Thursday, February 2, 2012

Dear Feminists: Maybe this will shut you up

Do feminists even exist anymore?  You'd think in this day and age that a ridiculous cause such as that would have died out.  I'm probably going to catch a lot of flak for that statement should any of my readers be down with feminism, but I promise if you keep reading I might make you think twice.

So, my guess is that feminists today probably advocate for allowing women to be in combat roles in the military.  They should be afforded the same opportunity as any man, right?  Because a woman who is dedicated enough can be just as good a trained killer as any asshole man, right?  Okay, I'll buy that.  You're right.  Any woman with the drive and perseverance can be just as good as a man in any role, even killing.  Here's where this might get a little hairy for you though.

If you want women to be allowed in combat, and you want women to be held to the same standard of equality to men, then logically women should be made to register for the draft.

Yes, every woman in this country should be made to register for the draft when she turns 18.  Why not?  Every male American citizen has to register, so why not women?  And yes, feminists, that means you, too.  If you're between the ages of 18-35, you should also be eligible to be drafted, just like every man.

"Woah, woah, Jack.  That's a bit much."  Why?  Is it because it's a lot harder to train the average woman to be a stone-cold-killer, honed to physical perfection, than it is to train a man?  Or is it because people generally don't want to force young women off to die?

You're just going to have to face facts: women are treated differently in society.  You're held to a completely different standard.  No woman in this country is expected to go die for it should the need arise, but every able-bodied man is.  I've got a son and a daughter.  I know that one day, my son will have to register for the draft and my daughter never will.  And you know what?  I'm okay with that.

That might sound awful, but it's not.  It's not that I value my son's life less than my daughter's.  I love him as much as I love her.  But he's my son, and he'll grow into a man.  Every man has a duty to his country, and in a free society, the men of that society may be called upon to fight for it.  Do I want my daughter--small and fragile--to be forced to go off to war and potentially die?  Hell no.  Maybe she'll become some hard core killing machine, but she's pretty girly.  She doesn't even like playing in mud.

And you know what?  That's okay.  I'm a man, and I've got a soft spot for women.  I don't like to see women beaten or brutalized, and I certainly wouldn't be able to handle my precious little daughter being forcibly subjected to that.

News flash, feminists: gender differences are okay.  If you want true equality in this country, then advocate for all women to be included in the draft.  And don't give me some line of bullshit like, "oh well the draft is immoral even for men, so why would I advocate for something that should be abolished?"  Whether or not you agree with the system makes absolutely no difference.  That's how the system is, and equality means that everyone is subject to whatever standards the system holds on groups of people.

When feminists advocate for women to be included in the draft, then I will start to believe that they're not completely full of shit.  Until then, well, you know what I think about it.


Jersey McJones said...

Ya' know, Jack, nothing disappoints me more then when men bash feminists. It just sounds soooooo insecure.

I'm sure there are feminists who want women to register for the draft, though I would imagine most feminists would prefer we have no such thing at all. It's not like we're going to use it. Drafts are fine for popular wars, but we haven't had one of them in 67 years. We really don't need it anyway, as pretty much everyone by the age of 18 has some kind of recorded information with the federal government.

Just the same, it is not for someone who obviously has a problem with feminists (whatever that is) to dictate to them what they should do to make you happy. Heck, it's men like that who make the need for feminism in the first place.

I'm a feminist. You know why? I'm married, I have a mom, I have a mother and sister in-laws, I have nieces. I don't want some co-worker pinching their asses, or some teacher demanding sex for grades, or some boss treating them as less than a man at work. If you care about your mother, and your wife, and your sister, and your daughter, and your nieces and neighbors and friends, than you too would stop sounding like a retarded, neanderthal misogynist and realize how important feminism has been and is for them.

Of course, feminism is huge movement, and no one is on board with every single element. To wholly define feminism by any single matter, like this silly draft thing, shows you really don't have a clue what feminism even is, Jack.

Be a real man - Be a feminist.


Jack Camwell said...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you've completely misunderstood/misinterpreted the entire point of this article.

Do you really think that I have a problem with women who want to be treated as equals? Do you honestly believe that I have a problem with women wanting to be treated with respect and dignity?

No, Jersey. What I have a problem with are logical and ideological contradictions. How many feminists believe that women should be allowed in combat, but should not be allowed to be drafted?

As I mentioned, it doesn't matter if you believe the draft is wrong. If it's all about women being held to the same standard as men, then they should be held to that standard as long as it exists, regardless of whether they believe it's right or not.

At no point did I wholly define feminism by a single matter.

It's not about my whims or making me happy, it's about holding people to their own standards. I highly doubt that there are many feminists who'd be willing to sign up for the draft, regardless of how unlikely it is to ever be activated again.

Joe Markowitz said...

The dictionary definition of a "feminist" is someone who advocates for equal social, political, economic or legal rights for women. So Jack, when you say in the comment above, that you have no problem with treating women with equal respect and dignity as men, you might have to call yourself a feminist also.

As far as whether women should register for the draft, why not? That doesn't necessarily imply that women would be required to serve in combat. We already have some exemptions from combat duty that are available for both men and women. And there are plenty of jobs in the military, or some other form of national service, that don't involve combat.

Jack Camwell said...

I might be a feminist, but I'm not part of the feminist movement, if that makes any sense at all.

Anonymous said...

Oh wow, I have a lot I could say on this subject. I will try to keep the ramblings to a minimum though.

From my perspective, right or wrong, the feminist movement has done more to hurt women than to help them. As a consequence by hurting the functions of the female population of this country it has hurt us men just as bad.

During WWII, companies saw that women could do very good work day in and day out. So good in fact that in most respects there was no difference between a man and woman in terms of actual productivity, and in some cases men were outproduced. This led to a fundamental shift in american business and it's thinking about our work force. They were thinking "We could be almost twice as productive if we could convince most of these women to work!"

The results of this shift speak for themselves honestly.

Now, when it comes to the issue Jackie raised... I don't see where he is bashing women at all.

The issue is double standards.

I don't think women should be treated unfairly, but I also think that MEN should be treated fairly as well.

The last little tidbit I will leave you gentlemen with... if the government wanted to make sure that they could get away with more shit without us revolting... wouldn't it make sense to influence our society to be more feminine? Through media, through policy, through whatever means possible... George Carlin so eloquently put it as Pussification, and I feel as though that it deserves some consideration that this isn't about women as it is about control.

Silverfiddle said...

"Feminist" like the word "liberal" had been hijacked by angry, doctrinaire progressives, so the word no longer represents the dictionary definition in the minds of ordinary Americans.

What is a feminist?

A person who gives George Bush no credit whatsoever for his contributions to poor Africans, especially women, but who thinks its fine when their guy plays hide the cigar in the Oval Office with a star-struck barely-legal girl.

KP said...

Interesting comments on both sides. As usual, if we pick arounds the edges we can attempt to make each other feel silly.

I grew up with a mom who went back to university and got her degree in her 40s. I had Ms Magazine on the coffee table and read it. I have a wife of 26 years and two adult daughters.

There are two sides to the duscussion. Women are fighting for equal protection. So are men. We are evolving.

Anonymous said...

VAGINACRACY here we come!

Guys, we're in for the PUSSYWHIPPING of our lives.

I wonder how long it will be before the Feminazis' take exception to "MEN" being part of the word MENSTRUATE?

The might try to take MASTURBATE out of the vocabulary too in favor of MISTRESSBATE, but that's less likely.

Already we're no longer allowed to sing AMEN! at the end of hymns in many Protestant denominations.

APERSONS just doesn't have the same ring to it, and AFOLK! sounds too much like AH FUCK!

Do we really want to CUNTINYOO this discussion?

~ FreeThinke

Jack Camwell said...

Good stuff FT. THe Amen thing is pretty ridiculous, and shows that the people making that decision are, in fact retarded. Amen is latin, so the "men" in it is coincidental.

One time, someone tried to pawn off the "herstory," on me, and was like "why do you think it's called HIStory?"

My reply was that "history," was derivative from the french "histoire." What's interesting is that in french, the possessive for a male is "son." And the word "story" is fable, nothing like the english word story. So the word "history" coming out to sound like "his story" is a coincidence, not a word created by evil men to oppress women.

I also broke down the Latin derivation, which I can't remember right now, but it was close to "histoire," and again, the parts of it have nothing to do with masculinity or femininity.

Anonymous said...

Im late to the party... but....

If a woman is captured in combat there are some terrible things that could be done to her other than being killed.

The possibility of losing your life in combat is bad enough for men, but the possiblity of capture and rape is faily fucking terrible.

Thats why i accept women in the army, but wouldent insist on a draft. Thats why i dont consider this argument for a double-standard.


Jack Camwell said...

But you're more okay with there being a draft for men? And before you say "no," don't forget that World War II could not have been won if it weren't for the draft.

But you also said that you're okay with women in the military and, I guess, them being allowed to go into combat situations. The only reason that you're okay with that, is because you know that the women in your life that you love have absolutely ZERO interest and likelihood of ever volunteering for that.

It's only when the possibility of losing the ones you love comes up that you have a problem with women in combat.

So yes, it's still a double standard.

Anonymous said...

I still disagree. there are different risks for a woman vs a man. its not a double standard if the risks are different.

a woman who sighns up for service "supposedly" knows what they are getting themselves into.

being killed is terrible. Being captured and raped for years is a whole other fucked up mess.

i mean, would you lump that in with torture or interrigation?


Anonymous said...


I know this is going to come as a shock to you brah, but that whole captured and raped thing is really a weak argument, while it is true that is one possibility, you are assuming that they would get captured constantly.

If they capture anybody and have no limit on their morality, they are going to do terrible things to them, regardless if they are male or female.

You seriously think if some maniac captured a man they wouldn't sodomize him, Slice off their junk, etc.

Please understand I am not trivializing a woman getting raped in a POW scenario, however I think it has more to do with the fact that in general, women have more issues to overcome to be an effective front-line warrior, and they also have special needs such as hygiene.

There are exceptions to everything and I am sure there are some women who are even more badass than most guys are, I am just saying playing the averages, those women will be few and far between. Out of 1000 18 year old men, you should be able to find at least 50 or so that could be excellent front line fighters. Out of 1000 18 year old women, you might find 5 or 10 who have the right physique.

While I feel you have the right idea in general, I also have to agree with Jackie when he says it's a double standard along the lines of "women are equal in merit, but not equal in requirement."