soserious1 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Well you can't put a literal dollar amount on it, especially considering the emotional toll it's taken on some guys. But then again, how do you pay a murder victim's family? Or a rape victim? Crappy things happen, sometimes you do what you can but there's no way to make it right in the end. Again though, what kind of compensation do you want to see? Yes "crappy things happen sometimes" but this was no random happening, this was a deliberately enacted and enforced federal law.
aj22one Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Yes "crappy things happen sometimes" but this was no random happening, this was a deliberately enacted and enforced federal law. Ok...but, what are you saying should be done to make up for it?
soserious1 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Ok...but, what are you saying should be done to make up for it? At this point I don't know, I do know that just saying 'we're moving on now" while ignoring the plight of still living victims of an unjust, discriminatory law feels wrong, really wrong.
aj22one Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 At this point I don't know, I do know that just saying 'we're moving on now" while ignoring the plight of still living victims of an unjust, discriminatory law feels wrong, really wrong. Well why don't we just get rid of the selective service registration completely? That will make sure we remember the victims. I mean there really isn't much else we can do.
soserious1 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Well why don't we just get rid of the selective service registration completely? That will make sure we remember the victims. I mean there really isn't much else we can do. What a convenient plan, it saves soo much money and still preserves entitlements women won under Affirmative Action! Now if only those pesky male Vietnam war vets would just have the decency to hurry up and die so we can just sweep them under the rug, after all they were only lowly men, they don't matter eh?
aj22one Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 What a convenient plan, it saves soo much money and still preserves entitlements women won under Affirmative Action! Now if only those pesky male Vietnam war vets would just have the decency to hurry up and die so we can just sweep them under the rug, after all there were only lowly men, they don't matter eh? Get rid of Affirmative Action too man. You don't have to sweep anyone under the rug, just say "hey they were drafted, the draft is wrong and it was discriminatory, we'll do what we can but probably nothing can make it up to them".
soserious1 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 (edited) Get rid of Affirmative Action too man. You don't have to sweep anyone under the rug, just say "hey they were drafted, the draft is wrong and it was discriminatory, we'll do what we can but probably nothing can make it up to them". Why sugar coat your truth? Why not just tell these men face to face, "Our nation used and exploited you simply because you were an able bodied,young male, we didn't care about your risk of dying then and we don't care about your suffering now, so take yourself and your amputated leg out of our sight,hurry up and die so we don't have to look at you anymore, you embarrass us as a nation" Edited November 18, 2011 by soserious1
dasein Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Here are the first steps towards removing the pernicious influence of gender based, polarizing doctrines from our society. 1. Abolish all gender based affirmative action laws, rules, policies, to start. Remove gender entirely as part of the enforcement mandate of the EEOC and other federal and state agencies as applicable. 2. All publicly funded bureaucracies, organizations, panels, committees, charities, that have any gender specific content in their charter or mandate, their work product, or in the way their services are provided (de facto or de jure) should be either abolished or rehabilitated to remove any such gender specific content and effects. A civil remedy will be created and standards of sovereign immunity relaxed for purposes of this undertaking. 3. No publicly funded schools, elementary through postgraduate shall offer any instruction, classes, departments, fields of study, degrees based predominately on gender specific content or their funding will be revoked. 4. No publicly funded bureaucracy, agency, charity, not for profit, organization of any type, shall disseminate gender specific content that is not strictly limited to the process of chilldbirth or other specific healthcare instructions anatomically inapplicable to the other gender. 5. No publicly funded entity, or anyone associated with such entity, other than the census, shall publish or disseminate gender based statistics, or any statistics of any kind that are not based on a cross section of legitimate, documented research. The negligent dissemination of flagrantly unsourced or inaccurate statistics with any inflammatory, gender specific content shall qualify as a civil "hate" offense and standing to sue is granted to any member of the affected gender. 6. Congress shall make no laws containing gender specific content. The Executive Branch shall not create or appoint administrative entities or positions based on gender specific content. Just a start.
joystickd Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Instead of focusing on political how about we focus on feminism and how it relates to the changing landscape of dating.
soserious1 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 dasein Your list looks good, I'd add a federal law that says that the default assumption in child custody cases be for 50/50 shared parenting with both parents equally sharing legal and physical custody and that if this standard is deviated from, the judge must put in writing why he/she rendered a verdict that deviates from this. I'd also look at women only so called "battered women's" shelters, they should be shelters for "battered people" or they should be closed down.
Queen Zenobia Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 I'd also look at women only so called "battered women's" shelters, they should be shelters for "battered people" or they should be closed down. Well if it's a privately funded shelter they should call it whatever they like.
soserious1 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Instead of focusing on political how about we focus on feminism and how it relates to the changing landscape of dating. There's a huge difference between having to follow Federal or state law & in going along willingly with current social/cultural norms & expectations. If guys are tired of one way ask out, if they're tired of always being expected to foot the bill for dating costs ( and I don't blame them) then they need to not only just stop doing these things, they need to rally together to change the culture in the areas they live in. If every man a woman encounters politely says " look, I'm assuming here that you enjoy the time we spend together, that this isn't a work assignment for you,we both have jobs & we need to equally share the costs of our shared activities" Then women will either start planning & budgeting their wages to cover their dating costs.. or they won't find many men to date.
Woggle Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 I am as critical of radical feminism as anybody else but what does it have to do with how Vietnam veterans were treated. They were drafted by a male dominated government to fight in a war that was not supported by the majority of feminists at the time. I think they should be treated much better but how are women at fault?
soserious1 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Well if it's a privately funded shelter they should call it whatever they like. yes but that "private funding" best also include paying for their own security and any police involvement required.
soserious1 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 I am as critical of radical feminism as anybody else but what does it have to do with how Vietnam veterans were treated. They were drafted by a male dominated government to fight in a war that was not supported by the majority of feminists at the time. I think they should be treated much better but how are women at fault? Nope, not that easy, women did have the right to vote, women are not off the hook here. Thanks for playing though!
Queen Zenobia Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 yes but that "private funding" best also include paying for their own security and any police involvement required. As much as I'd love to see the free market take over law enforcement duties in this country, a woman's shelter would be made up of women who paid taxes which paid for the police. So your premise about funding is somewhat flawed.
Queen Zenobia Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Nope, not that easy, women did have the right to vote, women are not off the hook here. Thanks for playing though! Well so did men. And last I checked most member of congress in the 1960s were men. The President who escalated the Vietnam conflict was one Lyndon B. Johnson, who, last I checked was a man. And I take it from this post that you believe in collective punishment and collective responsibility.
joystickd Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 There's a huge difference between having to follow Federal or state law & in going along willingly with current social/cultural norms & expectations. If guys are tired of one way ask out, if they're tired of always being expected to foot the bill for dating costs ( and I don't blame them) then they need to not only just stop doing these things, they need to rally together to change the culture in the areas they live in. If every man a woman encounters politely says " look, I'm assuming here that you enjoy the time we spend together, that this isn't a work assignment for you,we both have jobs & we need to equally share the costs of our shared activities" Then women will either start planning & budgeting their wages to cover their dating costs.. or they won't find many men to date. The reason I said that is because this is a dating forum and when I meant in dating I didn't mean who pays the bill. I mean improving male/female interactions on a more communication level.
soserious1 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Woggle, Interesting that you bring up feminist opposition to Vietnam, so surely you must recall "Hanoi Jane" a self described feminist?
soserious1 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Well so did men. And last I checked most member of congress in the 1960s were men. The President who escalated the Vietnam conflict was one Lyndon B. Johnson, who, last I checked was a man. And I take it from this post that you believe in collective punishment and collective responsibility. Women had the vote back then, if mostly men were in seats of power, women voted to help put them there. As a nation we enacted a law that caused serious harm to a huge group based solely on their gender, as a nation then we must make amends, it seems only fair & right.
Queen Zenobia Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Women had the vote back then, if mostly men were in seats of power, women voted to help put them there. As a nation we enacted a law that caused serious harm to a huge group based solely on their gender, as a nation then we must make amends, it seems only fair & right. Why do you think only men were drafted? Do you think it was because society hated men? Do you think it was because women hated men? Or, do you think it was because politicians and others felt that women were too "weak" to fight in wars? And how do you plan on "making amends"?
Woggle Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Everybody knows how I feel about radical feminists but to suggest that the Vietnam war was some feminist conspiracy is just absurd. I have to wonder if soserious is trolling as well.
soserious1 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Everybody knows how I feel about radical feminists but to suggest that the Vietnam war was some feminist conspiracy is just absurd. I have to wonder if soserious is trolling as well. I didn't say anything about a "feminist conspiracy" what I did say is that a federal law that forced only men to register for the draft discriminated against a huge group of people based solely on their gender. What I find quite telling here is how suddenly, when faced with a clear case of discrimination against men, Feminists are decrying the possible use of Affirmative Action as a possible remedy, Affirmative Action which was so good to feminists is now wrong and unfair?
soserious1 Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Why do you think only men were drafted? Do you think it was because society hated men? Do you think it was because women hated men? Or, do you think it was because politicians and others felt that women were too "weak" to fight in wars? And how do you plan on "making amends"? The male only draft was enacted because law makers stupidly decided to take existing social/cultural norms and codify them into a federally enforceable law. They took the social/cultural expectation that Johnny would march off to war willingly & made it so that Johnny had to march off to war or risk Federal prison time for his failure to comply.
Woggle Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 I didn't say anything about a "feminist conspiracy" what I did say is that a federal law that forced only men to register for the draft discriminated against a huge group of people based solely on their gender. What I find quite telling here is how suddenly, when faced with a clear case of discrimination against men, Feminists are decrying the possible use of Affirmative Action as a possible remedy, Affirmative Action which was so good to feminists is now wrong and unfair? Just because some feminists are a bunch of hypocrites which I agree with doesn't make collective punishment right.
Recommended Posts