From: matus [matus@snet.net]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 7:56 PM
To: matus@snet.net
Subject: MFD List - Men are the expendable sex

(This is an interesting article about the sexist nature of many US policies.
The author points to the US draft as an example, and while he acknowledges
through quotes early on that the draft is not in force (and has not been
since the late 60's) he pushes it as a prime example of the discriminatory
nature of many government policies, arguing, effectively that men are the
'Expendable sex'  "Equality between the sexes" says the author "boils down
to is ensuring that men and women
have the same opportunities and control over their own individual lives"
Libertarians generally feel that government laws should make no reference of
sex at all (unless relating to biological issues) less they actually become
sexist. The author argues "But if we maintain the status quo, men will
continue to be viewed by women and government as the "expendable" sex, the
sex which may die to no great consequence to the country's hearth and home,
or the lives of their families, their children.
That second prospect is especially frightening to those who view the
apparent marginalizing of fatherhood by the U.S. justice system and the near
holy state of single motherhood in recent decades (not to mention the
scientific advancement of cloning and somatic cell transfer as a means of
reproduction) as the signal of the end of the need for males on the Earth
(never mind that a man generally has more duties in his life than to produce
offspring... or fight wars)".  Also of note are the authors over simplified
comments about the Vietnam conflict, which will may expand upon on the
forum.  Disregarding the draft focus of the article and the comments about
Vietnam, the author definitely makes some valid points about many
governments views on Men... - Mike)

Men are the expendable sex
----------
by James R. Hanback, Jr.
   Hanback, a guest commentator for ifeminists.com, speaks of men
   as expendable because they are the ones subjected to the draft
   in wartime. The draft is not only a violation of individual
   freedom but also a blatant example of a double standard in law.
   (11/12/01)

from - http://www.free-market.net/rd/457405516.html

Men: The Expendable Sex

They come like sacrifices in their trim,
And to the fire-eyed maid of smoky war
All hot and bleeding will we offer them.

--William Shakespeare, Henry IV

By James R. Hanback, Jr.

Times of war inevitably bring with them variations of inward-turning upon
Americans. Some of us fear for the safety and lives of our loved ones. Some
of us become passionately patriotic, constantly damning the torpedoes and
ready to fight anyone who speaks different. And some of us wonder where it
will all end, and worry about whether the government of the United States is
making the right choices.

Just as inevitably, college men all over the country begin to wonder: "Will
they bring back the draft? Will my number be called?" The question has
already been asked on several collegiate newspaper editorial pages. No
doubt, many college-aged women all over the country are thinking: "Thank God
I'm not a man."

Before I go any further, let me just say right now that I hope the United
States finds Osama bin Laden huddled quietly in what he thinks is a safe
haven of a mouse hole somewhere in Afghanistan and stomps him flat with our
collective boot. Hell, I'd consider it an honor to own the heel that crushes
his skull and spurts his evil gray matter out his ears.

Sometimes I am an irritable, vengeful, warmongering man.

And let me also say that any American who puts his life on the line to
preserve freedom, to rescue others, or to simply fight for his cause has my
utmost and well deserved respect and admiration.

That said, I think the current condition of the United States Selective
Service is a violation of the freedom for which America stands, and should
either be abolished completely, or re-worded so that women, too, can be
drafted and serve in combat roles, provided they are as fit as the drafted
men with whom they are serving to fulfill those roles.

By its simplest definition, sexism is discrimination based upon the sex of
an individual. So, the draft is sexist because it singles out one sex for
conscription and not the other. Not everyone, though, can exactly agree on
which sex the draft is discriminating against. Is it discrimination against
women by excluding them from traditional male roles in the military? Or is
it discrimination against men because being sent to die marginalizes the
value of his life to society?

The draft is a violation of American freedom because it forces American
citizens to risk their lives against their will. It's sexist and mainly
discriminatory against men because it only forces the male population to
risk their lives against their will. Women, although they are admittedly not
allowed in ground combat, still may choose whether they will put themselves
in danger for their country, and that's really what equality is all about:
people making their own decisions about their own lives.

So which way do we go to equalize things? Do we abolish the draft? Do we
draft women? If we draft women, do we restrict them from combat roles?

Believe it or not, drafting women is not a new idea. According to the
Selective Service's own Web site, the U.S. military considered drafting
women during World War II when it ran short on nurses. A female draft was
deemed unnecessary because the country got word of the shortage and women
responded with a surge of volunteerism.

Likewise, two different U.S. presidents have urged the re-wording of the law
behind the Selective Service to include women in registration for the draft.
At the time President Jimmy Carter re-instated registration with the
Selective Service, however, Congress was only willing to provide funding for
the Service to register men, despite Carter's urging to provide otherwise.

Rather than drafting women, the U.S. could abolish the draft completely.
France just recently did so, and other countries (including the U.S.) have
proposed legislation to end their individual conscription policies,
reckoning that the face of war is changing, and forcing men to serve in the
military isn't going to be the proper way to fight the new wars.

Some argue, though, that if we abolish the draft the country runs the risk
of not being prepared for self defense in case of attack. But if we maintain
the status quo, men will continue to be viewed by women and government as
the "expendable" sex, the sex which may die to no great consequence to the
country's hearth and home, or the lives of their families, their children.
That second prospect is especially frightening to those who view the
apparent marginalizing of fatherhood by the U.S. justice system and the near
holy state of single motherhood in recent decades (not to mention the
scientific advancement of cloning and somatic cell transfer as a means of
reproduction) as the signal of the end of the need for males on the Earth
(never mind that a man generally has more duties in his life than to produce
offspring... or fight wars).

If we do not abolish the draft out of our need for preparedness, the only
other way to equalize the draft is to draft women, but even if we did, it
may not equalize things as much as dropping the policy altogether. Why?
Because it raises the often-debated question about what roles drafted women
would play in a U.S. military at war. Would they be allowed into combat?
Current military policy says "no," and many men in the military fear that
women in combat could do more harm than good when one considers that, as a
general rule, men are larger and have greater upper body strength than women
(although I've known a few women in my time who could kick some serious
masculine ass, and at least one country--Sri Lanka--has already recognized
the value of women in combat roles. Thirty-five percent of their combat
force is female).

But if women are not allowed in combat, what other roles should they play?
Drafted women could easily move into the desk jobs, medical jobs, and
engineering roles held by men rather than fighting on the front lines, but
drafting women only for those roles would negate the equalization of
drafting women in the first place, because men would still be the ones
fighting and dying, meaning that men are still the expendable sex. Likewise,
women would be receiving the intellectual and educational side-benefits of
having the non-combat roles by learning new skills they could later apply to
civilian life. The men at the front lines, if they returned at all, would
return heroes for a time, and then struggle to reintegrate themselves with
peacetime society, trained only as fighting machines and useless without
war.

What equality between the sexes boils down to is ensuring that men and women
have the same opportunities and control over their own individual lives,
that what happens to an individual is a direct result of his or her own
choices, and not dictated to that individual by sex or government.

That said, here are three conclusions I've formed about what the government
and our military could do to equalize the Selective Service law and ensure
that the country is protected by only the fittest of soldiers.

1. Drop it. If there's anything this country should have learned from World
War II and Viet Nam, it's that if the country wants to go war, it will and,
in the words of the president, "we will prevail." On the other hand, if this
country does not want to go to war, as was the obvious case in Viet Nam,
we're going to fail miserably no matter how many of us are drafted. After
the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, U.S. military recruitment offices were
swarmed by volunteers, many of them young men who wanted to help protect
this country and fight its enemies. In World War II, the U.S. didn't need to
draft women for nursing positions because so many volunteered. Some
historians have said that the draft was used more as an organizational tool
for the government to keep track of people who were volunteering for battle
rather than genuine conscription during World War II, which would mean that
the draft in its "force men to fight against their will" form didn't really
exist in that war.

In Viet Nam, our soldiers died and risked their lives fighting a war their
country didn't support, and which rewarded them with human saliva and hatred
upon their return to domestic soil.

The draft is unnecessary. Volunteers can more than make up for it if the
will of the people is the genuine desire to fight, as evidenced both by
Sept. 11 and World War II. Considering the press the oppression of women
under the Taliban's regime has been getting lately, I wouldn't put it past
American women to volunteer for combat in droves, just to kick a few
Talibanian groins.

But those who are drafted who do not want to fight? They'll not be fighting
for their country when placed on the front lines. They'll be fighting for
their own survival, and they'll resent this government and these people upon
their return, just as many of our Nam vets did.

2. Hold All Soldiers To The Same Training Standards. Many have heard the
likes of G. Gordon Liddy and Rush Limbaugh bemoan the state of our modern
military as a result of the "dumbing down" of training for females in the
military. The U.S. military does not want to appear to discriminate against
women, so rather than ensuring that its soldiers are as prepared as they can
be for battle, they ensure that everyone can pass the tests. There are,
however, women out there who can pass the same training that men can. No,
not every female recruit can do it, nor can every man. That's why that
training was designed the way it was. It prepares those who can fight, and
weeds out those who can't.

Would we end up with a much larger number of men in the military than women
if all were held to the same training standards? Based on physiological
differences between men and women, probably yes. But we do know that some
women can fight as well as a man. Joan of Arc comes to mind. Even William
Shakespeare acknowledged a feminine warrior mentality in the quote at the
beginning of this article. The "fire-eyed maid of smoky war" he refers to is
Bellona, goddess of war.

If all soldiers were held to the same standards, at least those men and
women who made it through training and can hold their own on the battlefield
would be prepared for what they faced. And, without a draft, they'd be doing
so of their own free will.

3. Drop The Gun Control Shtick. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States of America gives Americans the right to keep and bear
arms. That means men and women alike. Now let's imagine an America like in
the days of the colonists, when nearly every household contained some kind
of defensive weapon. Imagine an America in which men and women, in fact,
maintain firearms on their persons at all times (some states allow their
citizens to obtain concealed carry permits).

Now imagine a group of terrorists attempting to invade or hijack any
building or mode of transport full of those types of Americans. Would the
terrorists be as likely to succeed? Not on your life. Those armed Americans
would defend themselves.

And there we have them: three ways in which Americans can feel more secure
and be equals in the eyes of the government. Three ways which free men from
the bonds of expendability and which free women to fill those roles if they
so choose and if their physical abilities can pass muster. Everybody wins.

Yes, sometimes I am an irritable, vengeful, warmongering man. But most of
the time, I just try to use a little common sense.

For comments about articles or other topics please visit the MFDList forum
at www.delphi.com\MFDList

www.matus1976.com