Does anyone else not believe in feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

*sigh*
First of all, 'registering for the draft' currently has no real-world impact other than the time taken to fill out the card. We do not have a draft in the US, and have not had one for decades. No branch of the military wants to return to the draft.
Second, getting women allowed on the front lines has been a sub-cause within feminism for decades, because people who wish to make the military their career do not get promoted unless they have actual battlefield experience. Gender segregation in the military by level of danger (or by submarine/non submarine) is one way that gender roles are enforced in the military. Because of feminism, some occupations (such as 'pilot') are now based on physical criteria alone (ie, is the person the right height, can they pass the necessary physical tests, do they have adequate eyesight, etc) rather than disqualifying otherwise passing women.

Here is the report you are looking for:

http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medi ... M63-15.pdf

When the Titanic went down people respected the 'women and children first' mentality, when the Lusitania was torpedoed around the same time they did not. The key point was time, the Lusitania sank quickly the Titanic did not (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/11/4862). The Costa Concordia did not sink quickly, so the Titanic conclusion ought to apply, but society is not what it used to be and the 'women and children first' mentality was no where to be found.

I believe that women and children should go first because as a male who is physically strong I see my reason for having this strength as existing only so that I can protect those who are not necessary capable of defending themselves. Men are strong only so that they can meet their responsibility to protect others. Men who use their strength otherwise are not worthy of the name.

They can call it whatever they like. I have heard freedom called repression before, so lets not equivocate. A man is strong, so he can protect people, the inverse is a terrible world to live in; because in both men are still generally naturally stronger. That reality will come out some other way, so the only answer we really have to offer men, is discipline and responsibility and I can't see any good reason why we should think this is a bad idea. A man dedicated to an idea can be called a slave to it, but only by someone who does not appreciate the virtues of the position he is taking.

Let us start out by establishing that I did not claim that 'man is strong', rather I stated that 'men are in general stronger'. The former is a statement of ideology, the latter is philological reality (http://jp.physoc.org/content/338/1/37.abstract). It is not prejudicial to state that something which is, is. Some women can claim that they do not want to know the difference or can argue that it might be better to ignore it, but I think it is better to accept the reality.

Women have rights and deserve a fair go, they also, generally, live longer. It is not prejudicial to state the reality that women generally live longer; there is no statement of quality in this reality, it simply is. As such, we as a society need to recognize that there are actual differences between genders. Men are generally stronger, I think the best way to react to this is to accept that this strength, ought to come with a sense of instilled discipline and responsibility. A responsibility to protect others who are generally physically weaker, whatever gender or age, from physical threat. Men will seek to use discharge their strength, better that they do so in defense of others, rather than at the expense of others.

The problem with the male gender is not that they step up to meet their responsibilities, its that they increasingly don't. As such, when disasters like the Costa Concordia happen, the Captain is the first off the ship and people react more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueh_1PeJhaQ

I personally would rather have Edward Smith as my ship's captain than I would Francesco Schettino.

The majority of men died in the Titanic due to the "women and children first" policy while most women and children were saved. The numbers were grossly disproportionate. How does that square with the idea that men are more likely to survive due to being stronger?

Also in maritime law, there is no "women and children first policy" when a ship sinks. The idea is that all passengers are supposed to be saved and the only people who are supposed to get preferential treatment in an emergency situation like that are disabled people so that they can get to the lifeboats in time. On the Concordia, it was some passengers who wanted to enforce an informal policy of "women and children first" but strictly speaking, it should be "passengers first, staff last".

The majority of men died in the Titanic due to the "women and children first" policy while most women and children were saved. The numbers were grossly disproportionate. How does that square with the idea that men are more likely to survive due to being stronger?

It has no real world impact for women, that is why it is seen as irrelevant. We may not have had a draft but not registering means:

Disqualified from federal jobs
Disqualified from federal job training
Disqualified from Student Aid
Disqualification from citizenship for immigrants
Denial of drivers licenses in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia;

These for boys/men are very relevant.

Yes, they are. I restate, however: registering for the draft has no real-world consequence other than filling out a card. Not registering does have a significant impact, but you cannot claim that it's some sort of sexist bias towards military service when it is nothing but the remnant of a bygone age when women weren't allowed to serve. You are less likely to be drafted after you fill out your card than you are to win the megabucks lottery after you buy the ticket.

What if Israel and Iran exchange fire tomorrow and WW3 starts? Then the relevance will be very very real.

And if that happens, do you think that maybe they'll start calling up women too? Then the relevance would be quite different. We can both play 'what if' all day, and it's basically meaningless - just like the current draft registration. It's an anachronism.
also:
http://hasbrouck.org/draft/health.html
(the above could include me, btw, depending on how quickly they used up reservists and people with prior military experience.)

Women and men are equal, yes, and feminists try to go for more than equality but instead superiority of women over men. It should only be equality and neither be treated as superior to the other.

Gay people were in the military before you know

Well that will only be because of feminists fight to stop the 'denial' of women's 'right' to be in the military. I think sometimes some people get rights and responsibilities mixed up. I would personally as a pacifist rather not have the duty to sign up.

This. I think what often happens with movements like Feminism (and others) is that initially, it starts out with good intentions and genuinely seeks equality. Eventually, however, people who want superiority of the group in question over the more dominant group in society get involved in the mix, thus eventually corrupting the movement and its ideas and becoming more concerned with "getting even" so to speak, as opposed to balancing things out.