[Namron] OT: Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005

[Lissa Guillet]

OK. I was really really really trying to keep quiet on this topic. lol

On Thu, 2004-06-03 at 20:43, Matthias the Brewer wrote:
> But you raise a good point.  Mainly it's because of my lack of clarity.  I
> have absolutely NO objection to women in the military.  I just don't like
> the idea of women in ground combat.
OK. But I don't like the idea of men in leadership positions. They seem
to like war too much and think of people as numbers instead of
individuals.

>   It's a very nasty thing.
It is a very nasty thing, for anybody. Male or female. If women are
willing to meet that challenge, then they should be allowed. And if men
aren't, they shouldn't be allowed. Doesn't that make more sense than
anything?

>   Women in support roles are a great idea.
As are men in support roles. As are women who want to be in combat
roles. While women on average maybe less physically strong, their
tolerance for pain is usually(on average) much higher. Proper training
and socialization could use that to great advantage.

> This allows them to contribute to the
> effort, but within a role more suited to their physiological limitations.
Physiological limitations can be overcome if wanted. I don't know if
you've seen some of the physiologically limited men that enter the armed
forces, but while I might agree to various averages these should not be
applied to individuals at all. Yes testosterone is very potent hormone
that allows for increased muscle growth etc. Estrogen has equally
powerful benefits that most people have not studied.

> And I'll even admit to the idea that some women ARE suitable for ground
> combat.  I just haven't met one.
A friend of mine from highschool whom I've reacquainted with has a
girlfriend who is a very tough marine. She would break you. =)

> Jessica Lynch is an example of what can
> happen.  The whole country was thrilled with the idea of rescuing her.  Not
> rescuing a captured soldier, but rescuing a FEMALE soldier.
Part of that is the sensationlistic views of a mostly male and pandering
media who want to do nothing more than make money off of people's woes.

> (And by the
> way, I was just as thrilled with the idea as everyone else.  I firmly
> beleive that women should be protected, spoiled, and have that spot behind
> their knees tickled regularly.)
So should men in their own way.

> What I object to is that the female part of
> the equation was so significant and was so emphasized.
It was and there was a reason above the normal. This, if I remember
correctly, is the first war we've fought with female ground troops.
That's pretty significant.

> Now, when women are allowed in non-combat roles, events like Jessica Lynch
> will happen again.  Remember, she was in supply (or was it motor transport?
> I can't remember).  And was captured from a supply convoy as I recall.
All the more reason to give women proper combat training if they want
it, in my opinion.

> If a draft is enacted, I think it should be applied across the board to all
> people.  No matter their race, sex, orientation, or how much money/political
> power their Daddy has.
I agree, however, I think it would be best to leave combat to those who
seek combat training and find other uses for conscientious objectors. A
civil service draft, I think might be a better solution if you are going
that direction. Working for your government does not necessarily mean
blowing things up.

> And Starship Troopers only had a couple of good ideas, and was a decent
> read.  The movie was a piece of crap.
Heinlien is a author if you can stomach the sheer amount of sexual
deviance the man seems to have in most cases. Although, I think a large
part of his genius is that he doesn't play politically correct and
really writes out how he might feel in various positions and roles. I
think his stories bear a meaning to him. Point of fact, "I Will Fear No
Evil," One of the less read heinlein books takes a man and puts him in a
pretty womans body. And that man begins to have sex with everything that
moves and helps him get his way. It's an interesting read and I think
could be quite useful in understanding some of the male psyche and what
it would do if it were transplanted into a female body. It's been awhile
since I have read it, but I remember being simultaneously appalled and
riveted. =)

> I hope this clarified my position, which I just inadequately wrote.  My
> apologies to any I offended inadvertantly.  In NO way, do I believe that
> woman are inferior or superior to men.  I just think they are different, and
> should be treated with an appropriate set of rules.
People should be treated individually with an appropriate set of rules
and not, on the whole. It's folly to group everyone who wears a label
with the same rules. Especially in such a large population. Women do
tend to be different than men in many ways, but certainly men tend to be
different from each other and so do women. I think it's a much more
intelligent and worthwhile stand to say that we should treat each other
with the rules that the other feels should apply to them.

> Or, you could say that
> MEN are different and should be treated with an appropriate set of rules.
> For example, I think a man's status SHOULD be impacted by his ability to
> belch.
Ah yes. Now there is quality of great admiration. =)

> And I only know of one woman who could out-belch me regularly.  By
> the same token, a man with significant cleavage scares the whatsis out of
> me!!!!
Where are you going on Friday nights that you see men with significant
cleavage? Inquiring minds want to know. ;)

> Did I misspeak any other points?
Sorry, I'm not attacking you specifically. So don't think that I am.
I've really tried to stay quiet on this for various reasons, but being a
feminist who has actually met and chatted with a few of the biggies I
find I needed to say something.