This is getting more silly by the moment. Using a masculine pronoun doesn't exclude women, not even technically speaking. Consult with a constitutional expert if you must but this is simply ridiculous. I can assure you that a constitutional crisis won't occur over a pronoun. You can call using the masculine pronoun sexist, but at the time women were never conceived of as participating in government any more than slaves were thought of as full citizens. Judging the past by the present terms is at best silly. Up until say 20-30 years ago, all the books produced were written with the masculine pronoun. Are all the books written up to that time sexist too? This is the type of PC crap thinking most people despise.
Either the statement is sexist or not. All statements don't have to be equally applied to both women and men in order not to be sexist. This is more fallacious PC thinking. Saying I don't want women to be drafted doesn't meet the criteria. If you think it does, you're projecting your own bias on the situation, so perhaps you are thinking sexist thoughts on my behalf. Saying I don't want women to be drafted is either a sexist statement or it isn't on its own merits. Equality is not the criteria for sexism. Read the definition you posted above. The issue isn't equality, it is inferiority. The fact that I do or do not mention men is irrelovent to whether the statement treats women in an inferior manner. In my view discrimination against men in this case is justified. I frankly can't see how a desire to protect women is sexist. It is the opposite of sexism - a desire to treat women as superior. I value a woman more by not forcing her into a situation where she may lose her life or be injured, than a person who wishes her to be forced into such a situation in the name of "equal rights". I would much prefer that women, in this case, have superior rights than men. So call me sexist all you want but if you do, you don't understand what it means.
AAA, get back to me on this in about 30 years. Or more. Forget age 40. Douglas and Warren were still in their respective infancies at 40. It was far later in life that they made their transformations. And I am not sure how much an exception to the rule their behavior really was. I think the same process applied to many of the Justices (I am not really prepared to back this up...I admit I am too lazy to research it). But Warren and Douglas I remember. They were in my lifetime. But my dad (who would never lie to me unless he didn't want me to know the truth), had me under the impression that it was a pretty common thing through the Court's history. And as you mentioned, we are seeing it now in at least two more instances. I guess a relevant question is have any "liberal" Justices gone the other way during their lifetime appointments? Peace, RS
No, legally all statements would not need to be applied equally even if such an ammendment passed. That would equate to forced speech which is prohibited under the first ammendment. If my reasoning process was faulty then you are a Sophist for calling my statement sexist before you knew the context. How is equal opportunity limited for women when they are not required to be drafted? How are their rights being abridged? I'd love to hear you answer these questions, but I know you would rather argue sophistry and make accusations of sexism. I never provided any context for the statement. The point is that you took my one statement without any context and immediately judged it to be sexist. Then later you say it may or may not be sexist based on the context. Of course you called it sexist first, so my alleged sophistry is merely in response to your sophistry and unjustified namecalling. The definition of sexism you provided doesn't include women being denied responsibility as a criteria, so you're off the plantation. Nowhere is giving preference to women construed as sexist to men, since the definition of sexism you provided doesn't apply to men. If men are so put out about being discriminated against because women are not being drafted, why aren't the men marching in the street and holding protests to try and alter public policy? Why aren't the self-proclaimed defenders of equal rights (Democrats running for President) uttering a peep on the subject? Why aren't they crusading against discrimination of men? And clearly you don't understand sexism according to the definition you posted, regardless of your attempts to change the subject to sexism being about adherence to a law that hasn't been passed. Your definition doesn't even mention equal rights - it talks about inferiority, which is the opposite of what my statement is all about. Since you're all about fairness, are you going to lead the charge to have all public women's restrooms downsized to be more fair to men? Are you going to outlaw the skirt in government facilities because men are uncomfortable wearing skirts? Are you going to crusade to allow men to play on all the women's sports leagues out of fairness to the men who are excluded?
What is dishonest about my opinion? You may think my opinion is contrary to yours, but what makes it dishonest? Please clarify. If criminals are being released and then committing more crimes, it is because the system allows them to be, not because the human beings involved - lawyers, parole boards, etc. - are not processing the system correctly. If the system continues to produce results contrary to what it was designed for, then the system is flawed. Not true. We "recall" criminals on a daily basis. When a gunman points his weapon at the public or at the police - quite a "mistake" - law enforcement is authorized to protect themselves and the public by killing him if they consider his intent is serious. It's considered a fully justifiable use of force. Faulty automobiles, pharmaceuticals, and other products are recalled because they are a danger to society and their continued presence among society endangers the public at large. Why not with hardcore criminals? I disagree. Most of the great laws we have and the greatest reforms seen around the world have occured as a result of enough people becoming emotional enough about an issue that they decided to change the existing system or invent a new one. Once a course of action is decided upon, it may be conducted and argued for in what you term a rational way, but the wellspring of that action is emotional response by a large enough body of people to enact change. Are you refuting that further casualties among an innocent populace is acceptable to you? BTW, you're being sarcastic again. I'd hate to use your tactics and accuse you of emotional abuse.
No response? I'm not surprised. Your argument that "He" means men is so utterly preposterous that more deserves to be said on this subject. Have you ever read the following? You see, under your theory members of congress can only be male. So some insidious right wing conspiracy could take root in the Supreme Court to kick out all the women from elected office if it suited some right-wing agenda. This is truly the craziest argument I've ever heard of. But getting back to the serious point that you have failed to refute. If women are not fully protected under the Constitution because there is no gender-specific protection under the Constitution, then men are also not fully protected under the Constitution because there is no gender specific protection under the Constitution. Therefore since everyone is either male or female, nobody is fully protected under the Constitution. And to continue this stream of logic, if nobody has full protection under the Constitution, then the Constitution shows no preference for men over women or women over men. Therefore, men and women are treated equally under the Constitution. If they are currently treated equally under the constitution, then there is no need for an "equal rights" ammendment for men and women. Refute that.
Here was TriPack's initial statement: "I don't want women drafted during wartime." Here are two more statements: Statement A: I don't want black people drafted during wartime. Statement B: I don't want Jewish people drafted during wartime. Now, ask a black person if statement A is racist. Now, ask a Jewish person if statement B is prejudicial. Statement A would require a reason for not wanting black people to be drafted that was not on the basis of their skin color, but for some other reason to be a non-racially based statement. Statement B would require a reason for not wanting Jewish people to be drafted that was not on the basis of their religious belief systems, but for some other reason to be a non-prejudiced statement. Now a third statement, statement C: "I don't want gay people to be drafted during wartime." Does this statement mean that issue the person who is making this statement has something to do with the sexual preference of the gay person? Sure, it does. However, the reason may not be based in hatred of gays, and may in fact be indirect to the sexual preference of the gay person, in that the person making the statement believes there is nothing wrong with gays, but believes the net result of drafting gay people will be a disruption in the military ranks, and produce a lack of effectiveness in the military. The reason they give has everything to do with the anti-gay and prejudiced members of the military than the gays themselves, and the manner in which the military has to function in close quarters and trust. It is a practical matter and a fact that anti-gayness exists in the military, and may be very difficult to overcome that bias. This argument against gays in the military has some merit on a very practical level, although overcoming homophobia will require homophobes interact with gays to discover that not every gay man want to rear end them. However, when it comes to women in the military, it has been proven that women can be active in the military service and not be a detrimental factor in the normal function of the military. If you do some research, you will find that we have had women in the military since 1778: In October of 1778 Deborah Samson of Plympton, Massachusetts disguised herself as a young man and presented herself to the American army as a willing volunteer to oppose the common enemy. She enlisted for the whole term of the war as Robert Shirtliffe and served in the company of Captain Nathan Thayer of Medway, Massachusetts. Link to passage: http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/femvets.html. A history of women in the military can be found here: http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/ So, was your statement sexist? Did your conclusion that led to the statement involve gender or not? If it did, it was a sexist decision. Here are some dictionary definitions: Definition sexism [Show phonetics] noun DISAPPROVING (actions based on) the belief that the members of one sex are less intelligent, able, skillful, etc. than the members of the other sex, especially that women are less able than men: The university has been accused of sexism because it has so few women professors. sexist [Show phonetics] adjective DISAPPROVING Sexist jokes or comments suggest that women are less able than men or refer to women's bodies, behavior or feelings in a negative way: sexist comments/jokes sexist [Show phonetics] noun [C] DISAPPROVING (from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary) Not wanting women drafted in the military is a form of disapproving that women be drafted into the military. You have yet to fully explain your reason for not wanting women in the military that is not gender based. If you believe that women are qualified to serve in the military in certain positions, that women are no less intelligent, able, skillful, etc. than the members of the other sex, then your reason would be something other than sexist. Maybe you just don't like the way women look in uniform. I personally think a woman in uniform is hot! How is equal opportunity limited for women when they are not required to be drafted? How are their rights being abridged? I'd love to hear you answer these questions, but I know you would rather argue sophistry and make accusations of sexism. I never provided any context for the statement. The point is that you took my one statement without any context and immediately judged it to be sexist. Then later you say it may or may not be sexist based on the context. Of course you called it sexist first, so my alleged sophistry is merely in response to your sophistry and unjustified namecalling. The definition of sexism you provided doesn't include women being denied responsibility as a criteria, so you're off the plantation. Nowhere is giving preference to women construed as sexist to men, since the definition of sexism you provided doesn't apply to men. If men are so put out about being discriminated against because women are not being drafted, why aren't the men marching in the street and holding protests to try and alter public policy? Why aren't the self-proclaimed defenders of equal rights (Democrats running for President) uttering a peep on the subject? Why aren't they crusading against discrimination of men? And clearly you don't understand sexism according to the definition you posted, regardless of your attempts to change the subject to sexism being about adherence to a law that hasn't been passed. Your definition doesn't even mention equal rights - it talks about inferiority, which is the opposite of what my statement is all about. Since you're all about fairness, are you going to lead the charge to have all public women's restrooms downsized to be more fair to men? Are you going to outlaw the skirt in government facilities because men are uncomfortable wearing skirts? Are you going to crusade to allow men to play on all the women's sports leagues out of fairness to the men who are excluded? [/QUOTE]
This is all a strawman argument. You so far have said nothing that relates to my initial argument. "Women should not use men's bathrooms." Is that statement also sexist, because my conclusion was arrived at via gender? I reject your conclusion above as being absurd. It is too bad that your conclusion above bears no resemblence to the dictionary definitions you provided before. You keep arguing equality when that isn't the criteria of sexism. It is denegration of women, belief they are not as capable/skilled/intellegent (etc.) as men or preventing them from having the same rights as men. My statement makes no such assumption about capacity even though you try to make that conclusion. Women furthermore are not prevented from joining the military, so their rights have not been limited. That is your interpretation. Disapproval and not wanting are not equivalent. I don't want a cookie. This doesn't mean I disapprove of cookies. I don't want to play baseball. This doesn't mean I disapprove of baseball. I'm glad you agree that my reason is not sexist. I've already stated my reason for this so this continuing argument is moot. For your reference, my reasons are quoted below: Does a desire to not force women to join the military during draft time imply that women are in some way less capable than men, that they are less intelligent, less skillful? No it does not. Does it limit their rights? No it does not. Maybe you should stop making strawman arguments. By your own admission you are a sexist. By treating a woman as an object you denegrate them. Treating women as objects rather than as individuals qualifies as "negative" characterization. This is the definition that applies to your sexist statement above: According to Roguetrader, giving a woman superior rights is sexist. Taking her superior rights away from her is equality and non-sexist, and turning a woman into a sex-object is non-sexist. You are a sexist hypocrite. And still no answer to the following: And no answer for this either: And to end, the current policy is exactly what my statement says: women are not drafted. If this policy is truly sexist, if it puts women on an unequal footing then why are none of the Presidential candidates making an issue of this? Why are people not protesting the policy? Why are men not up in arms against this discriminatory policy? The simple answer is that the lack of disapproval by both men and women for a public policy like this indicates that neither men nor women find it offensive. If it is not offensive then surely it can't be sexist either. Now where is your evidence that men and women find the current military draft policy offensive? And as a final note, will you be crusading for such noble causes as those listed below if the ERA ever passes?