Worst Progressive of the Week Award
This week goes to E. K. L.'s mom!
She has filed a suit (along with her daughter, E. K. L.) to force the U. S. federal government to draft women as well as men, arguing "“With both males and females available for such roles today, the two sexes are now similarly situated for draft registration purposes and there is no legitimate reason for the government to discriminate against the female class..."
I am only mostly against the draft*: I think if the country was being invaded by a large foreign army, it would be justified. Otherwise, stay all-volunteer. But for or against it, it is hard to see how failing to force someone into a war they want to avoid, where they can easily be killed, is discriminating against them! I would think it is obvious that current draft arrangements discriminate against men (but for a good reason). After all, women can always volunteer for the army: exemption from the draft just means that won't be dragged in against their will. This is a bit like a lawsuit by a kid from Darien complaining that he and his classmates aren't being arrested at the same rate as their counterparts in Bridgeport.
Oh, and Samson, this is a good example of (currently) legal, blatant discrimination: when the Supreme Court upheld the male-only draft in 1981, it was not because it isn't discriminatory: it quite obviously is. The court upheld it because the judges believed that this is valid discrimination. The distinction is important, and nothing to guffaw at: when an NFL team peremptorily dismisses an applicant for a running back position because he has no legs, this is clearly discriminatory, but quite legal. If Google does the same thing with an applicant for a software engineering position, the company may be in big trouble. The first is currently seen as just discrimination, while the second is unjust discrimination.
* Similar to Westley being mostly dead.
She has filed a suit (along with her daughter, E. K. L.) to force the U. S. federal government to draft women as well as men, arguing "“With both males and females available for such roles today, the two sexes are now similarly situated for draft registration purposes and there is no legitimate reason for the government to discriminate against the female class..."
I am only mostly against the draft*: I think if the country was being invaded by a large foreign army, it would be justified. Otherwise, stay all-volunteer. But for or against it, it is hard to see how failing to force someone into a war they want to avoid, where they can easily be killed, is discriminating against them! I would think it is obvious that current draft arrangements discriminate against men (but for a good reason). After all, women can always volunteer for the army: exemption from the draft just means that won't be dragged in against their will. This is a bit like a lawsuit by a kid from Darien complaining that he and his classmates aren't being arrested at the same rate as their counterparts in Bridgeport.
Oh, and Samson, this is a good example of (currently) legal, blatant discrimination: when the Supreme Court upheld the male-only draft in 1981, it was not because it isn't discriminatory: it quite obviously is. The court upheld it because the judges believed that this is valid discrimination. The distinction is important, and nothing to guffaw at: when an NFL team peremptorily dismisses an applicant for a running back position because he has no legs, this is clearly discriminatory, but quite legal. If Google does the same thing with an applicant for a software engineering position, the company may be in big trouble. The first is currently seen as just discrimination, while the second is unjust discrimination.
* Similar to Westley being mostly dead.
Gene, the British Ministry of Defense recently ruled against putting women in direct ground combat units. This is the second time in twenty years that they have upheld the women in combat ban. There are so many reasons that women should not be direct ground combat units (usually abbreviated at DGC) that their decision required pages and pages of very obvious physiological (and even psychological) reasoning. One of the most important findings of military 'sport' science, however, was this: in a little over a year, even a slobbish, out of shape male can be trained to a level of physicality that is higher than most women who have ever lived. The truism 'some women are stronger than some men' is actually a half-truth: some (very well trained) women are stronger than some (weaker, out of shape, average) males. But as men and women continue to train together, the difference in stamina, strength, and even resistance to bodily injury actually *increases*, not decreases. The difference of strength and stamina between trained male and female soldiers is higher after they train than before!
ReplyDeleteThis is just another example of a culture that has abandoned clear, particular thinking and embraced Progressive (religion?) ideology. It is becoming difficult to know what to do at this point: perhaps we will just have to ride the liberal lunacy out.
And BTW, Gene, shouldn't this be the 'Best' Progressive Award of the Week, rather than the worst? She seems to be acting like a very good example of Progressive ideology!
ReplyDelete