[Madison]

I feel the smallest twinge of regret that some think that I’ve resorted to “personal attacks” in what I’ve written here – but it’s only a small twinge, really. The sentiment being defended here is bigoted and sexist and hateful and it’s being defended solely by Mike Dubreuil – so, as far as I’m concerned, this has everything to do with him and is very personal. I have every intent of calling his character and motivation into question alongside his ideas. Both are in dire need of examination, so any attempt at trying to dissuade me from writing more or from censoring myself will be fruitless. Likewise, attempts at discrediting my arguments by framing them as a “personal attack” – as if it’s some negative sort of thing – will surely be overlooked.

Mike – I have no doubt that I’m far, far superior to you and people like you. I believe in equality for all people and I have the intelligence and hindsight to understand the struggles these groups face; something you’ve continued to show a lack of insight toward.

Let's throw in an assumption of my personal beliefs too.

You wrote previously, “Things like the draft bring me to the following conclusion: women should not have the right to vote or hold public office.”

So, again, you have concluded that women are not worthy of the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as you. What about that is an assumption about your presumed superiority, exactly? It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Of course, I’m not surprised that the backpedaling you’ve begun will continue as you go off trying to pretend that you haven’t expressed such sentiment. I see it already when you post little disclaimers at the end of your writing trying to absolve yourself of responsibility for the opinions you present. In the real world, disclaimers are useless and little more than a useful indication of how scared you are of being held accountable for your actions.

You later write, “I don't think women should be forced into the serving the military, I also don't think they should lose their ability to participate in the government.” So, you feel that we shouldn’t lose our ability to participate in government, but that we don’t deserve it in the first place? I think that the only person hoping I’ve made any assumptions about your beliefs is you.

There's another assumption. I do not believe that the only way of defending a freedom is by the use of violence. Martin Luther King effectively faught [sic] for the rights of African Americans without using violence.

Since you seem to be a bit absent-minded about the bigotry you were so vehemently defending yesterday, let me remind me you that you wrote, once again, “Things like the draft bring me to the following conclusion: women should not have the right to vote or hold public office. I find it interesting that women want equal rights; yet, they don't have to be a part of the draft.”
You followed that with, “This thread is about women and their involvement in protecting their freedoms.” So, let’s take a moment to deconstruct these statements and connect the dots, okay?

You’ve argued that women are undeserving of the right to vote and the right to hold public office because, as you go on to say, they are denied access to conscription by existing laws that violate a whole pile of other laws and amendments. You follow up by arguing, repeatedly, that military service is the only way people have ever defended our freedoms with remarks akin to, “Unfortunately, the feminist [sic] all to [sic] easily forget that it's America's soldiers and war [sic] who have given them the rights they enjoy today.”

So, which is it, Mike? Do you believe that those who’ve taken civil action to combat injustice are preserving our freedom? Are they doing a lesser job of it than those who take up arms against other people? You’ve acknowledged the contributions of Martin Luther King Jr., but you seem to be denying that his effort were just as, if not more, effective than the military campaigns of – oh, let’s say the Cuban Missile Crisis – the last military action to directly endanger the United States. I can’t help but have mountains more respect for people who accomplish change without resorting to violence, and I’m far more interested in defending and preserving their memory than I am in honoring those who volunteer to kill people or those who force others to kill people without their consent.

Perhaps she could not be conscripted, but she could voluntarily enlist.

You’re content in earning your right to vote by filling out some paperwork and receiving federal financial aid for your college education, but a woman has to earn her right to vote by enlisting in the military and proving she’s equal to men, by your logic, since sexist bigots have blocked her ability to sign up for conscription in the first place. Here’s a newsflash, Mike – that pesky little idea about women proving their equality is inherently sexist. We don’t have to prove anything to men, especially you, because you’re not superior in any way. Deal with it.

Obviously, Rosa Parks would not have been effective if she used violence. In the United States, violence is not an effective means of establishing a point. If Rosa Parks did what she did in other countries of the world she would have been dragged behind the bus. We are a civilized people, we logicly [sic] evaluate arguments.

Those heathens! Nowhere in America will you find someone dragged behind a truck for four miles because of their race or tied to a fence and left to die because of their sexual orientation.

You're not really suggesting that [Congress] shouldn't decide what we due with our military simply because they are too old or handicaped [sic] to participate are you?

Why is that more ridiculous than suggesting that women shouldn’t have the right to vote about issues that affect them because they cannot participate in conscription as well?

You’ve said that women should lobby Congress to change Department of Defense policies and allow them access to the draft, while arguing that they should be denied the right to vote because they’re not participating in government in a way you agree with. If women cannot vote, no congressman will act upon their lobby because it offers absolutely no political advantage. You’ve perverted the essential notion of freedom – the ability to act with autonomy without fear of repercussions – by suggesting that those who disagree with your notion of what’s right, just, and necessary be denied the same opportunities as you. The slaves, at least, had the Three-Fifths Compromise, but you seem unwilling to provide women with even that much respect.

I don't think what happened on 9/11 was a phantom incident, do you? The United States is being targeted by terrorists, we must use all the power we have to stop them.

I don’t believe that most of the military action the United States has engaged in in the past three years has any relevance nor positive impact upon preventing events like those that took place on September 11, 2001. I do believe, however, that a war-mongering political administration used “fear and violence” following those attacks to further is militaristic agenda. There are tomes on this message board about the conflict in Iraq, in particular, and I’ve written plenty about why I disagree with that action. If you care to educate yourself, go read it. I’m not repeating myself for your benefit.

A valid point, so a court case could not change the draft, but electing the appropriate people into congress would. Doesn't congress represent the will of the people? Couldn't a feminist movement cause the members of congress to change the draft rules? If it could, why aren't we seeing that happen as talks of the first draft in the 21st century begin?

I’ve already established that you’re attempting to penalize a group for voting in ways you don’t agree with by trying to deny them the right to vote at all – an action not unlike those that sought to disenfranchise African Americans after the Civil War. You must be unaware of the “Jim Crow” laws that required African Americans be able to read before being allowed to vote. Those laws were created by the same people who, in years prior, denied those African Americans – living as slaves – freedom and education. How, then, could any of those former slaves be expected to pass a literacy test when they’d previously been denied all opportunities to educate themselves?

You’re arguments are nothing more than modern-day Jim Crow laws, Mike. You are no better than the racists that sought unabashedly and without remorse to maintain the irreverent and immoral race hierarchy in this country during Reconstruction. Sorry.

If you want to make a valid argument, please explain to me why women should not be required to register for the draft. And if they should not, why they should still have the right to vote.

Not once have I stated a position on whether women should be required to register for conscription, nor do I intend to. Instead, I have focused on explaining precisely why your attempts at equating military service with earning our rights is flawed, sexist, bigoted, misinformed and completely ridiculous. I’ll be happy to continue focusing on those attempts until you can provide some evidence that you’re not a misogynistic, sexist fool.