You'll have to elaborate on why you think women should not be eligible for draft.

All I'm saying is they would be.

Look for yourselves for the arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment, I'm not going to rehash a nearly forty year old debate for you people. They worked well, there is no such amendment.

so you dont actually have a valid point about the draft then

Good grief, I'm giving an example of what the amendment would change!

but thats not a bad thing neccisarily which is what you suggested it was

Well, it would be great if you could actually rehash the argument. Apparently it's 40 years out of date. You have no problem with piledriving Sic's arguments into the ground but you seem extremely resistant when people debate your cherished views. You used to put forth fantastic and rational arguments behind your opinions but lately you've been making controversial and arguable claims but then getting bristly when they're challenged.

Invictus, you are starting to piss me off.

I love America too but... please have some respect for other views, at least, even if you'd never admit they're right.

Men and women are different, I don't see why we should apply an equality law instead of tacking inequality on a case-by-case basis

Where have I written anything that wouldn't respect another viewpoint?

I don't want to have this argument. I made an offhanded comment about this post.

"It is worth pointing out that under the Afghan constitution, that women are guaranteed "equal rights and duties before the law". Which is more than I can say for the American Constitution. Of course, the implementation of that principle down into statute and common practice is another thing entirely."

Here's what I wrote.

"That's not really a fair criticism of the US Constitution. Men and women are equal before the law in the US, putting something like an equal rights amendment would make it unconstitutional to make any laws applying to gender at all plus it would make differentiation between the sexes in public illegal. Do you want unisex bathrooms?

Men and women are equal, but they're also different."


Men and women are equal before the law in America. I was looking at this from the point of view that women can sign contracts and serve on juries. To me it seemed that Dexter.Morgan thought that there was inherently some sort of LEGALLY DEFINED inequality in America because there is no specific equal rights amendment. I was bringing up the point that there are arguments that such an amendment would have much more far reaching consequences than one would expect.

That's all I meant. I assumed people would be better informed on the ERA debate. I wrote a paper on it so I remember it was quite a controversial topic. Again, smarter people than I have made arguments against it and they're on the internets if you look.

Happy?

*I mean cases such as split-sex toilets or prisons etc, we should address these individually instead of applying something across the board

Could we get a link to that paper invictus? Sounds interesting

My paper? It's on my home computer, not the laptop I have now. I'm at college. Sorry.

I wrote it for AP Government last year.

*attempts to bring thread back to topic at hand*

Given that NATO has a military and economic investment in Afghanistan that is there to create a just government as well as a stable government, yes, we do have the right to protest this law, if not to threaten withdrawal should it be passed. Personally, I enjoy the reaction Italy threatened, which was to withdraw all female personnel in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the law is inherently unconstitutional as the Afghan constitution guarantees equal rights for men and women.

Another issue I have with the law is that it only applies to the Shiite minority in the country - I don't believe that a nation with church and state that close together can function for long, especially when there are multiple sects at play.

We are in Afghanistan to first, protect the West from the Taliban and Al Quaeda, and secondly, to build a stable and secure government there. What type of government are we building if we force them to bend to our will? We want them to have their own government, and not rely on us. So isn't it hypocritical that we interfere in this?

And, anyways, many secular governments are recorded to be among the longest lasting governments in history.

@youradhere - great post...
---
@Savlian - We (sometimes) come to the defense of ethnic minorities being oppressed... We have bombed and invaded and regime-changed countries based at least in part on the idea of correcting such immorality. But we never come to the defense of women being oppressed as a class... Isn't it strange. We figure that "democracy" is still democracy if half of the adult population is has essentially no rights... so long as that oppressed class is women. We treat gender discrimination like an old-fashioned "domestic dispute" wherein wife-beating and rape and murder are the business of the males in charge... that it is somehow "their" business how they treat "their women". Essentially it is an argument based on property rights.

But what no one seems to have mentioned is that this is a part of their religion. So long as a woman is in good health, and your wife, she is fair game.

??!

Have I mentioned my religion?... wherein I control every aspect of my wife's life... and should she step out of bounds from that I have her killed? It's my religion. I have a right to do that to her. Because, as you all know, religion is sacred... if I believe something that makes it true. ...oh, by the way, what my wife believes doesn't count.

Well, it's a theocratic government. One ruled by religion, not something that you can easily change. You laugh and make fun, but this is the kind of thing people are willing to die for.

Consider for a moment how absurd the situation in many countries around the world with pervasive sexism would appear to us if it was men that were being abused, sheltered, controlled, denied health care and education, raped, and summarily and brutally executed when our "honor" demanded it. Isn't it odd how it seems much more "natural" to us for women to be treated that way than it does men? Doesn't that suggest something about our own biases?

It's something we are raised with. Something we're used to. Think of it as being de-sensitised.

Yes - desensitized, at the least.
Theocracy is an evil, evil thing. ...and I agree, it cannot be easily changed...

Dexter.Morgan, Islam is one opf the most misinterpreted religions in the world, so don't pretend to know what you are talking about. As well as, who are you to tell them what to believe. Are you their god? No. Are you their government. No. And who are we to tell them? We are peices of imperialist shit.

@Salivan: My esntiments exactly.

Sometimes we have to put off some of are goals to achieve any of are goals. In a culture that has not changed in 500 years, you cannot expect people to change their views of right or rights in just a few years. Perhaps you would like to personaly go over there and make them behave your way.

I didn't say anything about Islam. Nothing.
There are plenty of moderate, loving, secular-minded people of all religious persuasions - including Muslim. My beef is not with the religion... it is with the use of any doctrine (religious or not) as a justification to commit crimes on innocents. ...and particularly dangerous is when government stops being a neutral, secular, keeper of the peace... and decides that it needs to control how people run their private lives... and what they believe (mind you, this problem is not limited to theocracies).

Another point, do we pass judgement before their system has chance to work? If the law is passed lets see how their courts deal with it. Perhaps they will declare it unconstituional.

@warsprite - (in case you are talking to me...) No.
I simply am pointing out a double standard centered around gender. All crimes against ethnic or religious minorities get our attention... and often our action. Crimes against women? Not so much. Not at all, actually. I do agree, by the way, that we cannot hope to achieve all goals immediately or some such thing. And I think we usually interfere too aggressively... and ham-handedly... it usually accomplishes little to nothing.