually old men...

And the men that are forced to become murderers are usually young, poor men.

So should I split it up into groups of old vs. young, or rich vs. poor? Would that make a difference?

I just don't think you can say that it is not an issue of "sexism" because the perpetrators of the crime are members of the same gender. So we all have penises, big deal. The bottom line is that for 99.99% of the victims of this, they have no control over the issue. So your claim that it is as simple as "seeing the folks who head your group and get it to stop" is a bit facile, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:35 PM

11. Seems to me that the US military in the past 75 years has been

ageist, classist, racist, and sexist. At least one Government run Military Academy also promoted christianity.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:38 PM

13. It's origination though was that men thought of women as inferior, so the sexism that created it is

 

opposite of the sexism you're implying. And to my way of thinking, until you undo what you've done to yourselves, and heaven forbid the pendulum swings the other way (ie women force men to fignt wars), then you can't claim you are experiencing sexism as your attempting to. To me it just doesn't work with this idea because of its origination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:50 PM

17. The definition of sexism is "discriminating against people on the basis of their gender"

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #17)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 01:32 AM

28. But it's not because of their gender, it's because old white guys want to get rid of the young poor

 

guys for a variety of reasons. It's not about gender or sex. The only sexism is against women, not men, in the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #17)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:08 PM

62. But men (or their families) generally do get compensation for fighting in war.

In the U.S., it's things like the GI Bill, VA, Veteran's benefits, etc. I can't speak for how they were compensated in Japan, but I can't imagine they went without any recognition for their sacrifice...indeed, the highest honors are reserved for those who fight, are injured, or die in battle--soldiers are acclaimed with medals, monuments, and nearly legendary status--while someone who has worked as a prostitute is viewed as essentially corrupted, and more or less denied the chance to ever play an honorable role in society.

That doesn't dismiss the awfulness of sending soldiers to die in wars that benefit the few, and their suffering is certainly a gendered thing. But I don't think that pointing out the gender-based injustice and oppression faced by both men and women needs to be a competition. It has the same root cause. The same power elites (generally but not universally upper class males) are subjugating both groups to maintain their own status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 01:25 AM

25. I believe that's called ageism, though normally one thinks about it being young against old these

 

days. Yes, you should break them up into groups by age since that's more accurate, and call it ageism, which is what it is, oh, and a healthy dose of greed, because the young men you kill the more there is for old men and with less threat of losing to a young man. Just saying, you have hit the nail on the head, you just don't realize it, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:31 PM

8. Please explain that.

"I don't think you can call the gender that is making decisions about it's own gender, sexist against that gender.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:34 PM

10. You can still call them sexist against women, which is how this idea that men should go to war

 

originated and women should be ... well many things over the years but not on the battle field. Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #10)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:46 PM

15. Sorry that wasn't actually the question I wanted answered.

I would like to know about the philosophical underpinnings of the notion that a person can't make a sexist comment about their own sex.

Is someone in feminist theory responsible for that, or does it follow from some more general principle?







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 01:29 AM

27. I mean pick another reason. As mentioned above and throughout, it can be ageism, class-ism, but it

 

can't be sexism if it is it's own sex perpetrating it against itself. Then it must be something(s) else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #27)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:46 PM

51. Of course it can. Women can be sexist against women, men men. Any member of a group can

perpetuate "Xism" against other members of a group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 01:16 AM

24. Ha ha....."your" group

As if it's about gender, and not class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #24)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 01:28 AM

26. I agree its a class and age thing, hence why I say it can't really be a sexism thing.

 

We are actually agreeing, I'm not sure why you sound disagreeable about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 02:02 PM

37. Questionable logic.

 

So long as most of the decisionmakers are right-handed only left handed people can claim victimization/persecution/oppression.

The entire basis of your logic is that handedness is the only meaningful foundation of bias.

If person A looks more or less like person B, then person B has no valid claim of systemic oppression.

A better case could be made that women are denied equality - being discriminated against - by patriarchal prohibitions on sending them to die for geopolitical whims.

Yes. The male only draft is sexist because women must share the same responsibilities of citizenship to be equal. Sexism isn't limited to "things that harm women".

One other thing, would you consider the following quote sexist?
I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.


Does the fact that it was said by a woman matter? If no, then it is demonstrably possible to be sexist against your own gender, institutionally as well as individually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #37)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 02:34 PM

39. I didn't say opinions couldn't be sexist within the same sex, however when the power over that sex

 

is the same sex, then something else is the motivation, not sexism. As suggested numerous times, and not just by me, it becomes more an issue of age-ism, elite-ism, and greed, and even other potential -isms, but it isn't sexism against it's own gender. (though I maintain that sexism against women in the armed forces is still a problem)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #39)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 03:46 PM

40. If I think that you are weak, helpless and comparatively precious...

 

Then I'll send men off to die in wars instead, right?

A sexist bias that works in your favor is still a sexist bias.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #40)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 03:54 PM

42. Not all women believe as you suggest as proven by women voluteering and serving with honor.

 

So the premise that it is in my or any others woman's favor is a strawman.

Secondly, I never said it wasn't sexist against/for (a subjective perspective to be sure) women, I said sexism isn't the reason men do it to themselves.

Now I've repeated this dozens of times in this thread. Having a masculine brain in my head, I thought a conversation in the mens' forum, wouldn't be plagued with this kind of passive aggressive bs. Clearly I was being sexist. I'll work on that.

Good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #42)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 04:08 PM

43. That's the thing. Society doesn't do it *to men*, it just does it.

 

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.

I thought a conversation in the mens' forum, wouldn't be plagued with this kind of passive aggressive bs. Clearly I was being sexist. I'll work on that.


It might be worthwhile to look up "passive aggression". While you're at it, try "projection".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:47 PM

52. If the decision is based on sex, yes, they can be sexist. Even if by the person of that gender.

Rather like racist, or ageism, or any other "ism". Being a member of a group does not exclude anyone from being "groupist".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:18 PM

4. in this case, but its not always been so in history, plenty of times when a women has been the one

 

sending men off to war. Its an interesting question though as to whats worse, i guess it depends on an individuals perspective and if they would find the conditions of forced sex slaves or forced cannon fodder comparable or worse than each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:29 PM

7. I think forced is the keyword here.

 

There are plenty of people who want to kill and enlist, there are plenty of women that like men in uniform and would volunteer for such jobs if a society wasn't so uptight. So why forced anything, really. We demonize women that hang around and sleep with our soldiers, here and abroad, and honor the men that are clients. Societies need to let women be as unique and outrageous as men, many very prominent as well respected by many, within obvious age and consent considerations. Then force and gender stops being an issue. Clearly there are women on the front lines, and currently men are not being drafted, so for the USA, this is a hypothetical at this moment and time, from the killing aspect.

The forced sex, unless all Nam and Korean war shows/movies/etc are totally wrong, like I said above, there are women more than willing, just treat them with respect, let them have ways of acquiring whats required for safe-sex, and hope they spend well at your place of business. That's my take on that aspect. Perhaps the Japanese like our society, had pushed the shame of female sexuality outside the marriage to a poiint that they could find no volunteers agreeable to the shame of self and family. So end the shame to family, call it an honor, and the problem resolves itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #7)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:42 PM

14. no problem with people of either sex being outrageous and unique

 

was just commenting on the different perspectives of whether its worse to be forced as a women to sexually service strangers or to be forced as a man to don a tin hat and pick up a rifle and storm a position that means certain death. As you say there are plenty of men and women who would volunteer to do either job whether out of idealism or for good pay and its funny how one is acceptable but the other is scorned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #14)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:46 PM

16. Not funny in my opinion, but that discussion has been all over DU, so I'll leave it there.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #16)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:57 PM

18. you do realise that it was funny peculiar and not funny haha

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #18)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:25 PM

19. Yeah, I guess I did.

 

Just mouthing off, I guess. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #19)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:41 PM

20. no problem i figured it was just an accidentql thing, :)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #20)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 09:49 PM

21. No, I've got a difficult decision to make and I fear I'm being nitpicky about everything.

 

I lose my sense of humor when I'm deep in analysis, everything becomes literal for me. Perhaps a sign I should sign off for the night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #21)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 10:03 PM

22. Well i hold no grudge or malice and understand completely, try and get some sleep and hope it works

 

out ok

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #7)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 08:54 AM

33. That is one of the more sexist comments I've seen

 

men like to kill, so why draft them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #33)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 01:01 PM

35. I said, some I did not say all.

 

I also said some women like to have plenty of sex with uniformed men, I notice that didn't bother you, hmmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #35)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 02:03 PM

45. But what about teh womynz!?!?

 

Perhaps if you're looking for sympathy for the plight of women in war (apparently they suffer horribly, men enjoy it) try on the women's forum. Not in the men's group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 08:53 AM

32. Yes of course. Being drafted and sent off to be maimed or killed against your will is a clear sign

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #32)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 12:58 PM

34. It's an -ism, I'm just saying it isn't sexism.

 

That was the OP's premise, and it's false. When men screw men, it's age-ism, elite-ism, greed, and so much more, but it isn't sexism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #34)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 02:02 PM

44. Interesting, because I've seen countless op-eds explaining how women can be culpable

 

in perpetuating stereotypes and sexism against women (slut-shaming is one of the biggest areas of complaints).

But apparently men can't perpetuate the stereotype that men are disposable killing machines.

That only works one way: so women can perpetuate the evil patriarchy. But men cannot possible act against the interests of other men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #44)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 02:57 PM

46. I wouldn't call what women do to each other sexism either.

 

Again, it would be an -ism, but not sexism, in my opinion.

For example, Jan Brewer signing into law a bill that says pregnancy starts the first day after one's last period. A woman making a hateful choice for women. But not sexism, it's hunger for power, money, and all the perks that come from nutjobs with money, religious, CCA, she's sees a lot of benefit, but she doesn't hate women, she just prefers old white women who hate the idea of young women enjoying themselves. It's amazing to me that these same women, many were coming of age just around the hippy years, and yet they are the worse now for voting for anti-choice agendas. It's still not sexism, it's entirely something else. I will agree however that women do adopt male forms of manipulating and humiliating women into obedience, because it works for most women,. . . so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #46)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 02:59 PM

47. Sure sure. The definition is revised at need

 

to suit whatever argument is being made at that moment.

Yes or no: society viewing one gender as being mostly good for one thing (in this case dying painfully) is a sign of sexism?

I don't think anyone would have trouble saying that the Japanese deeming women to be valuable only for providing sexual services to men is a sexist decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #47)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:34 PM

48. Japanese men made that decision against women, hence sexism.

 

As for revising definitions, please find where I've said that women are suffering at the hands of sexist women? I've never said such. I believe you have me confused with someone else.

Bless your heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:17 PM

64. Actually it's voters that make that choice

If being anti-war was that important, the electorate would vote in anti-war candidates. Seeing as how 54% of eligible voters are women, I'd say they are at least as responsible as men for these choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #64)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:41 PM

65. A vote directly related to who goes to war was never offered tmk.

 

And the Legislature is primarily men, and the presidents that signed the bills were men. Nice trying to blame women, but monumental fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #65)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 11:04 PM

66. So how many election cycles passed during the Iraqi war and the Afghanistan war?

The Iraq War lasted over 8 years. That's 4 election cycles. The Afghanistan War has lasted over 11. That's 5 election cycles. If the voting public wanted these wars to end, it would have only taken 1 election cycle to prevent continued funding of the wars. Furthermore if the electorate had been anti-war to begin with, many of the people who made those decisions would have never been in office in the first place.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to blame men or women. I blame the electorate as a whole which happens to include men and women. Either you didn't understand my point, or you're simply being disingenuous with my comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #66)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 11:27 PM

67. Wow, what dream world do you live in, and why are you trying to suggest that women haven't

 

effectively been in combat since the Iraq war? Perhaps not on paper, but certainly in reality, as I am absolutely certain there are women with war injuries as well as deaths.

As far as people wanting us out of wars, I believe most polls show that to be the case, but as usual the Legislature and the President do as they please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #67)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 12:16 AM

68. Please post exactly where I claimed anything within a cab ride of this

And I'm the one living in a dream world?

That is rich.

If your debate tactics include putting words in people's mouths to somehow score rhetorical points which you seem unable to do otherwise, I really wish you would find a new playmate as I'm just not into those games. This makes twice you've done this, and I'm just not biting anymore, especially since I've given you far more courtesy than your condescending replies deserve. Clearly your only interest is in being argumentative, and you don't even seem to be doing all that well at that. Feel free to have the last word as I'm sure such things are greatly important to you.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:20 PM

5. The US Selective Service is, by definition, sexist:

 

(unless they've changed this)

Penalties for Failure to Register for the Draft

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:32 PM

9. Due to the dramatic change of our armed forces and our techniques and the show

 

of women (even with outstanding issues; surely I don't want to forget military rape or similar issues) have shown to be good soldiers on and off.

So either 100% volunteer,
Or everyone.

I agree that rule is sexist and should go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 08:36 PM

12. So our current all volunteer force isn't sexist?

As everyone serving has volunteered "to go and kill".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 06:40 AM

29. Well no, it still discriminates against women. It is a sexist institutiion.

 

However as the draft has been inactive since 1975, that part of it is not a factor in the oppression of men or women, other than men still being compelled to register.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Thu Jul 12, 2012, 10:30 PM

23. yeah I guess so but better just to end the draft for everybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 06:41 AM

30. Not according to a lot of people on du.

 

Reinstating the draft would end all wars. Or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 07:15 AM

31. Oh yeah I forgot I had the opposite position yesterday.

I really need to get my act together.

I think we should have the draft but only for families making more than $269,000 /year income.

Just to equalize things. Since poorer people have money pressures compelling them to join the military.

Draft the sons and daughters of the rich.

This will end all wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #30)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:51 AM

72. Yea

 

reinstating the draft will make new wars very difficult to start. Think of how most of the voters totally disregard the war issue, they probably say to themselves "I will never go off to fight" "it doesnt affect me" etc etc.

Reinstating the draft will bring about those massive war demonstrations, voters will come out in full force to voter out the people promoting and funding the wars

Please reinstate the draft for men and women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 02:01 PM

36. No, not sexist.

The draft was perceived as a necessity, and in fact, in the US was only implemented after hostilities had started. In other words, reluctantly and as a necessary evil.

Whereas the sex slaves were not. Almost every country did not do what the Japanese did. Oh, other belligerents did other violations of rights, but the Japanese could have very well conducted the war without sex slavery.

In other words: nobody questioned the draft. Things had always been like that. It was a war, they needed soldiers, they weren't going to question it. Whereas putting women into sex slavery was questionable. So, someone had to consciously put the policy into place. That was a direct act of sexism.

The other thing is, the worldwide culture was different. Telling soldiers to fight was not considered in any way as awful as telling the soldiers to bugger each other for sexual relief. You could bet that order would have never come down. The fact is, they either did not consider it as shameful if the women performed sex acts for men, or they did not think the women mattered. If they had died "in service," nobody was going to write a letter to the family lauding their daughter's sacrifice for the country.

To underscore this fact, the Japanese did not draft their own women like that. No, they drafted Korean women into it. I don't think they impressed Korean men into military service. So, there was some other shameful quality to it that carried the sexism. It was made to shame them and put their country in its place. You could bet that these women are owed compensation.

Any order our military to commit rape or violate a person is an illegal order, but they can order a man or women in service to kill. It underscores that there is a certain psychological quality to rape which is even more shameful than murder. I'm not saying it's rational, but it's there.

So, I'm sorry to disagree. Sexism comes down to the emotional reason why a decision is made, not necessarily to the gender of the people who are burdened with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 02:30 PM

38. Is the notion that 'men are better suited for combat than women' sexist?

If it is, then yes, a male only draft is sexist*.

To answer your second question, I feel that it is worse to force women to become prostitutes to service soldiers. That's not just sexism, that's rape, and to me that's worse.

* There seems to be over 150,000 definitions of 'sexist' on this website, so I went with Merriam-Webster: (i) Prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially ((but not excluding)) discrimination against women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZenLefty (Reply #38)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 03:51 PM

41. Yes. Belief that your sex is inherently better than the other at anything is sexist. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #41)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 07:27 PM

49. Men are inherently stronger and better suited to the rigors of combat and austere environments.

 

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #49)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:35 PM

50. We don't fight with battle-axes anymore.

Pointing a gun can be done just as well by women as men. And as far as "austere" environments, I do not agree that men are inherently better suited to surviving extreme cold, heat or hunger. In fact, probably the opposite is true.

As to the murderer part, I am not referring to your volunteer army. Whether you call it "killing" or "murder" is really a matter of semantics. But I am of the opinion that if a country drafts someone against their will, gives them a weapon and tells them to kill, they are forcing a person to become a murderer. If it offends you to hear that killing makes a person a murderer, I think you need to toughen up or think a little harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #50)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:09 AM

60. If you think pointing a gun is all there is to it...

 

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:50 PM

53. Women in conquered nations weren't forced to becoem prostitutes

That was a lie, and is a lie still continued by many in the Japanese government even today.

The so-called "Comfort Women" were sex slaves, and were raped and beaten until they died. Some of the Korean sex slaves lived, but most of the Chinese victims died. Girls as young as seven and as old as 80+ were forced into this. The sex slaves were often tied into a chair with their legs spread, and raped with sticks, bayonets, and other foreign objects.

So, yeah, that really is worse than a draft.

I personally believe there should be no draft or a universal one, if women are allowed to fill all roles in the military, although morally I believe in no draft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #53)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:55 PM

55. "The sex slaves were often tied into a chair with their legs spread, and raped with sticks, bayonets

Can you post a link to where you got that information?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #55)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 10:09 PM

56. Are you kidding me?



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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #56)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 10:18 PM

57. No, asking for a link is not appalling.

Feel as sorry for me as you want, but if you don't actually have a source where you learned that very specific information about being tied to a chair and raped with bayonets, than I don't see why you can expect me to believe that it is anything other than a made up detail.

I never said that the sex slaves in WW2 weren't terrible --I merely asked for a source for your specific information.

If you can't share a source, let me just say I am not surprised. It sounds sort of made up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #57)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 11:04 PM

58. Except it isn't made up, which you know

am, quite frankly, disgusted that this is allowed to be posted in this forum. I know a lot of the guys who post in here, and we respect one another. I know that they would not post something denying something that is a FACTUAL WAR CRIME, with photographic evidence, with testimony.

People also thought Rudy Vrba was lying when he escaped Auschwitz and told about the ovens. It sounded kinda made up and far fetched, you see. And yes, I do feel sorry for you.

A quick and simple Yahoo or Google search shows returns many, many hits. Just as a search on Nazis raping Ukrainian women would.

Here are just the first two hits. I'm sure you will proclaim these lies. Both include sex slaves tied to chairs. Gosh, how far fetched and kinda madeup sounding, huh?! Why does admitting Japan committed these war crimes seem to bother you so much? Don't bother to answer. I won't be able to see it.

http://sun.menloschool.org/~khanson/westernstudies/wwii/nanking/terror.html

http://wwww.c-spanvideo.org/appearance/600394734





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #58)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 11:24 PM

59. I had never seen such dramatic evidence.

I am convinced.

Thank you for the link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #53)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:19 AM

61. "So, yeah, that really is worse than a draft. "

 

Indeed.

No man every drafted was subject to physical abuse and ultimately death.

Never.

Male soldiers mostly spent their time riding roller coasters and eating cotton candy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:51 PM

54. Now, in these days, with the technology we have? Yes. It is sexism. Not going to argue which is

worse though as both are awful and need to be stopped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 10:41 PM

63. Today's military...

...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?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 09:24 AM

69. In any situation where a disposable human is needed it is invariably men

 

look at all the most dangerous jobs in the country and throughout history (including but not limited to the military).

In every one men dominate.

Consider who is assumed cowardly for not dying to protect their mate. Always men.

Who is wrong for not running in to a burning building to save someone else. Always men.

And so on.

If you want some job done and likely it will kill the person doing it go find a man.

Yes, this is sexism. And it doesn't matter that historically the top .1% have been men. All that means is that 51% of women (always a slight majority) and 48.9% of men have been oppressed. Men are over represented in the top it's true. But they're also over represented at the bottom (when was the last woman garbage collector you saw?). And men at the top aren't making laws to benefit men, they're making laws to benefit themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #69)

Tue Aug 28, 2012, 09:27 AM

70. Ann Romney is no less wealthy than Mitt.

 

The top .1% is made up of men and women equally.

Otherwise, yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Sat Sep 1, 2012, 08:28 AM

71. Thats a hard one

 

On one hand people dont usually die from having sex but loads of people die in war. Now a s a straight guy, I would sooner become a male prostitute than enlist in a brutal war like WW II.

Then again I would prefer not be forced into either option

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:55 AM

73. Yes, it is sexism.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:49 PM

74. Good thing we have an all volunteer military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 10:57 PM

75. Yes,now. But in my lifetime, there was a draft and draft registration. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #75)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:59 PM

76. That was one good thing Nixon did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:53 AM

77. 17,725 draftees (30.4%) died in Vietnam..

every single one of them a man. Many not even believing in the cause...I don't see how the draft could be considered anything other than sexist.

http://www.veteranshour.com/vietnam_war_statistics.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:57 AM

78. Yes, but it can't be discussed as a male issue cause we did it to ourselves, right?

What bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #78)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:27 AM

79. Apparently so...at least that's what I keep seeing..

No matter the issue, it always seems to come back around to blaming men. Some people don't even want a discussion, or your progressive credentials are challenged by a self appointed grand inquisitor...

Sure it's bullshit..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:46 AM

80. It is Always the Mans Fault

 

With some bigots, it is always the mans fault.




Macoy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Macoy51 (Reply #80)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 10:09 AM

81. The same people who claim it's always the man's fault for men's problems...

Also seem to be the one's who claim it's our culture that is responsible for women's problems, and they define our culture as "the patriarchy". So that way when women cause or exacerbate the problems that women face, they can still blame men.

For further reading...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread