Things like the draft bring me to the following conclusion: women should not have the right to vote or hold public office.
Things such as the garbage you pollute on these boards, irrespective of which thread you post to, lead me to believe that you possess an ignorance that is both astounding and terrifying. Your misinformed, incorrect, damaging and hurtful “conclusions” are setting the progress of this organization back, wasting my time, and planting the seeds for continued sexism, discrimination and ridiculous, unnecessary discourse like that taking place in this thread.
There is absolutely zero need to reassess the goals and accomplishments of the women’s suffrage and equal rights movements as both were wholly justified in their efforts toward creating equality in law and life between men and women. You’re ridiculous conclusion that women should not have the right to vote nor hold public office is, aside from obviously sexist, ill-formed and antiquated, borne out of a gargantuan, obvious lack of insight into any of the subjects about which you write.
What further justification can you provide to defend your conclusion? I am confident that there are no observations that you have made regarding the women’s movement that have gone unnoticed in the past century by the many who have come before you in their efforts to perpetuate continued misogyny and sexism. I am certain that you have no more tenable ideas regarding why women are somehow your inferior. The only thing about which I am uncertain, really, is if you possess the self-preservation instinct to cut your losses and walk away. Time will tell. You were off to a good start, at the very least, when you started trying to rescind and shift focus away from the comments you made at the outset, instead pretending that this is a discussion about “women and their involvement in protecting their freedoms.” It was a laudable, if utterly transparent, effort at saving face.
It seems that for the purposes of defending your conclusion, defending one’s freedom can only occur through the use of violence - taking up arms against those who are perceived to be a physical threat to the safety of our borders. This, oddly enough, seems somewhat inconsistent with your fervent assurance that the United States doesn’t “ignore oppressive dictators” in a previous thread, unless of course you meant simply that we don’t ignore oppressive dictators that threaten our physical or economic well-being. The United States ignored the oppression of non-Aryans by Adolf Hitler for eight years before entering World War II after the attack at Pearl Harbor. Only after December 7, 1941 and an attack on its own (imperially-conquered) soil did the United States show any interest in that particularly oppressive dictator. So, on second thought, it seems as if by reading between the lines, your stated position has been entirely consistent. You’re interested only in yourself and in protecting your freedoms. You show very little concern for others, their struggles, or their freedom - unless, of course, it becomes politically advantageous for you to show such concern. Thus, comments such as those you made above, suggesting that women be denied equal rights seem perfectly logical and acceptable - even preferable - in your distorted view of reality. Perhaps you’re unaware of the times when the United States has taken up arms against its own people - the internment of the Japanese during World War II being the most notable. Whose freedom were we protecting then? It certainly doesn’t seem like we were at all interested in defending the interests of the minority at the time, something you’ve previously heralded as “American.”
I’m sorry that you don’t believe that women like Rosa Parks, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Susan B. Anthony did nothing to defend their freedom. Perhaps you’d have more respect for Ms. Parks if, instead of refusing to give up her seat on the bus, she physically assaulted the other riders.
Women are not exempt from the draft, they are denied access to it. This is a very important distinction that you don’t seem too keen on making because it undermines everything you’ve written thus far. If a woman wanted to be conscripted, she could not be, both legally and as a matter of Department of Defense policy. These laws are based on archaic information from the last time a draft was instated - and subsequent laws using data from that time period as a reference. All reevaluations of the conscription laws and policies have cited these archaic court decisions as justification for continued denial of access to the draft for women.
Challenges of these laws and policies that have been taken to the courts go nowhere because they deal with the policies and practices of making and maintaining war - a responsibility afforded exclusively to the United States Congress as per our Constitution. Thus, courts have very little power in altering Congress’ ability to deny women access to the draft and, as a result, the draft and military policies remain as they were created - nearly twenty five years ago.
Your argument, in short, is that because women are denied equality by law and by practice, they are undeserving of even the best effort toward achieving equality. It is disconnected and obtuse at best; truly incomprehensible at worst. The sexism of the generations that preceded us is no excuse for continued sexism among our generation. Because you deny someone some of their rights, you cannot use that as a legitimate excuse to deny them all of their rights.
Why isn’t there a feminist movement to allow women into the draft?
Feminism, as Lisa already mentioned, is often associated with anti-war and pro-peace movements. What little feminist discourse there is about feminism and conscription shows overwhelming support for equal inclusion, but often argues for mutual exclusion from the draft.
Please, explain to me why I should be required to enganger [sic] my life for the country and you as a woman should not. Furthermore, explain why you believe you should be able to vote a person into office who might send the men of this country into a war while you sit at home.
Why should a Congress of men and women, each of whom are too old to be conscripted themselves, be able to call up a draft? They’re not going to be doing much during a war except sitting around, too.
I defend my freedom by being sure that ignorance, sexism, discrimination and violence are challenged, questioned, noted, and stopped at every opportunity. Others can waste their time running around other countries chasing phantom threats with their machine guns and their tanks and their planes. I can see pretty clearly that there’s plenty within our borders that needs to be defended against and I’m perfectly content earning my right to vote by making sure that people like you are consistently debunked, embarrassed, and stripped of any ability to hurt others.