NationStates

Fahran wrote:

Kowani wrote:Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved language in its annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the committee behind closed doors Wednesday “amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service,” according to a summary released Thursday.

Based and litty.

Kowani wrote:

Fahran wrote:Based and litty.

i mean, no
war conscription is an evil
this is "based" in the sense that sharing the burden equally means its repeal is more likely to go forward but i don't think that's what you meant

Page wrote:

Kowani wrote:i mean, no
war conscription is an evil
this is "based" in the sense that sharing the burden equally means its repeal is more likely to go forward but i don't think that's what you meant

My guess is that conscription will finally be abolished during the next Vietnam (meaning an unnecessary, unjust but highly costly war) after a few thousand fragging incidents.

Page wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
This assumes 100% of the population would be conscripted, up from 50%. This is not a good view of it.

Instead, what happens is there is a target. Say, "We need 100,000 soldiers" and then those are called up based on a lottery.

100,000 people are going to be harmed either way. The change merely makes it so that it doesn't only happen to men. We're not doubling the number of people being conscripted because that's not how conscription works. We're doubling the pool of conscripts and ensuring equality.

Incidentally, in 2014, the USA tried to draft 14,250 men born in the 19th century due to a clerical error. After failing to receive adequate reason for their non-response, several thousand letters were sent out informing them of the legal consequences.

Only later did the government realize their mistake, once the post-office told them that these people were, you know. Dead.

Even though making women eligible for conscription does not mean twice as many people are enslaved, this change is still worse than the previous inequality because now it's going to be harder to get rid of conscription than ever before. The unequal burden on men was a powerful weapon in arguing that conscription is wrong and now that weapon is gone.

Page wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
This assumes 100% of the population would be conscripted, up from 50%. This is not a good view of it.

Instead, what happens is there is a target. Say, "We need 100,000 soldiers" and then those are called up based on a lottery.

100,000 people are going to be harmed either way. The change merely makes it so that it doesn't only happen to men. We're not doubling the number of people being conscripted because that's not how conscription works. We're doubling the pool of conscripts and ensuring equality.

Incidentally, in 2014, the USA tried to draft 14,250 men born in the 19th century due to a clerical error. After failing to receive adequate reason for their non-response, several thousand letters were sent out informing them of the legal consequences.

Only later did the government realize their mistake, once the post-office told them that these people were, you know. Dead.

Even though making women eligible for conscription does not mean twice as many people are enslaved, this change is still worse than the previous inequality because now it's going to be harder to get rid of conscription than ever before. The unequal burden on men was a powerful weapon in arguing that conscription is wrong and now that weapon is gone.

Galloism wrote:

Page wrote:
Even though making women eligible for conscription does not mean twice as many people are enslaved, this change is still worse than the previous inequality because now it's going to be harder to get rid of conscription than ever before. The unequal burden on men was a powerful weapon in arguing that conscription is wrong and now that weapon is gone.

Unbelievably hard disagree.

Society just doesn’t care about bad things that happen to only to men as a class.

You can see this in numerous things: the treatment of men who are victims of rape and domestic violence by women, the sexist (de jure) treatment under law regarding male birth control, the fact 96-97% of those killed by police, and a whole host of other things. Nobody cares about the fact men are the ones suffering these things.

A boy being unable to go to college because of not signing up for the death list doesn’t tug at society’s heartstrings. Society screams he should know better.

A girl being unable to go to college for the same reason will get society mad. How could they do this to her?

This is one of the manifestations of the actor/object problem.

The path to repeal goes through making this equal, so the injustice will be felt by someone society gives a fuck about.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Galloism wrote:Unbelievably hard disagree.

Society just doesn’t care about bad things that happen to only to men as a class.

You can see this in numerous things: the treatment of men who are victims of rape and domestic violence by women, the sexist (de jure) treatment under law regarding male birth control, the fact 96-97% of those killed by police, and a whole host of other things. Nobody cares about the fact men are the ones suffering these things.

A boy being unable to go to college because of not signing up for the death list doesn’t tug at society’s heartstrings. Society screams he should know better.

A girl being unable to go to college for the same reason will get society mad. How could they do this to her?

This is one of the manifestations of the actor/object problem.

The path to repeal goes through making this equal, so the injustice will be felt by someone society gives a fuck about.

I'll again dispute the idea that this is an actor/object problem because women are seen as actors when it comes to positive things, and men are seen as objects when it comes to positive things. The matrix in question is one that lionizes and celebrates womens agency and demonizes and villainizes mens agency.

When women use agency positively, society recognizes it. When men do, they are merely objects acted upon by their environment and the credit isn't mens. (At it's worst, this is spun into demonizing men even further by taking that positive agency, claiming it *For women* and demonizing men for having "privilege" that afforded them the ability to use their agency positively. So a man cures cancer and we get weeks of seething and histrionic misandry from feminists about how a woman would have done it if men hadn't used their agency in such a negative and evil way to keep women out of scientific research. This is the extent to which there is a borderline pathological aversion to recognizing men as positive actors.). Flip when the agency is negative. Suddenly the woman is acted upon by patriarchy (Once again directing all negative sentiment towards men), but when a man does it, he is an independent actor, or it's still the fault of men as a class.
Discussing it as an actor/object dichotomy is a way for the less openly misandrist feminists to try and conceive of the issue without acknowledging the fundamentally misandrist nature of what goes on. It is pandering to the same distorted view of the world that causes the problem in the first place.

You need to grab them by the head, force their eyelids open, and rub their faces in it for them to see it.

Galloism wrote:So, while you are correct that there is a segment of society that operates the way you just described, we can see the actor/object problem even in positive or neutral contexts when it comes to “normal” people.

Women are quite often sidelined when it comes to how much their input on a group project is recognized compared with men. You can see this in corporate America, even with how “progressive” it is.

There are also numerous historical examples last century (ie, going to the moon) where there were women doing critical work that didn’t get into the paper with the all male team that “made it happen”.

What you’re focusing on is the way feminism, by and large as a group (some individuals excepted), focused on the actor/object problem, which was as a women’s interests group first and equality group only by accident: maximizing women’s agency only when it benefits women, and minimizing it when it harms them.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Galloism wrote:So, while you are correct that there is a segment of society that operates the way you just described, we can see the actor/object problem even in positive or neutral contexts when it comes to “normal” people.

Women are quite often sidelined when it comes to how much their input on a group project is recognized compared with men. You can see this in corporate America, even with how “progressive” it is.

There are also numerous historical examples last century (ie, going to the moon) where there were women doing critical work that didn’t get into the paper with the all male team that “made it happen”.

What you’re focusing on is the way feminism, by and large as a group (some individuals excepted), focused on the actor/object problem, which was as a women’s interests group first and equality group only by accident: maximizing women’s agency only when it benefits women, and minimizing it when it harms them.

I think we could use something more contemporary than 1959 dude.

A 20 year old at that point would be 82 by now. so while you can point to some living individuals who experienced the phenomanae you're describing in this example, they're so few in number as to be insignificant to the overall trend. How does the phenomanae actually impact living individuals?

Galloism wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I think we could use something more contemporary than 1959 dude.

A 20 year old at that point would be 82 by now. so while you can point to some living individuals who experienced the phenomanae you're describing in this example, they're so few in number as to be insignificant to the overall trend. How does the phenomanae actually impact living individuals?

The fact that black people were kept as slaves on plantations in the 1800s and before still affects the modern world. Understanding the history of things is part of understanding where we are now.

Do you think these things just go away in a generation like they never happened?

Washington Resistance Army wrote:I actually disagree, there's a decent body of research from the US showing women in combat units leads to lesser results across the board. While I get the arguments made in favor of a gender neutral draft and at times might even have agreed with them it just seems to be a bad idea overall.

New haven america wrote:Someone's been reading Heinlein.

New haven america wrote:And it was a bad idea there, it's a bad idea IRL.

Kowani wrote:i mean, no
war conscription is an evil
this is "based" in the sense that sharing the burden equally means its repeal is more likely to go forward but i don't think that's what you meant

Page wrote:My guess is that conscription will finally be abolished during the next Vietnam (meaning an unnecessary, unjust but highly costly war) after a few thousand fragging incidents.

Fahran wrote:

Page wrote:My guess is that conscription will finally be abolished during the next Vietnam (meaning an unnecessary, unjust but highly costly war) after a few thousand fragging incidents.

We're not likely to fight another Vietnam War. Most of our allies that are seriously threatened our democracies terrified of being gobbled up by dictatorships. Taiwan, South Korea, and the Baltic States don't provide us with the same political factors that were present in South Vietnam. Mind you, I don't believe we should continue projecting our influence outward or propping up the neoliberal hegemony. But I suspect at least some of our leftist colleagues would howl if China or Russia began gaining power and propping up governments fashioned in their own image. Social liberalism would be weakened globally at that point.

And, no, conscription is not a form of slavery. Soldiers are not chattel. Soldiers have the benefits of full citizenship and enjoy a special status in many quarters. A slave doesn't get a medal for his labor. A slave doesn't get commemorated by her owners or supervisors. The fact that people view them as the same is a touch shocking honestly.

Saiwania wrote:.
My takeaway is that men should look for a woman who's poorer than them, or work on getting the income up before looking.

Sundiata wrote:

Saiwania wrote:.
My takeaway is that men should look for a woman who's poorer than them, or work on getting the income up before looking.

If your wife makes a lot of money you should generally be making just as much if not more. It's not becoming of a man to have a disordered or effeminate attachment to pleasure. No women in her right mind would want a man who doesn't intend to give fully of himself and carry the cross of family, marriage, and society.

Do we want to have a meaningful life? Well, everything we do matters.

Crysuko wrote:The existence of house husbands renders this moot. If you want to play the “should” game, then whatever. But don’t pretend female breadwinners don’t exist.

Crysuko wrote:

Sundiata wrote:If your wife makes a lot of money you should generally be making just as much if not more. It's not becoming of a man to have a disordered or effeminate attachment to pleasure. No women in her right mind would want a man who doesn't intend to give fully of himself and carry the cross of family, marriage, and society.

Do we want to have a meaningful life? Well, everything we do matters.

The existence of house husbands renders this moot. If you want to play the “should” game, then whatever. But don’t pretend female breadwinners don’t exist.

Saiwania wrote:If a career woman stays with one, it is because she genuinely can't do any better because she's too old or unappealing to the men she'd probably be more attracted to.

Isles of Eamhna wrote:Have you ever actually spoken to a woman, m8? Do you happen to know any women personally, or are you just going off what you read about them on stormfront?

Kowani wrote:Senate Armed Services Committee votes to make women register for the draft

The Senate Armed Services Committee has approved language in its annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the committee behind closed doors Wednesday “amends the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service,” according to a summary released Thursday.

Ostroeuropa wrote:I would be fine with all of what you posted if people on the conscription list were directly consulted on the institution of a draft and a referenda were held among them. At that point you can posit a collective responsibility and duty narrative. But folks outside the register telling others they have to go to war is not civic responsibility or duty or whatever, those are all just buzz words designed to mask the exploitation of one group by another group for selfish interests. If the moral case for a war and for drafting in that war is evident, it should be evident to those it will impact.

Why precisely should a government full of 60+ year olds who have never been drafted get to lecture about the civic responsibility of the draft to 20 year olds they are sending into a pointless war that those people do not support?