RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Drafting Women For Gulf War II(72 posts)

Drafting Women For Gulf War IIJOM
Jun 4, 2002 2:13 PM
All,
Just felt like starting a long thread :-)

With all of this equality stuff flying around why shouldn't women be drafted alongside guys when we go back to Iraq?

I mean, they wanted to get into the military because they were equal. However, once in they didn't shave their heads nor live up to the same standards as guys.

So what do you think? Should Mary be burning her bra, her draft card, or both?
That's wrongliu02bhs
Jun 4, 2002 9:21 PM
Don't be a wimp. Do you want women to fight a war for you? You know how much stuff the Congressmen is gonna get for passing that law? Do you really want to see your girlfriend fighting a war, getting disfigured, killed? I mean, not to be sexist or anything, I support women in the military because it's their choice, but to force women to fight, that's just kinda too low.
Good With the BadJOM
Jun 5, 2002 9:27 AM
So you just want to be equal when it suits you? N'est-ce-pas? That's not equal and less than equivalent.

You either want to be equal (in which case sex is not an issue for the draft) or you want special consideration(sex is an issue). Yes, I do see the two as being mutually exclusive take your pick. Just don't be hypocritical.
potential legitimate distinction?DougSloan
Jun 5, 2002 9:37 AM
One concern I've heard about women in combat roles is what would happen if they were captured. Especially if adversaries are largely men, captured women might be subjected to different types of torture, harrassment, and ill treatment than men, particularly of a sexual nature, than men would. This seems like a legitimate distinction as far as placing women in combat roles involutarily, but not necessarily volutarily, as long as they understand this potential.

Nonetheless, I can't even imagine the horrors of torture inflicted upon men that could be equally concerning.

Don't know how this shakes out, but it seems at least worth of consideration.

Doug
They need to be protected?JOM
Jun 5, 2002 12:17 PM
Doug,
It sounds as if you are trying to protect them - protect those who are supposed to protect us? I don't mean to sound like a hard a$$, but if something bad happens TFB.
As for torture, I am sure many of our POW's would disagree.
If you are worried about protecting them from rape like they are some kind of national treasure then surely they should not be in combat or even the military.
Also, your arguement sounds very patriarchal - again like you are trying to defend their virtue. Something on which not even the feminists would agree with you.
againDougSloan
Jun 5, 2002 12:45 PM
I'll repeat, "Don't know how this shakes out, but it seems at least worthy of consideration."

You said: "As for torture, I am sure many of our POW's would disagree."

I had said: "Nonetheless, I can't even imagine the horrors of torture inflicted upon men that could be equally concerning."

It seems like you might be trying a little to hard to be contentious, almost as if to say, "Ok, you wanted equal rights, no go and die, that'll show you!" I hope I'm wrong, but that's sort of how it's coming off to me.

Doug
Are you a damn draft-dodger?liu02bhs
Jun 5, 2002 8:17 PM
I think we have enough men so that we don't have to draft women. Of course, cowards such as the draft-dodgers messes it up. This is why I strongly dislike their kind. If they are too scared to give their life for their freedom, they don't deserve it. And I'm not a girl.
Sometimes draft-dodging is not about fear.Len J
Jun 6, 2002 6:13 AM
Sometimes draft-dodging is about courage & taking a stand on a war that you believe is immoral. Some of the people I know who dodged the vietnam draft did it out of moral outrage, not cowardice. In fact, I believe that thier actions were more courageous than those who used political connections to avoid the draft.

While there were certainly some who dodged out of cowardice, my experience is that most who dodged did it out of moral outrage at a war that was both immoral and illegal.

Len
choiceharlett
Jun 6, 2002 2:07 PM
len.as a woman i object when i see others try and deny me anything simply because of gender-- as a pacifist i am guided by, among others, erasmus' peacemaking prince--
as a woman pacifist i think we should all encourage others to travel their own honest path--

lauren
Labeling.......Len J
Jun 6, 2002 3:45 PM
Lauren:

Words convey in imperfect ways our imperfect view of the world. It's a natural human tendancy, in order to try to communicate our understanding, to reduce groups of individuals to a group & label them based on one attribute. Wheather it's draft-dodger, femanist, male, female, the labels are attempting to define all members of the group by one attribute for simplicity. Unfortunatly, what's lost with these labels is the uniqueness of each member of the group and not just the unique choices each of them make, but the unique reasons they make those choices. When you say pacifist, I (based on my experience) envision a thoughtful decision that war is abbhorant, my father, on the other hand (based on his WW II experience) would have envisioned a coward, afraid to fight for their country. In conversation, my use of the word to communicate something to my Father, would elicit a completely different reaction than anticipated. Sorry for the ramble, but "pacifist" triggered memories of a lesson in labeling I learned during the Vietnam Draft.

I think labeling is one of the reasons for conflict on this board.

I would change your last sentance to:

"As a thoughtful, aware Human, I think we should all encourage others to travel their own honest path."

Thanks for the Memory, it's a good reminder for me.

Len
Labeling.......harlett
Jun 6, 2002 8:29 PM
that imperfection you talk about ..that it can, at times, disappear in poetry i find intriguing..that poetry can act as the dissolution of a chasm between people--

your right about labels--
re: Drafting Women For Gulf War IIdsc
Jun 4, 2002 9:45 PM
"I mean, they wanted to get into the military because they were equal. However, once in they didn't shave their heads nor live up to the same standards as guys."

And you're basing this statement on...???

When I was on active duty, we did not shave our heads because that would have been considered an eccentric haircut (for a female). And we followed the standards that were set down before us - just like the men.

Who really wants to go to war and kill or be killed? Not many, but every single female I knew understood that this is the ultimate purpose of having a military - to go to war, if called upon to do so. Sure, there were some who would have done just about anything to get out of it. But let me tell you something, pal; I knew of more than a few guys who would have "disappeared into the night", had the s**t hit the fan.

When you have some real questions to pose, then we'll talk.

-Debi
well said debiharlett
Jun 5, 2002 12:55 AM
JOM...your patronizing attitude has no real meaning in todays world-- women should have the choices to do what they want--

women who gave their lives in combat during the gulf war:
pfc cindy d.j. bridges
private dorothy fails
private candace daniel
sergeant tracey brogdon
2lt kathleen sherry
specialist cindy beaudoin
specialist christine mayes
specialist beverly clark.
specialist adrienne mitchell
staff sergeant tatiana khaghani dees
sergeant cheryl o'brien
lt. lorraine lawton
ag1 shirley marie cross

women who have given their lives in combat in afganistan
radio operator sergeant jeannette winters
pilot lt terri fessner

captain lillian kinkela keil, one of the most decorated soldiers in the u.s. military, flew over 200 air evacuation missions during times of war--

historical records verify the fact that over sixty women were either wounded or killed at various battles during the civil war-- most of these young women were passing themselves as men to be able to fight--

women have served and died and given the same of themselves as men in each war this country has been involved in--

women in the military are also as dedicated as men in succeeding in all forms--
air force, navy and army pilots that have flown combat missions and are now astronauts:
col. eileen collins
col. susan helms
lt col nancy jane currie
cmdr. wendy lawrence
col yvonne cagle
cmdr. susan kilrain
lt col. pam melroy
lt cmdr. susan still
lt. col. catherine coleman
cmdr. laurel clark
cmdr. lisa nowak

btw...when eleanor roosevelt taught at the todhunter school years ago, one of her mottos, posted on the wall , was "be all that you can be!"
as len would say.....this is about choice--
Ditto, and.......Len J
Jun 5, 2002 3:59 AM
As a Parent, the drafting of one of my daughters for war would feel the same as drafting of one of my sons.

Len
You're picking and choosing, Harlettcory
Jun 5, 2002 7:42 AM
I'm a former Special Forces medic and a Vietnam vet, and I worked with (female) nurses quite a bit toward the end of my tour. They stood alongside the men, did just as much and just as well, and I have absolute respect for them. I think I agree with you, as far as I understand what point you're trying to make. And I marched all over Nevada trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed, which is like marching for Allah in Texas.
But when you present that paltry list of, what is it, a couple of dozen names, and imply that it shows equality...aw, come on. In Vietnam alone, there were nearly SIXTY THOUSAND men killed. I don't think anybody should be drafted, but if we're going to draft men, I don't see how we can not draft women.
You're picking and choosing, Harlettharlett
Jun 5, 2002 9:14 AM
.i would not use the word 'paltry' in describing the list of any who have died--
my lists of women's deaths in combat are not inclusive...the lists are to make the point that women have chosen to be in combat and have given their lives--
women are serving in completely different roles than they did in vietnam-- my reference to the civil war was because it was one in which personal reasons for fighting were so pronounced....we will never know how many women fought and died in it--
women should be able to serve as they wish and deeply feel..they have and with distinction--
You Missed The PointJOM
Jun 5, 2002 9:40 AM
harlett,
My question is not about choice - much like the draft. Neither did I question the roles women have played in the past.
Simply put, if you believe in equality then you must support drafting women. Otherwise, you circumvent the definition of equality. Pardon the oversimplication, but take your pick :
1) We are all equal - draft everyone.
2) We are not all equal - draft some.

Also, whereas I appreciate the list of women you provided, I only wish I could post a similar list for the guys. I don't think we have enough server space for that...
You Missed The Pointharlett
Jun 5, 2002 9:55 AM
try and remember what you have said.."once in they didn't..live up to the same standards as guys." if i had wanted to respond to your question on the draft and equality i would have--
No Bad Hair Days in a Fox HoleJOM
Jun 5, 2002 10:05 AM
Again,
Women want equality - demand access to the military.
Women get access, suddenly forget equality and say we're special! Don't draft me, I cannot do as many pushups as a guy, and don't touch my hair.

Pleeeeeease - you just want all the good with none of the bad...
don't lump everyone togetherDougSloan
Jun 5, 2002 10:15 AM
I think you might be off in lumping, effectively, all women together. For all we know many of the women in the military would like to be held to the same standards as men, but the superiors think differently.

Besides, in all fairness, I don't think anyone here said any of the things you say they do.

Maybe what would be appropriate in the military is to assign people to different roles depending upon body size, strength, etc., regardless of sex. Sure, that will necessarily mean that a disproportionate number of women will not be fulfilling combat roles that require those attributes, but at least there may be valid reasons for the distinctions.
Lump everyone togetherJOM
Jun 5, 2002 2:49 PM
Hey Doug,
The military is exactyly that -lumping everyone together and weeding out all non-hackers.

Also, why not answer the question?
answer the question?DougSloan
Jun 5, 2002 3:06 PM
This is my original response, which you may have missed:

"I would oppose a draft, but agree that if there is a draft, men and women should be drafted equally.

However, the military has plenty of non-combat roles, many of which could be filled by women or anyone less suitable (size, strength, etc.) for combat."
Where's the confusion?JOM
Jun 5, 2002 12:23 PM
What's not to understand.
1) Women want equality and demand access to the military.
2) Once women gain access they then say:
a) Don't make me buzz my hair.
b) Don't expect me to meet the same standards as men for PT.
c) Give me special consideration for promotions.

Again - we are equal or we aren't. Take the good with the bad.
Get over it Bubba.xxll
Jun 5, 2002 1:05 PM
Harlett kicked your ass on your stupid "women don't live up to standards in the military" remark. I know some women in the military that could really kick your ass too.
Math Class is HardJOM
Jun 5, 2002 1:42 PM
Dear Mary,

Did you read the question? The issue was not whether "women live up to standards in the military" but whether they should live up to the same standards as men.

They do not.

Why not?

Something to say?

I even went so far as to create a simple IF THEN logic statement. OOOOPs that's right women aren't logical - math class is hard.

You do not answer the issue at hand because you cannot. Perhaps, you could ask a guy to explain it to you.
now it's obvious you're trolling; you're out of the loop. nmDougSloan
Jun 5, 2002 2:27 PM
What are you the friggen hall monitor?JOM
Jun 5, 2002 2:51 PM
I am out of the loop? That's fitting since your logic is circular and you refuse to answer the original question.
yes. nmDougSloan
Jun 5, 2002 2:59 PM
Go tell the teacherJOM
Jun 5, 2002 3:17 PM
Doug,
No-one is going to take your lunch money. But if you need to tell the teacher than go ahead.
Get over it Bubba.harlett
Jun 5, 2002 3:29 PM
xxll..this isn't about someone kicking someone's ass-- it's about young girls and women who need role models in all the areas that they may have the will to go into-- you could have positive strong role models or the voices of condescending people like JOM-- i choose the role models-- past and present military women have inspired with their will and deeds-- we need to honor that service and dedication and not play silly gender games with it--
Agreed, mostlyJOM
Jun 5, 2002 3:46 PM
Again harlett,
I do not see where the a$$ kicking came in. Also, I do not see you answering the original question. If it's about role models you should have mentioned that before.
Perhaps, if we had the draft women would have more role models.
As for honoring the service of women, I believe we do that: at Arlington, Vietnam Memorial (Have you seen the statue?), Korean, et al.
Such silly gender games they playkoolaid
Jun 5, 2002 9:57 PM
I applaud your decision to not play his silly gender games with the draft equality question. Your responses went right to the point of his patronizing attitude!!
Thanks Harlet for being here!

LizBeth
re: "Drafting" i intrepret as involuntary...jrm
Jun 5, 2002 8:18 AM
But your argument suggests Drafting being used to describe a voluntary choice to join up for whatever reason. This however assumes tha the individual has an understanding that they, again non gender specific, may be called opon to serve in a war.

The next thing is the " it was not made clear by the recruiter that i may serve in a war" defense. but then again you dont even have to be on the front line to be killed in the army.

I do however want to make it crystal clear that i am in no way disrespecting those that have been drafted into the armed forces either involuntarily or voluntarily and in fact fought proudly.
War Time - Let's Get Pregnant!!!JOM
Jun 5, 2002 10:00 AM
Debi,
I think you missed the point. All through the 90's we heard all of this equality stuff - women in the military, equal pay... However, if you want to have the benefits of the military on an equal playing field - expect to take the good with the bad.

I have no problem with equality. However, what women do in the military is far from it. They expect and demand lesser standards - why is that? If you are equal then get in line. If you are not equal and want special treatment fine - just tune down the rhetoric.

Hair cuts: how many women buzzed their hair even though they did not have to? A few - of whom I respect. When in the military you buzz your hair to lose your individuality (nowadays). Do you not see the hypocrisy in demanding equal rights and then turning around and saying: don't draft me, don't cut my hair, and don't expect me to be an equal member of the team???

As for "Who wants to go to war" obviously the women do.

BTW, during the Gulf War many ships had to turn back (I know of at least 3) solely because a large proportion of the female crew suddenly becamse pregnant. How convenient. If you want to get pregnant - great. Just don't do it when we are trying to push through the TPFDD and get the war going.

As for the real question, I'll make it easier for you.
IF equality is something women want
THEN why shouldn't women be drafter.

Take your pick: I want to be equal OR I'm special.
draft is funamentally wrong for either genderDuane Gran
Jun 5, 2002 4:48 AM
I'm one of those people who appose the draft under any circumstance, regardless of the gender of the person whose fundamental right to life is violated.

The draft is the notion that your life belongs to the state or society in general. It has no place in a civilized society. The only reason to draft citizens is to wage an unpopular war, and if the war is truly unpopular then it shouldn't be waged. A society will never have to draft citizens to defend its own borders unless the home government is so corrupt that the enemy is considered a liberator.

In my view there is simply no ethical way that a government can draft people for war.
That's a separate debate...jtolleson
Jun 5, 2002 6:10 AM
though not an unimportant one. As a fundamentally anti-war pacifist, I would largely agree with you on conscription, particularly for unpopular, unwise, oppressive wars (say, Vietnam). Not to even mention the way the lottery system then was skewed in favor of upper class folks (predominantly white).

But if there is a draft, it needs to include women, period. I don't want to be patronized and protected, I want to be respected. And while most do not relish the idea of seeing their number come up, I have no reason to believe that women would respond with any less commitment than men.
a matter of fundamentalsDuane Gran
Jun 5, 2002 10:15 AM
In a sense I see what you mean. If there must be a draft, it ought to be equal regardless of gender, race and wealth. The problem is that I can't quite get past my fundamental dispute with the draft. It is like asking who should be cannablized first on the deserted island. If you simply don't believe in canabalism the answer is academic. I see the draft in this light.
I agree...JOM
Jun 5, 2002 1:51 PM
Duane,
I agree with your logic. However, even though I am not currently cannibal, when the $hit hits the fan on that Island - I am eating someone!!! Hopefully, Lady fingers!!!
yes and noDougSloan
Jun 5, 2002 6:09 AM
I would oppose a draft, but agree that if there is a draft, men and women should be drafted equally.

However, the military has plenty of non-combat roles, many of which could be filled by women or anyone less suitable (size, strength, etc.) for combat.
Equality stuffmr_spin
Jun 5, 2002 6:42 AM
Haven't seen any "equality stuff" flying around my neighborhood lately. I think it came through many years ago. Last I checked it was 2002, and none of this should be a big deal. If women want to fight and die in combat, no one should stand in their way.

The days are gone where we fight huge WWII-style infantry battles lasting weeks or months. As a result, the physiological differences between men and women become unimportant on the battlefield.
Equality stuffJOM
Jun 5, 2002 2:16 PM
mr_spin,
Thanks for the date check. However, one must be able to read the writing on the wall and realize we are "going back." Realizing the shortfall in our military logically leads to the possibility of the draft - the purpose of the posting. No one was questioning "if" they want to fight but now that they can fight - should they be drafted. Better yet, now that we are all equal and have female combatants, if the draft returns, why not draft regardless of sex?

As for battles. Bombers make for voyeuristic eye candy on the 6:00 news but it's the troops that win the war. How many thousands or troops were in the Gulf? Just wait until we have to take a country - door to door. Then see how dis-similar battles are.

As for the differences on the battlefield - I believe that inadequacies will show through due to the lesser standards women are put through. A question for you: If you were drafted and sent to go door to door in Iraq, would you want to watch your back a 6'2" 250 male SEAL or the Prom Queen? I use the SEALS because they only take the best - no exceptions made. Why choose the SEAL - better training!

Finally, it's interesting to note when the military drops the free ride and really says we are all equal the % of females goes towards zero. How many SEALs, Rangers, or other Special Forces do you know who are women. Isn't it Ironic that the "Special" forces are the only ones where everyone is equal? Hmmmm
Equality stuffmr_spin
Jun 5, 2002 2:59 PM
Okay, so the difference between a 6'2" 250 male SEAL and the Prom Queen is better training? Interesting.

To answer the question, the person I'd want watching my back is a fellow soldier who has a weapon and has been trained to use it. I don't see the difference between a seal and the prom queen here, unless the prom queen is still wearing her prom dress, and it's one of those big hoop Scarlett O'Hara ball gowns. I suspect that should this situation occur, she would leave the dress at home.

If the Special Forces were equal, they wouldn't be special. Special Forces and elite troops are inherently UNequal.
Think Happy ThoughtsJOM
Jun 5, 2002 3:29 PM
Doug,
Back in Guttenberg's time the most important thing anyone could do was read. Once many were able to read it was then more important to read between the lines. I urge you to attempt to analyze and correlate the entire line of thought. I hope your obvious misquoting was just you being you.

1) SEAL analogy used (and cited as such) because the SEALS only graduate the best. Mary Jane would never cut it in the SEALS because they would not make concessions.
2) The training is not the same for men and women - the whole point. Thus, the person watching your back would not be able or expected to "hump" the same amount of gear, be as fit, nor march as far. Could be a problem when your're on the move.
3) Selection process for the special forces is more equal than any other in the military. There are no gimme's in the seals.

BTW - when I saw Demi Moore shave her head in GI Jane I wondered why they couldn't all do it.

Lastly, if we took out the equality of selection from the Special Forces they wouldn't be Special. They would be just like everyone else. I thought this point would be gleaned upon you.

Lower the standards and less ye shall receive.
Double StandardsJOM
Jun 5, 2002 1:59 PM
All,
I think the point I am making is that women only want to be treated as equals when it suits them. For example:

1) Have you ever heard women lobbying for lower insurance rates for men? Why do young men have to pay more than females to whom they are supposedly equal? Despite all the bad jokes about female drivers, if we are all equal then let's all pay the same premium.

2) Equal Pay - No women and men do not do the same work for the same money. If this were true, women could easily start their own company and provide the same level of work and expertise at a lower cost. Since women get paid less the company would automatically profit from the 15 - 20% women supposedly get paid less. Somehow, I don't see this happening.

3) Ladies' Night: Albeit more trivial ever see a woman proclaiming injustice when it comes to admissions or other discounts. NOPE.

Face it ladies you want the best of both worlds. When it comes to the private sector I could care less. When it comes to the morale of our military I care a lot.
Did you just get dumped?mr_spin
Jun 5, 2002 2:28 PM
I'm not sure Ladies' Night ranks very high on the injustice scale. Perhaps you should notify Amnesty International. I suspect that if there is a place where significantly more women patronize the bars than men, there might be a Gentlemen's Night to try to even out the crowd. If you ever find this place, please let me (and only me) know! Do you think a lesbian bar has Ladies' Night?

I don't think women ever asked for lower insurance rates. I think insurance companies looked at the statistics and found that women were a lower risk.

Your equal pay argument is just idiotic.
Draft My WifeJOM
Jun 5, 2002 2:43 PM
Again, Mr Spin you say a lot but answer nothing. Of course the ladies night is trivial - thus the albeit part.

As for getting dumped, pleeeease. I only wish they would bring back the draft and could take my wife.

So let's we should not allow a sex based rate/risk system when it comes to insurance. However, when it comes to the line of duty - let's just say everyone is equal.

As for the idiotic part - let's just say you must have rejoiced at Clinton's don't ask don't tell policy with all of your "friends."

BTW - answer the original question, shut-up, or start your own post.
does the word "misogynist" come to mind? nmDougSloan
Jun 5, 2002 2:39 PM
No but "misandrist" does.JOM
Jun 5, 2002 2:56 PM
Double Standards??? (boil, boil, boil)AllisonHayes
Jun 5, 2002 3:48 PM
Women have lived with double standards throughout history--and still have excelled!

The truth of the matter is that it is men who only want to be treated as equals when it suits them.

1. When did women get the right to vote?
2. When did women get the right to own property?
3. Why is it that for the same job men still receive, on average, 30% more in pay?
4. I would like to see a man handle the burden of pregnancy and childbirth, not to mention monthly menstrual cycles. I would like to see a man handle the vicissitudes of extremes in hormonal balances.
5. I would like to see men be in the majority when it comes to being a single parent.
6. And you think women can't fight? One thing for certain buddy is that if women were in charge there probably wouldn't be a need to fight. Think about that, mister JOM.

You discount Harlott's argument because is doesn't fit into your simple-minded theory. You can't even articulate an argument because you mix too many half-baked generalizations into it. What are you, RRP reincarnate or simply his offal?

(and what does JOM mean anyway? Just Offal Material?)
Who, What, Where, When, and WhyJOM
Jun 5, 2002 3:56 PM
Allison,
Please reply wrt the numbers below to tell me where I went wrong.

1) Problem fixed.
2) Problem fixed.
3) According to Marilyn Vos Savant men and women do not do equal work and thus do not deserve equal pay. Check out later postings.
4) Men have it worse! We have to deal with women during childbirth, menstrual cycles, et al. Puh leeeeeezzzeeee
5) Your opinion, so be it.
6) Who said women can't fight? Did I ever say that? You should see my wife after she has a few drinks. She's ready to take Iraq by herself and she won't need any help. Hooo Rahhh.

7) How did I discount Harlett's arguement? I agree with most of it. I just stated she did not address the question - a lot like you.

Again, if we are all equal - why not draft women?
oh, brother: you don't get it do you?AllisonHayes
Jun 5, 2002 4:16 PM
1. oh, brother: you don't get it do you?
2. oh, brother: you don't get it do you?
3. oh, brother: you don't get it do you?
4. oh, brother: you don't get it do you?
5. you still don't get it do you?
6. you not only don't get it you miss the point entirely
7. you still don't get it do you?

Again, men don't like it when they are confronted with double standards.
Allison...DougSloan
Jun 5, 2002 5:03 PM
now don't go lumping all of us in with this guy.

Doug
I would never do that.AllisonHayes
Jun 5, 2002 5:22 PM
I deal with enough of this kind of attidude at stoplights or when I am riding by myself. Fortunately, these are the exceptions. As I have stated on several occasions, this is a great group of thoughtful, articulate, sincere, conscientious, creative, funny, eccentric and wacky people.

Of course there are also those who are just plain lame. One of these days, I will learn to ignore them.

Perhaps it is my fervent hope that someone might be changed in a positive way by my ramblings; I know that I am changed in a positive by what I have read by you and others on this board--which is what makes it invaluable to me.
Double Standards??? (boil, boil, boil)AllisonHayes
Jun 5, 2002 3:55 PM
Women have lived with double standards throughout history--and still have excelled!

The truth of the matter is that it is men who only want to be treated as equals when it suits them.

1. When did women get the right to vote?
2. When did women get the right to own property?
3. Why is it that for the same job men still receive, on average, 30% more in pay?
4. I would like to see a man handle the burden of pregnancy and childbirth, not to mention monthly menstrual cycles. I would like to see a man handle the vicissitudes of extremes in hormonal balances.
5. I would like to see men be in the majority when it comes to being a single parent.
6. And you think women can't fight? One thing for certain buddy is that if women were in charge there probably wouldn't be a need to fight. Think about that, mister JOM.

You discount Harlott's argument because is doesn't fit into your simple-minded theory. You can't even articulate an argument because you mix too many half-baked generalizations into it. What are you, RRP reincarnate or simply his offal?

(and what does JOM mean anyway? Just Offal Material?)
Here's a reponse from a true G.I...Spinchick
Jun 5, 2002 2:26 PM
ROTFLMAO! nmDougSloan
Jun 5, 2002 2:28 PM
WRT DS & ROTFLMAO! nm - FIDO!JOM
Jun 5, 2002 2:57 PM
Now that's funny (nm)peloton
Jun 5, 2002 3:46 PM
nm
Yowzah! Spinchick rocks! (nm)The Walrus
Jun 5, 2002 4:33 PM
Hahaha!!! This should be the new, official "Troll Response"(nm)dsc
Jun 5, 2002 11:59 PM
DougSloan - Go join the Jelly of the Month clubJOM
Jun 5, 2002 3:01 PM
Hey Doug,
Go join the friggen Jelly of the Month club and let the fighting to the real men (and real women).
Regards
And so the latest troll comes to another pathetic end....nmmr_spin
Jun 5, 2002 3:08 PM
Doug - You think Marilyn vos Savant is an idiot?JOM
Jun 5, 2002 3:15 PM
Douggie boy,
My idea for the female business, the one you called idiotic, came directly from Marilyn vos Savant. In case you have not heard of her she is in the Guinness Book of World Records Hall of Fame under High IQ. I actually quoted that entire paragraph from her column in the Parade. I love her column and think she has truly earned her genius reputation.

Care to comment on that or do you just want to run and hide. Good thing you're not in battle.
no, you are missing my pointDougSloan
Jun 5, 2002 3:28 PM
Despite my better judgment, I'll respond one last time.

I did not intend to directly address that portion of your flurry of posts.

As a matter of fact, I think Marilyn is very highly respected, and I find her column very interesting.

My point is that the vituperative tone of your posts here suggest that you hate women. You have gone far beyond arguing your original point, or question. You attacked almost everyone who responded, seemingly ignoring what they actually had to say. You attacked me, when I *agreed* with your original point, that both should be drafted equally. You ignored me and others who actually agreed with you, and then proceeded to alienate every person here, I'd imagine.

What the heck is with this "run and hide" stuff? I, as well as others, thoughtfully responded to your original post. All I care about at this point is that you have attacked people here with your rude, arrogant, classless remarks. The only thing to run from is this silly discussion.

I'm done. Have a nice day.

Doug
Admit When You're Wrong - Your equal pay argument is just idiotiJOM
Jun 5, 2002 3:41 PM
Agreed, this is the last post on my end.

However, one should admit when they are wrong. Clearly, you stated "Your equal pay argument is just idiotic.". Now you state "I did not intend to directly address that portion of your flurry of posts. " You cannot have it both ways. Your comment directly states that Marilyn vos Savant's idea is idiotic. You were wrong.

Check the posts Doug and you will find that attack #1 came from yourself ref: DougSloan Jun-05-02, 03:39 PM with the hate women comment. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Run and hide stuff: I suppose as a civilian you have the luxury of picking your battles, some of us do it because we are ordered to. If you want to terminate input then just go away. Lose the snyde comments.

All that said, I think you owe Marilyn an apology.
Ok, once more, because you are sooooo wrongDougSloan
Jun 5, 2002 4:13 PM
>Clearly, you stated "Your equal pay argument is just idiotic."

No, I didn't say that, someone else did. You have attributed several comments to me that I never said. Check the facts.

>one should admit when they are wrong.

BTW, I don't think we know anything about you. Every once in a while a new person, such as yourself, trolls through, making lots of waves, then disappears after alienating everyone. Have I missed something, or have you been around a while sincerely contributing?
In conclusion...JOM
Jun 5, 2002 3:49 PM
All,
Please refer to the first line of my message

"Just felt like starting a long thread :-) "

Let's hope we never have to find out the answer to the question.

Peace and Love (Especially for the Ladies) ;-)
Johnny come latelyStarliner
Jun 5, 2002 10:25 PM
Having just read through the comments, this thread reminds me of a sloppy tomato fight...

Yes its wrong for this country to require boys to register for the draft at 18 (?) while not requiring the same of its young women. Why it hasn't been changed yet is a disturbing thought; indicative of what I see as a continued patronization of the "weaker" sex, an attitude carried over from a time when women could not vote, and apparently still held by some male contributors to this board.

Sorry Doug Sloan, but to say women should be drafted, and then once in, give them "soft" things to do is a cop-out. If a woman wants to go to the front lines, and has passed through training, then permit her. Let her be a fighter pilot. Fly a bomber. Be a sniper. Operate a tank. I've heard something like 85% of the positions in the military are currently unisex.

There are big strong men who turn out to be cowards when the bullets start whizzing by. And there are weasly snots who show a lot of heart and turn out to be heros in the same dire circumstances. The same yardstick can be applied to women. You don't need a war to see this - it's that way in everyday life if you keep your eyes open and look around. In fact, if you just throw everyone in the same pot and let the cream rise to the top on its own accord, don't be surprised to see both males and females spilling over the brim.

Bravery and heroism are gender-blind concepts.
JOM = Jerk Of the Month (nm)AllisonHayes
Jun 6, 2002 6:42 AM
and not one pun on 'drafting'...everyone, out of the pool. <: o(128
Jun 6, 2002 12:12 PM
At first I thought this thread was about women drafting (nm)ColnagoFE
Jun 6, 2002 2:35 PM
re: Drafting Women For Gulf War IIempacher6seat
Jun 6, 2002 2:48 PM
I don't mean to fight somebody else's war here, but for some reason I remember Doug saying those non-combat positions should be held by people who didn't make the standard of those set out for combat positions.

And in response to JOM's original question, I think women and men should be drafted equally. However, I think JMO grossly generalized by grouping women into the "I want special treatment" group. There are plenty of hardcore, 6'2", built women out there who could physically out match most guys on this board.

I also find your attitude and the way you responded to a few people who disagreed or even agreed to your post disgusting and immature. And that's pretty bad when an 18 year old has to tell you that. Why ask a question when you're just going to insult people if you don't get what you feel is the right answer?

One more note, I think it was spinchick who posted that picture, that made my day!!!