FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Draft America's Daughter's Act - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Piazza (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: About Women (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+--- Thread: Draft America's Daughter's Act (/showthread.php?tid=75650)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Re: Draft America's Daughter's Act - divinesilence80 - 05-17-2016

(05-17-2016, 06:25 PM)Sir Charles Napier Wrote: All militaries have been used for evil at some point. Personally, I'd rather have a strong and well led military (I'm referring to the civilian leadership here specifically) dedicated to actual national defense instead of someone else's interest, be it corporate or another nation.

I can subscribe to the last part, but good luck with that in practice.

(05-17-2016, 02:46 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: You don't get it, DS.  Traditional women homeschooling 8 kids don't have time to go protest outside some NOW HQ somewhere, nor do they have the money to travel to some NOW HQ or the Washington Mall. Soros and the like don't fund traditional women, don't pay them to protest as they fund the [ETA: typically single and childless] progs, paying for them to travel all over the country to, for ex., protest Trump.

IOW, traditional women are as helpless as traditional men are in all these things; no one cares about us or listens to us. Feminists don't listen to traditional women any more than they listen to men, and it's a major kick to the head to be treated badly by traditionalist men because of what feminists do -- women we don't relate to, don't support, whose ideas we find hideous, etc.

Even if traditional women had the time and money to go around the U.S. protesting instead of raising and educating their kids, the media don't cover traditional movements the same way they cover progressive ones (i.e, there'd be either zero coverage or disparaging coverage). And what traditional women are DOING is raising huge numbers of boys and girls to not be feminist and woman-pedestalizing, etc., in addition to protesting feminism on the internet. If that sort of 24/7 labor isn't enough, then -- well, too bad. It's all trad women have got.

Further (this isn't just to you but to others in this thread wishing for things that, in essence, bring on the ruin):  it's a Catholic principle that one can't do evil to bring about some good. The desire to stick it to all women, even including traditional women, so that feminists get it good and hard, is an evil.  Your wishing our daughters die in Israel's wars just because our sons are expected to -- something we hate and lament to the depths -- is an evil. The desire to have America defenseless because a handful of AIPAC-worshiping neo-cons and their Evangelical supporters have wreaked havoc on the world is an evil.

I understand your anger at feminism. I feel (and think) the same way. But the way you're going about expressing yourself isn't serving your purpose -- our purpose. You're alienating the only women allies you have.

Well, what is your solution to this problem? What should women in your opinion give up such that their legal burden is equivalent to the one men face? Like Zubr said above, "pay to play!" Honestly, fighting feminists is a huge waste of time, energy, and breath however letting them rule is sometimes just as bad if not worse. We need solutions!

And I don't think holding women responsible for the privileges they enjoy is "evil." I don't recall seeing a "thou shalt not draft women" commandment or anything like it. The fact of the matter is responsibility offsets the costs of privileges. I say a universal law should be put in an amendment such that no one (man or woman) may vote unless they register. If the gov't can't find enough people then the society deserves to go extinct. Female entitlement as enabled by the gov't has cost us religious liberty and is making this country go broke. Again, you pay to play!

Most of the "pedastlizing" comes from traditional households. Look at the former GOP contenders. Ted Cruz, the most traditional of all, had his lips all over female rear ends! Thankfully it didn't work out for him.


Re: Draft America's Daughter's Act - Fontevrault - 05-17-2016

DivineSilence, what part of educating and caring for say 8 kids isn't paying in service of some kind?  Do you realize what a homeschooling mom does in a day?  I get the impression that you think we are just sitting eating bon bons with our feet up.  Is it a privilege to wash cloth diapers, hang out laundry because it's cheaper than running the dryer, cook entirely from scratch because that's what it takes to feed a family of say 10 for so little, clean, plan and teach each day, and pick up any odd jobs that might help the family?  Summer is time off?  Nope.  I plant a garden, harvest, can and freeze produce for the winter and plan enrichment activities for the children - even when school is "out."  I'd call that a fair contribution.  If I recall properly, teachers were exempt from the draft.  What is it homeschooling moms do all day?  Is it any different?  Why?  I guarantee you wouldn't get through a standard day in this house without pulling your hair out.

There are far bigger things to consider than just whether or not the feminists deserve to be subject to the draft.  There is the fabric of society involved.  If both men and women are subject to the draft, who is going to take care of the kids in our rather fragmented society?  Is grandma who only sees them twice a year really going to step up?  Or maybe you think that the government ought to pay for 24/7 daycare for army brats?  How will that impact kids whose parents are at war? 

Pay to play?  When was the last time men were drafted?  - My father's generation.  I very seriously doubt you've paid a dime yet.  So what precisely do you pay that we women don't?  Is it because the poor, maligned man has to go to work everyday? That's a bunch of crap.  We all work in one way or another.  I've worked full time alongside my husband and I've stayed home.  Want to know which job is more demanding?  You guessed it: staying home.  We jointly support our family.  What I do at home has value - more than you give me or any woman credit for.  Maybe it is because you are forced to support your offspring?  Did you envision you would go through life as some kind of anonymous sperm donor with no responsibilities?  Should your wife support them on her own because you don't feel like it?  If you had a part in making those children, isn't it natural to care of them?  These are not precisely heavy burdens; they are facts of life.

Last I checked, God gave Mary a protector: St. Joseph.  He cherished and watched over her and Jesus.  Was he just some kind of whipped little boy who didn't know how to stand up to a woman?  Or does he represent a kind of strength, kindness, and profound self-sacrificial love that men should emulate?  Is that not a kind of commandment? 



Re: Draft America's Daughter's Act - Zubr - 05-18-2016

Since it was my terminology divinesilence used, let me explain ‘pay to play’.

First of all, I believe this whole fiasco isn’t about drafting women on its own.  It’s a representation of a much deeper problem.  Naturally, the logistics and technicalities of drafting average women is a really bad idea and you’ve raised some of them: who will raise the children?  How will the quality of the fighting forces suffer? How is it possible for the average woman to be a suitable combatant against a man?  It isn’t a discussion of drafting women per say but rather the embodiment of an argument that illustrates feminists’ crusade has many holes because when it comes down to it, they aren’t willing to put their life on the line while their mouth does the talking leading to major changes in our society.  Lord knows I am not going to speak for DS80 because a) I can’t speak for someone’s mind that we both don't know from a hole in the ground b) my interpretation is probably VERY OFF c) he will disagree but the reliance on drafting women stories is a way to get a rise out of both traditionalist women and feminists but for very different reasons.  What he can say is that traditionalist women are not asking “the right questions” as in if women are against being drafted, what will they do to prevent further examples of the feminist agenda becoming policy in the future?  So then, the claim comes, “women of all stripes are the same because your arguments are both making note of the exceptionality of women!”  Traditionalists make the logical arguments mentioned above (female roles, difference in abilities..) while feminists think they should be entitled to the same roles as men just because they are women…. Hear them roar!  The thing is both are at the same starting point of using their gender as a ‘no’ whether they are supportive of men or hate their existence. 

Now, to explain ‘pay to play’.  Both genders enjoy the same rights and freedoms under the law generally.  However, institutionally, men are at a disadvantage because of the expectation upon them to hold down the fort (so to say) in the case war breaks out.  Women do not have that same expectation for a myriad of logical reasons (they are busy being mothers, fulfilling typically feminine roles) yet they reap the same benefits as the men who would be drafted if that was the case.  I THINK that is at the core of his stance on vagina worship in this case.  So, DS asked, what will these women do so that the scales are more equal?  What will women give up or do so that one gender does not benefit from the lack of spilled blood of the other?  How will a woman ‘pay’ or make a contribution so that she can enjoy her continued benefits as a citizen if she is not required to defend the Fatherland?  If paying is some kind of contribution, playing is enjoying continued rights and freedoms in your state.

Earlier in the thread DS made a point of mentioning a few ways that is possible.  Sure, he said women could go protest against this draft development story.  They could collectively withdraw their right to vote.  Or, as he noted, women could be praising and raising the next generation of sons.  Naturally, all of these do not work for all women!  In the case of a traditionalist mother raising 8 kids that would be considered a contribution.  If a woman can go protest and organize to make policy changes, that is her option.  If some organize and lobby to rescind their voting rights, that will be their thing.  I don’t think (again, assuming) women are expected to adopt all of these but rather come up with solutions that turn the tide of feminist public policy.

Maybe not traditionalist women but there are women that receive general benefits of freedom, security and then judicial or financial benefits without contributing to the stability of the state at all.  They're playing but not paying!  Think of ones not raising children and more focused on joie de vivre than any concerns about the crumbing Western society.  If there was a draft, that wouldn't be the case for men because they'd be sent off. 

So, when asked what is your solution to this problem, Fontevrault?  You are homeschooling and raising an educated generation of children that will know better than the yahoos today.  Maybe other ladies are suited to be commanders or fighter pilots.  Another can work to get a bill tabled.  Me?  I’ll probably be a partisan hunkered down in the forest besides the daily grind of trying to shift the message.  But, each person is doing something to combat the never-ending onslaught of feminist rhetoric.  Sometimes we attach on to the most intense forms or comments because we think the original post has insinuated that is the only way for whichever reason.

I could be completely wrong here but that’s my take on things.  And it just wouldn’t be right for divinesilence to take heat for a term I used.  Sorry for any confusion but hey, that's the internet, the Land of Confuzzlenoids.


Re: Draft America's Daughter's Act - VoxClamantis - 05-18-2016

(05-17-2016, 08:06 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: Well, what is your solution to this problem? What should women in your opinion give up such that their legal burden is equivalent to the one men face? Like Zubr said above, "pay to play!" Honestly, fighting feminists is a huge waste of time, energy, and breath however letting them rule is sometimes just as bad if not worse. We need solutions!

And I don't think holding women responsible for the privileges they enjoy is "evil." I don't recall seeing a "thou shalt not draft women" commandment or anything like it. The fact of the matter is responsibility offsets the costs of privileges. I say a universal law should be put in an amendment such that no one (man or woman) may vote unless they register. If the gov't can't find enough people then the society deserves to go extinct. Female entitlement as enabled by the gov't has cost us religious liberty and is making this country go broke. Again, you pay to play!

I don't think women should vote. But then again, I don't think men should vote, either. I'm a monarchist. But given the system we have, one option could be restricting voting to one vote per household, where "household" means a married couple with children, or a widow/widower with children, who've reached the age of 40 or thereabouts.

While men die in wars, women die in childbirth -- or at least did in HUGE numbers, all throughout History, until the discovery of germ theory (well, the proof and spread of germ theory, actually), and still die, though much more rarely, today. A woman risking her life to bring forth children is as equally valuable as a man risking his life to protect our country -- and note that war is becoming much less dangerous lately for soldiers, too, just as childbirth has become much less dangerous for women, though in both cases, life happens and people die, are maimed, etc. (ever seen a prolapsed uterus?) Wars are now quite often fought from the air, or from weapons situated miles away from their targets. IOW, technology and science have made both childbirth and warfare a lot safer.

(05-17-2016, 08:06 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: Most of the "pedastlizing" comes from traditional households. Look at the former GOP contenders. Ted Cruz, the most traditional of all, had his lips all over female rear ends! Thankfully it didn't work out for him.

I can't say anything about Cruz's pedestalizing, but agree with you that a large portion of the conservative and traditionalist worlds is guilty of pedestalizing, seeing women as perfect little sexless bits of froth who never commit violence, etc. The answer to that is to teach them -- using prudence to do so. Spread the link to "The Garbage Generation" around (I do!). Post about false rape accusations, child abuse (including sexual abuse!) committed by women, etc. -- and do so without nastiness, without putting all women down, without hatred for women.  IOW, put the lie to the nonsense and be a Christian about it. The Catholic medieval mind knew better about all this sort of thing than the Victorians did -- and it's Victorian views of women that helped make feminism such a huge phenomenon. Victorian pedestalizing and de-sexualizing of women has led to all this crap. But the medievals, who revered Our Mother, knew better than to fall for the idea that women are sexless, violence-less, always innocent beings OR the idea that women are worthless, to be condescended to and disrespected, should have their talents, needs, and desires ignored, should not be allowed to be fulfilled intellectually or creatively, etc.

But I'm telling you, if you present the Truth in a manner that seems to impugn all women, you will fail. You'll not only fail, you risk causing otherwise conservative women to think, "hmm, so THAT'S why feminism came about. Count me in!" Talking that way is like how feminists talk about "men as rapists" because a very small minority of men rape. It's unfair and wrong.

The feminine also has to be honored and respected. Women deserve respect just as much as men do. I talk all the time about what men give to the world, but women give much to the world as well.

In addition to plain old education, spreading the Gospel TRAD-STYLE is key. The Holy Ghost changes people, plain and simple, and once people have met God and have a relationship with Him, scales fall loose from their eyes in a million ways.

Voting for the right people when the opportunity comes up is another thing we need to do -- and we need to do all we can, as well, to get others to vote for those people. Get politically active in the right ways. Run for office if you're called to. Etc.

Making the "long march through the institutions" to re-claim them is of mega-importance -- if it's possible at all given that the powers that be who act as the gateways to our culture are backed by the people who run the economy, thanks to fiat currencies, usury, fractional reserve banking, the Fed, etc. Starting our own institutions is a way around that. Starting Catholic colleges and schools of lower education, making Catholic art (especially, given our culture, FILM) and using social media (especially Youtube), writing books (including CHILDREN'S BOOKS), writing book reviews -- all the sorts of stuff I write about on the "Take Back the Net" page.

Marry and have kids and teach them at home, raising them to know the Truth about the beauty of masculinity and of femininity -- without forcing outlier children into boxes they don't fit in, and without having ridiculous rules about what's "masculine" or "feminine" -- without being toxic rad-trad idiots about it all. Let the "gentler boys" be, and let the "tomboys" climb trees. Nature will work things out that most boys will be typically boyish, and most girls will be typically girlish, and the outliers can do their things. Everyone wins.

If I knew "the answer" to all this, then I'd know the answers to questions like "how do we get the powers that be to prevent Islam from taking over Europe?" and "how can we get rid of usury and have sound currencies?" and such. Those are huge issues, as is feminism, because the powers that be want what they want and push it all down our throats. Naming who are "the powers that be", teaching people the ROOTS of so many of our social evils (the "Enlightenment," the Frankfurt School, how bankers run the show and how they got to have the power they have, etc.) is also key. People will either "get" it all or they won't. And if they "get" it, they'll either start a revolution or not. But all the above is all we can do on a temporal level.

On another level, we each have to stay close to Christ, get and keep our families close to Him, stay in a state of grace, stay prayed up, and stick together.  In the end, God will prevail, and a better place than this one awaits us.





Re: Draft America's Daughter's Act - Fontevrault - 05-18-2016

Quote:So, when asked what is your solution to this problem, Fontevrault?  You are homeschooling and raising an educated generation of children that will know better than the yahoos today.  Maybe other ladies are suited to be commanders or fighter pilots.  Another can work to get a bill tabled.  Me?  I’ll probably be a partisan hunkered down in the forest besides the daily grind of trying to shift the message.  But, each person is doing something to combat the never-ending onslaught of feminist rhetoric.  Sometimes we attach on to the most intense forms or comments because we think the original post has insinuated that is the only way for whichever reason.

My solution: Well, I'm not sure taking back women's right to vote is going to happen.  Then again, I don't see the present generation of men precisely paying to vote with their lives.  It has been a very, very long time since a draft has taken place.  Is compulsory service an option?  I think 2 or 3 years of forced military service (or the equivalent in some other public service area) might do a lot to help those perpetual teenagers of both genders grow up.  Is it a perfect answer?  Nope.  Then again what is?  We could have physical evaluations and those individuals who cannot meet minimum requirements for military service could serve in another capacity.  Surely we need hard labor and reality for both genders to change a darn thing in this country.  I wouldn't have any qualms with the young people of this country having to do some kind of public service - especially since we have zero real expectation of a draft in the near future.  It has the added benefit of getting them some grounding in reality.

I'd like to look to history a bit for a sense of what women can do in war time that did once make a difference.  In the world wars, women had victory gardens, canned, rationed, made socks, blankets, raised funds for the war effort, sent care packages, and did everything they could to support the men.  Some women took on traditionally male roles: farming, went into the factories to keep them going, built bombs, and in short, stepped into jobs so that men could go to war.  Were these jobs all safe?  Some were.  Some weren't.  But women stepped up to the plate and did what was needed. Women served as nurses - sometimes close to the battlefields.  These were contributions based in the horrors of total war.  All of society mobilized in support of the war effort; even the elderly and infirm did what they could.  I'd like to think that we women would do so again - and willingly - if we were needed.  In the same way, I'd like to think our men would be willing to stand against that which is wrong, if the need arose.  Am I sure it would happen in this rather crazy mixed up world?  Sadly, I'm not sure men or women are taught virtue anymore. Would they even know evil if they saw it?  I'm not so sure; they care more about themselves than anyone else. 

Here's the problem as I see it: This isn't really about a draft.  This is more about what DS calls "vagina worship."  He feels that women demand that men go off to war and die but aren't willing to raise a finger in their own defense.  He feels that feminists are to blame for all the inequalities of life.  Honestly, you can blame feminism for a lot but not everything.  Men are involved in the disintegration of modern society too.  I would argue that feminism has corrupted our values, disrupted the family, and brought about terrible change in our society as a whole.  But I would also be the first to argue that deadbeat dads who have children with several women and don't care are also part of the problem.  Unlike DS, I see a larger issue across both genders: the worship of the self.  It is really about men and women who refuse to take responsibility for their lives and their choices and place their needs above the needs of others.

Traditionally, men have been the ones to go to war.  But as Vox pointed out: women often died in child birth.  We are physically weaker.  Our traditional roles - both in family life and in the work force - are defined by those physical differences.  Consider: men usually did the harder, more physical tasks (farming, fighting, travel) while women stayed at home caring for the family, running the house, managing the servants (if there were any), and in the workforce acting as teachers and nurses.  Why would these roles make sense?  Women simply cannot (under normal circumstances) do the same physical tasks men can do.  Were the tasks I mentioned for women inconsequential?  Not really.  They are complementary.  Someone needs to stay home.  Who do you pick?  The one best suited for it.  Someone has to travel and deal with risks associated with that.  Who do you pick?  The one best able to defend himself on the roads.  I would argue that there is not vagina worship involved in these roles; it constitutes a realistic assessment of the demands of traditional life.  Then again, I would argue that women have an incredibly powerful role to play in society simply by staying home.  Raising the next generation, providing a home life that is rich and fulfilling, creating an environment where elders share their values and ideals with their children in meaningful ways transforms the moral and social landscape of society.  When women left home to go to work, far more than home cooked dinners and martinis were lost.

But here's the kicker: keeping house 100 years ago was a much more labor intensive and difficult proposition than what we do today.  Likewise, going to work more often than not involves very little in terms of physical labor these days.  So, our views have shifted based on the very different demands of modern society.  Can a woman go to work today and complete with men?  Well, in an office job, yes.  Would I want to see a woman lumberjack?  Not really.  It's just not the same thing.  Is this now about vagina worship?  I'm not sure it really is.  Do the usual assessments of how to divide labor apply to office work, teaching, and other physically undemanding jobs?  They just don't.  So what is it about?  Feminists claim the need for self-fulfillment and independence.  It's all about them. And they are horribly, terribly wrong. Now here's the funny thing: men who walk away from their marriages or don't help raise their children or have affairs are focused on the exact same thing: themselves.  Sure, in each circumstance there are different factors to blame, but in the end, someone was selfish.  Most men and women of today care deeply about one thing: themselves.  They are consumed with what makes them happy, not what is Good, Beautiful, or True. 

To stay home and struggle with children who won't listen, routines of housework that are never really done, isolation, and a lack of intellectual stimulation is hard.  It is sacrificial - a path to holiness.  You die to yourself every day.  To get up and go to work for your family, work hard and get up early the next morning to do it all over again - even when you are tired, angry, frustrated, and just plain in need of a break, is equally difficult.  I see it in my husband every day.  He throws everything he has into providing for our family.  That's a good man, a kind man, a strong man.  Separately, he and I accomplish very little, but together we do something great: we build a family grounded in faith.  That isn't done with "self" at the center of everything we do.  It isn't terribly fulfilling most days.  But there are moments when we look at each other and know we've done something right - maybe it's a small something - but we've got at least one thing right in a long, hard day.  But, remember, it took both of us to pull off that something right.

What our society needs isn't a draft for women but a lesson in selflessness.  It needs a culture of service and self-sacrifice.  Both genders are responsible for our modern mess and we all need to work on the problem.  I think that's why I get so annoyed with DS.  By blaming only one half of society for the whole of its ills, he rages against the wrong thing.  This isn't about men vs. women: it's about fighting against our fallen nature.  We all need to die to ourselves and our pride is a bigger problem than vaginas ever will be.


Re: Draft America's Daughter's Act - Zubr - 05-18-2016

Seriously, is it because I am disliked, unknown or low on the hierarchy here that if I make the same point, it gets dismissed but yet someone else says something similar and it is fine?  Cause seriously…

(05-18-2016, 01:09 AM)Zubr Wrote: First of all, I believe this whole fiasco isn’t about drafting women on its own.  It’s a representation of a much deeper problem.  Naturally, the logistics and technicalities of drafting average women is a really bad idea and you’ve raised some of them: who will raise the children?  How will the quality of the fighting forces suffer? How is it possible for the average woman to be a suitable combatant against a man?  It isn’t a discussion of drafting women per say but rather the embodiment of an argument that illustrates feminists’ crusade has many holes because when it comes down to it, they aren’t willing to put their life on the line while their mouth does the talking leading to major changes in our society. Lord knows I am not going to speak for DS80 because a) I can’t speak for someone’s mind that we both don't know from a hole in the ground b) my interpretation is probably VERY OFF c) he will disagree but the reliance on drafting women stories is a way to get a rise out of both traditionalist women and feminists but for very different reasons.  What he can say is that traditionalist women are not asking “the right questions” as in if women are against being drafted, what will they do to prevent further examples of the feminist agenda becoming policy in the future?  So then, the claim comes, “women of all stripes are the same because your arguments are both making note of the exceptionality of women!”  Traditionalists make the logical arguments mentioned above (female roles, difference in abilities..) while feminists think they should be entitled to the same roles as men just because they are women…. Hear them roar!  The thing is both are at the same starting point of using their gender as a ‘no’ whether they are supportive of men or hate their existence. 

Now, to explain ‘pay to play’.  Both genders enjoy the same rights and freedoms under the law generally.  However, institutionally, men are at a disadvantage because of the expectation upon them to hold down the fort (so to say) in the case war breaks out.  Women do not have that same expectation for a myriad of logical reasons (they are busy being mothers, fulfilling typically feminine roles) yet they reap the same benefits as the men who would be drafted if that was the case.  I THINK that is at the core of his stance on vagina worship in this case.  So, DS asked, what will these women do so that the scales are more equal?  What will women give up or do so that one gender does not benefit from the lack of spilled blood of the other?  How will a woman ‘pay’ or make a contribution so that she can enjoy her continued benefits as a citizen if she is not required to defend the Fatherland?  If paying is some kind of contribution, playing is enjoying continued rights and freedoms in your state.

You said it yourself this isn’t about a draft.  I said it isn’t about a draft.  Why take a quote out of context, expand upon it and ignore all the rest that specially said it isn’t about a draft or his solutions were not the only solutions?  Those solutions were raised because it illustrated that one size does not it all. 

Again, this isn’t about drafting women, history, their roles during wartime or mandated public service.  Making mention of these theoretical solutions doesn’t mean they are what people will do but rather examples of solutions that have been mentioned here by the original poster or the theme of the thread.  So when women say they cannot logically do x, y, z and q, well, what will you do?  Will will you offer?  The question is what will you do then and what form will it take?  This is about finding solutions generally that shift the direction of how public policy is developing.  Such as, if you don’t want a draft, or you don’t want certain social policy, etc etc, what are women willing to do so that it doesn’t arise?  But using the exceptionality of women and their roles as the sole foundation of argument won't work because it is the same approach used by feminists.  Like I said, just in different ways.  Look away from making the case of exceptionality but focusing on solutions.  Exceptionality as in why women are different in the case of traditional women, and exceptional as in the case of 'better' for feminists.  Same word, different approach.

Once women admit there is undue pressure on men in this realm, they can move forward with solutions.  Right now, it seems no one wants to admit that institutionally certain things fall upon men (citizens defence) because we are too concerned arguing why certain things are bad ideas (i.e.: drafting women, taking away their right to vote.)  We're missing the point that we have the right to argue over this even though we will not be called to outright defend this right when the time comes.  Someone else will be defending our rights but not ourselves.  I'd rather have a professional soldier defend my right because it makes sense but I acknowledge I need to sacrifice something so that this is not an unfair exchange (as it currently is.)

It’s not asking much for women to question what they are doing or make contributions if they are appalled at the direction of their society.  You want to develop a culture of service and self-sacrifice.  That’s right on; that way we don’t have to place undue burden on others because we take it upon ourselves to fulfil our roles.  Such a culture doesn't place the undue burden of defending everyone's rights on the backs of a few.  Isn’t a culture of service and self-sacrifice the same as making a contribution?

Don't worry; Monday's coming quick.  Then I won't be around to deviate anyone's positions.


Re: Draft America's Daughter's Act - Fontevrault - 05-18-2016

Zubr, first I know of no hierarchy on FishEaters except that Vox and San Guise are large and in charge.  I am sorry if I offended you; I wasn't trying to.  I gave you my solution to the criticisms DS was laying out and if you don't like it, that's fine.  I wasn't trying to repeat your ideas or misquote you.  However, looking back we are saying similar things, albeit in different ways.  For example, not once did you articulate the idea of selfishness being at the heart of our current troubles. 

Also, and this is important, I do **not** dislike you at all!

Honestly, I don't think it's undue pressure for men today to do what they have done since the beginning of time.  I'm a little sick of hearing how difficult and onerous it is for men to have this "terrible burden."  Did the good men who fought in WWII complain about it?  Nope.  My uncle Andre served in the Resistance in France.  He never told us; didn't ask for any praise for it; just one day wrote a letter telling us about it because we had asked him what his life was like during the war.  My uncles who went to Vietnam never once complained; they did their duty, stood tall, and never spoke of the horrors of war once it was over.  Every one of them understood their role as men.  They expected women to be real women and men to stand tall. 

I do think it's silly to think we have to make everything in life somehow "fair."  Life isn't fair and it never will be.  We can't make everyone equal just because we want to.  For example, everyone is entitled to a basic education, but they all have different abilities to access and make the most of that education. Their achievements will be different as a result.  Some people are smarter than others; it's not fair but that's the way it is.  Likewise, men have the big muscles that make them better warriors; suck it up and deal.  I don't get to be skinny, blond and beautiful just for wishing.  A man can't be a woman by pretending.  And fairies aren't real.  Nobody counts the exact same number of fries into each container at McDonalds either.  Sometimes the chips fall and you're screwed.  That's the way of the world.

How does this come into play with institutional unfairness?  Men are men.  They have the bodies for battle, and there's not a darn thing that can be done about it.  Don't want to go to war?  Run to Canada or smoke yourself into asthma.  Men have done it in the past, but there is no honor in those actions. 

Before we deplore the inequities of life, consider that men rarely go into battle alone.  When our army goes into war, are there no women involved?  What about code breakers during WWII who were responsible for us being able to read German transmissions.  Are you aware that many of them were women?  Radio operators? Many of them were women as well.  How about secretaries and support staff?  Wait - some of them were women too.  You cannot assume because women aren't currently drafted into combat positions, they do not contribute.  We do - as I noted earlier as well.

Just as with anything else in life, a culture of service based on physical capacity to serve either in the army or find some other role isn't gender biased.  There are men unfit for military duty.  They should still serve in some other way, perhaps alongside women, perhaps in some other capacity.  I think that's ok. 

Service and self-sacrifice are willing and they are not based on a bargain.  I do x and get y isn't a part of the equation.  People take responsibility and do what needs to be done.  Period.  It's not for warm fuzzy points; it's not because you are getting something out of it.  It's because it is the right thing to do. 

What's missing from this conversation is a recognition that exceptionalism isn't anything new: women have not been historically involved in war - except as well, camp followers and I'm pretty sure that's not what you had in mind.  We have had different roles and I don't think that's a bad thing.  I refuse to give on this point.  Men and women are different from each other.  It is when we work together that our complementary natures bring out the best in each.  Even the army gender norms for women.  We get extra time on runs, fewer reps on certain exercises, different expectations because the differences in our bodies.  God made us different; if you don't like it, take it up with Him. 

It's fairly outlandish for someone to assume that I don't do anything to develop that culture of service simply because I'm currently a stay at home mom. I said nothing about it being hard to contribute.  In fact, I suggested that we homeschool moms do more than most give us credit for.  Keep in mind: I still work in academia - even if it is part time.  (In fact, I really should be grading papers right now. - I really do need to spend less time on this forum . . .  naughty me . . .)  I certainly do encourage service and have done so for years.  As both a teacher and a parent, I have a greater ability to influence the next generation than most realize.  I publish, teach, present, work with kids, lead projects.  These are all contributions are they not?  Raising a large family mindful of service isn't exactly doing nothing either.  Want proof?  I have former students who are active duty military, veterans (one who lost both legs in service to his country), teachers, work with children as counselors and psychologists, are engineers, doctors, and a few interested in public office.  My own family?  I have a daughter who is now a teacher - at the same school I used to teach at.  The rest are too young to do much beyond help neighbors and family and learn from that.

What's happening Monday?  Are you leaving us for a reason?  Please don't go!


Re: Draft America's Daughter's Act - Cyriacus - 05-18-2016

Many industries have already been "desegregated," with the legal obstacles preventing women from serving in positions being eliminated. The opposite is not true, really. For example, men working in women's prisons have reduced functions in order to protect women, but women employed in men's prisons are permitted to watch inmates showering and even conduct invasive strip and cavity searches (including looking inside men's anuses and foreskins for drugs). This is true even in juvenile facilities, where there have been documented cases of female workers sexually assaulting male minors. As a society, we would not tolerate men doing this to women, even women who have forfeited their rights through criminality.

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Female-guards-OKd-to-strip-search-male-inmates-3232229.php

I think the reason why the question of draft registration is a "big deal" for conservatives is because they tend to put the military on a pedestal, seeing it as a virtual repository of virtue, a sacrosanct institution that embodies the values of society and draws our "best and brightest." The military is linked inextricably to American cultural ideas of masculinity, public-spiritedness, love of country, and heroism. They think (quite wrongly, in my opinion), that the military has something to tell us about how life as an American should be lived and what our society should look like. The military is surrounded by a cultural mythology that has enabled a permanent militarization of society, complete with broad consensus for a Forever War in the Middle East, provided Americans don't actually have to suffer much of the body count.

The penetration of this cultural mythology is so complete that parents and family members actively petition their children to join the military, as though the wars are our wars. Advertising campaigns, coordinated by specialists in manipulating human psychology, actively target parents to encourage them to motivate their children to enlist, showing the transformation of aimless youths into uniformed gentlemen (and ladies) with immaculate posture and manners, but failing to show post-service unemployment, substance abuse, and suicide. Our ancestors were not so foolish; they were not our wars----they were the king's wars. And when the state demanded too much, when they demanded we sacrifice our sons on the altar of Moloch for their particular interests, we struck back through riots and general strikes. Putative democracies claim, moralize, and package wars in a way that is impossible in other models of governance.

The American people have blood on their hands, and suffering Christians (even holy martyrs) are calling out right now for justice from God, against the USA for ISIS. This should put contrition into the heart of a nation, but we have none, and we should tremble at the thought of the operation of God's providential judgement in history, which has often laid low the mighty. http://christiantimes.com/article/iraqi-christians-blame-us-government-for-is-invasion-chaldean-priest-says/55428.htm

Where were American conservatives in 2003, when "we" invaded Iraq? Pope St. John Paul II spoke out against the war with tremendous moral courage, chiding President Bush in person immediately prior to the invasion. Yet prominent U.S. conservative Catholics, like Michael Novak, George Weigel, and Richard John Neuhaus, acted as apologists for Satan himself, utilizing lies and eloquence to push the administration and rally the people behind war and the ruination of nations.

I protested on the streets in 2003-2005, in protests coordinated by the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, led by Communists, shocking my family and everyone who knew me. While Christians, under the sway of a militarized faith that ritually glorifies gory criminality on days like Veterans Day (originally Armistice Day, ironically) and the Fourth of July, chose security over the beatitudes, and heeded the Pharisees in D.C. think-tanks rather than the Holy See, it was ageing hippies, assorted far-leftists, and punks with dreadlocks and piercings who attempted to put the beatitudes into practice by stopping the war through a mass movement of over 200,000, including real self-sacrificing heroes who went to Baghdad as human shields, anticipating bombs falling to cheers of "USA! USA! USA!".

I believe it is necessary and just to demilitarize American society by dismantling the myths in our culture that prop-up and perpetuate militarism. This effort might entail institutional reform of the military such that it is no longer worthy of serious credibility or respect from conservative Christians, and reform that diminishes its capacity to wage aggressive wars. It should be less outward and combat-focused, and basically reworked into a massive, hand-wringing bureaucratic nightmare of a welfare state parallel to civilian society, internally focused on social justice reform and individual career advancement. I want more military men and women "on the make" in cushy sinecures, with arcane job descriptions, but whose actual duties relate mostly to Powerpoint presentations and spreadsheets, and fewer holding rifles. I want the military to take on more and more responsibilities in civilian engagement ("hearts and minds"), nation building, interface with other institutions, medical and disaster relief, a military that redundantly overlaps with the Peace Corps and Department of State, a military in which war-making is a withered, vestigial appendage in a corpulent body of administrative bloat and careerism. In short, a military that is such that conservatives no longer feel compelled to thank every soldier they come across for their service, but would treat an army colonel like they would an official from the Transportation Security Administration or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. No magic, no glamor, just exasperation tinged with envy at a secure public sector job.


Re: Draft America's Daughter's Act - Fontevrault - 05-18-2016

(05-18-2016, 05:21 PM)Cyriacus Wrote: Many industries have already been "desegregated," with the legal obstacles preventing women from serving in positions being eliminated. The opposite is not true, really. For example, men working in women's prisons have reduced functions in order to protect women, but women employed in men's prisons are permitted to watch inmates showering and even conduct invasive strip and cavity searches (including looking inside men's anuses and foreskins for drugs). This is true even in juvenile facilities, where there have been documented cases of female workers sexually assaulting male minors. As a society, we would not tolerate men doing this to women, even women who have forfeited their rights through criminality.

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Female-guards-OKd-to-strip-search-male-inmates-3232229.php

Cyriacus, this is simply horrible and shouldn't be happening.  It is **not** ok.


Re: Draft America's Daughter's Act - Zubr - 05-18-2016

In any social grouping there is a hierarchy.  Maybe not as in actual positions, such as big boss man and VP, but there are definitely those perceived more respectable or of worthy opinions than others.  It’s just a people thing.

Don’t assume that I don’t understand the honor and sacrifice of military men.  Absolutely every man in my family has served (except my brother); either drafted into the Soviet, Russian or Belarusian armies or contract soldiers.  My father was VDV; how do you think he went on for tradesman training?  It’s probably what made him the world’s biggest mean dude but hey, what doesn’t these days.  My uncles are still fulfilling their duties.  My male cousins have all been drafted and did their service.  If you want some sad days, be around boys that get drafted that are scared like heck.  Some of them stayed on for military careers.  You’re right; they don’t ask for praise but then again, it is a different mindset.  But, we also have various holidays for these kind of men.  But like everyone I come across, I thank your family for their service no matter from where they are from. 

But again, we’re running around in circles bringing this back to the military and military involvement of women.  All I’ve been trying to get at is that it is wrong for society to be shifting towards anti-masculinity but at the same time still expecting men to be at the core of security and defense.  In previous generations where men were men and women were women, this wasn’t a concern because everyone acknowledged the important role of men.  Now, men don’t receive the same respect, traditional values are constantly being ripped to shreds, women want to exploit freedoms for their benefit but they aren’t willing to acknowledge, ‘Oh hey, yeah, we need strong men.” 

O.K. so you've said that is the role of men to defend their homelands from time immemorial. They haven’t complained and accept that ‘burden’.  I agree with you.  It is part of masculinity to defend, protect and accept that the role.  This isn’t solely a military attribute but one found in a husband, head of the household, as he protects his own home and family.  The difference is that now we have segments of society shunning any responsibility and creating an anti-masculine society but still relying on mostly male armed forces to defend their freedoms.  In the last century, who has benefited most from the shifts in society?  Not masculine men.  But they have spilled their blood for women or other groups to reap benefits while many members of these groups don’t acknowledge this simple fact. So, yeah, it is very selfish but I thought selfishness was underlying to this whole thing?  It's selfish we have a culture of take, take, take, rage, rage, rage but no give, give, give. 

Your views on fairness don’t take into consideration what I meant.  I know not everyone can be a beauty queen, World Strongest Man, a star athlete or the smartest person in the room.  The fairness I meant was that it is not fair for segments of society to reap benefits from a specific group of people while having total disrespect to those making sacrifices or make no contribution at all.  It isn’t right that people can bash the social order or traditional values that people actually fought for without having to take accountability for their actions in any sense of the word.  Simply put, people don’t understand how lucky they are to be able to run their mouths and not be mandated to put their life on the line so that they have the right to run their mouth.  So, maybe, they should recognize due to the sacrifice of others, they won’t be sent off to war, they won’t be called to account, so what can they do to prevent the ongoing anti-male culture that is developing?  If invaders come someday, will their safe spaces and diatribes on rape culture or hypermasculinity protect them?  The men they raged against will be called to protect them either by self-sacrifice or the law.

You’re also missing the point on exceptionalism.  I didn’t say that it isn’t factual.  Scroll and you will see I said women are different and have different roles.  Anyone who disagrees with this has rocks in their head to be blunt.  What I said about exceptionalism is that it shouldn’t be the focus because the same argument can be used by feminists as well.  Both cases are insinuating women should have different treatment because of gender. 

Example A: Women have traditional roles, they have to raise children, they have less muscle mass, they process information differently.  (All of this is true.) = Women should not be drafted.
Example B: Women are exceptional because we can do anything!  We have achieved so much even though we have been set back by patriarchy since the beginning of civilization! = Women should have the same roles as men or better.

Do you see both arguments begin with exceptionalism?  That’s why it’s better to focus on what average women can do to change the direction of the world, whether that is to raise traditionally minded healthy families or protest somewhere, than to get caught into the quagmire or trap of being aligned with a feminist worldview.  Those with an agenda will say that women just want to run around in circles without coming to conclusions to do something.  And I’ll make this point again and again: It is up to women to decide what are the best ways for them to counter the current dominant ideology.

I don’t think anyone here has made any statement that you don’t do anything to shift culture.  Perhaps my question ‘what is your contribution’ came off as shrewd but it was meant to illustrate you are already making more of a contribution than other women.  I made note that you are raising a large family with traditional values.  I may not know what other things you do but I surely do not expect you to go out protesting or form a group like Al Bundy’s NO MA'AM with your responsibilities.  However, other women that respect which rights they have, or have disagreements with the current state of culture, need to find something that works for them so that questions like an all-gender draft are prevented in the future.

As of Monday, my boyfriend will be back from the Caucasus and Russia.  Instead of coming here to kill time, I’ll listen to his enlightened ramblings on many, many things.  And we're going to Montreal in search of Armenian cheese next weekend.  But that makes us two unmarried childless selfish people spending our money on frivolous things....so I'm part of that culture too, I guess.