- Joined
- Jul 29, 2015
- Messages
- 6,280
- Reaction score
- 0
Was just reading an article on the subject of women and the draft that had a very unique take on it. Essentially, this the woman in this article says that women shouldn't be drafted because they already, effectively, are. The task of birthing children lies entirely on women, and far more women die during childbirth than men die in battle. The sacrifice, in blood, of suffering, that women suffer already far exceeds that of men - therefore, subjecting women to the draft is a double burden. What does Sherdog think on this - do women already give up more to keep America going than men and, therefore, shouldn't be subjected to selective service like the comparative slackers that men are?
"But the entire brouhaha panders to a false assumption (in the debate about whether women should or should not be drafted) the Marine Corps commandant made. Until we name What is that false assumption? It is that women are not already drafted. Of course women are already drafted! We just refuse, as a society, to acknowledge that fact. So let me acknowledge it here, in the hopes that will promote more meaningful debate over such an important national policy issue.
My thesis is simple: women already sacrifice more for their country than men do, whether we are speaking of blood or of treasure.
...
the task of physically providing a next generation to secure a nation’s future rests solely in the wombs of American women. We women are drafted in this cause, because men are physically incapable of the task.
....
This draft has real consequences for the draftees. Women offer to lay down their health and even their very lives that their nation might have a future in the new citizens women’s sacrifices bring into the world
...
Indeed, consider that in the history of our nation, from 1776 onwards, vastly more women have died or been seriously harmed in or incident to childbirth than men have died or been wounded in battle. Approximately 1,200 American women die in childbirth every year, with almost 60,000 seriously wounded and suffering seriously physical harm, such as acute renal failure, stroke, heart failure, or aneurysms.
...
These are not gentle deaths, either.
...
I say, until men can die in childbirth just like women have for centuries, women should not be drafted and forced to die in battle also—that would mean women would be given a burden double compared to men in securing the nation’s future. This double burden would deepen the inequality between men and women, counting as valuable only what men value, and doing so in a context where women are not equally represented when these momentous decisions are made."
http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/16/we-already-draft-women-in-times-of-war/
Now, I find it pretty bold that this women would use the term "false equivalence" in an article like this but does anyone buy her argument? Should women be exempt from the draft because it would essentially impose a double burden on us - we sacrifice our bodes to create a new generation of Americans, and then we sacrifice again in bearing and giving birth to children? Unlike men, who only sacrifice if they happen to get drafted.
"But the entire brouhaha panders to a false assumption (in the debate about whether women should or should not be drafted) the Marine Corps commandant made. Until we name What is that false assumption? It is that women are not already drafted. Of course women are already drafted! We just refuse, as a society, to acknowledge that fact. So let me acknowledge it here, in the hopes that will promote more meaningful debate over such an important national policy issue.
My thesis is simple: women already sacrifice more for their country than men do, whether we are speaking of blood or of treasure.
...
the task of physically providing a next generation to secure a nation’s future rests solely in the wombs of American women. We women are drafted in this cause, because men are physically incapable of the task.
....
This draft has real consequences for the draftees. Women offer to lay down their health and even their very lives that their nation might have a future in the new citizens women’s sacrifices bring into the world
...
Indeed, consider that in the history of our nation, from 1776 onwards, vastly more women have died or been seriously harmed in or incident to childbirth than men have died or been wounded in battle. Approximately 1,200 American women die in childbirth every year, with almost 60,000 seriously wounded and suffering seriously physical harm, such as acute renal failure, stroke, heart failure, or aneurysms.
...
These are not gentle deaths, either.
...
I say, until men can die in childbirth just like women have for centuries, women should not be drafted and forced to die in battle also—that would mean women would be given a burden double compared to men in securing the nation’s future. This double burden would deepen the inequality between men and women, counting as valuable only what men value, and doing so in a context where women are not equally represented when these momentous decisions are made."
http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/16/we-already-draft-women-in-times-of-war/
Now, I find it pretty bold that this women would use the term "false equivalence" in an article like this but does anyone buy her argument? Should women be exempt from the draft because it would essentially impose a double burden on us - we sacrifice our bodes to create a new generation of Americans, and then we sacrifice again in bearing and giving birth to children? Unlike men, who only sacrifice if they happen to get drafted.
