Drafting Women: Do We Believe in Equality or Don’t We?

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke5/16/16
With Congress poised to possibly require women to register for the draft, reaction from the conservative pundit class has been swift and severe. WND’s Jane Chastain calls it “worse than cowardly,” while radio host Mark Levin ferociously railed against the proposal on his Friday show. But I have just one question: do we believe in equality or don’t we?

For the record, I’m a traditionalist best described as Mayberry meets the Middle Ages. I believe in a papa bear, mama bear and baby bears and no mixing of roles considered unbearable in a Norman Rockwell illustration. And drafting women wouldn’t be an issue in my world because they wouldn’t be in the military in the first place. But this isn’t my world. It’s a bizarro world where we believe in Equality™. At least, that’s our story and we’re stickin’ to it.

I’ve also pointed out that our equality dogma is a con. Equality is not a thing of this world; in fact, in the realm of nature and man, inequality is the norm. And most of human history reflected this reality, with equality dogma born of the so-called Enlightenment and further minted as a faux virtue by socialists (Karl Marx must dance in his grave every time we mindlessly bellow “Equality!”). I’ve even stated that the term equality should never be used in reference to people, but, as in the Bible, be reserved for weights and measures. Here’s the problem:

I’ve rarely, if ever, heard a conservative reject equality dogma in principle.

Instead, reinforcing yesterday’s liberals’ social victories, they sometimes take pains to point out that they believe in Equality™ — just like the Left.

Yet like the Left, they don’t really believe in equality, but in some non-traditional form of inequality branded “equality.”

Calls for equality are issued selectively — in other words, unequally — and only when they serve to destroy tradition. Even though the intersex pay gap is caused by the sexes’ different lifestyle choices and not unjust discrimination, politicians vow to stamp it out. There also have been complaints that women in Hollywood earn far less than the men, but you know what we hear about how female fashion models greatly out-earn their male counterparts? Crickets. As for the military, women are supposed to have all the opportunities the men do, but not the burden of being drafted if the call is issued. And other examples abound.

This is where a good conservative might say, “The difference is that liberals believe in equality of outcome; we only believe in equality under the law.” But the law states that men must register for selective service. Well….?

So like children, we’re playing a game — the Equality Game. And like children, we only want to play it when it pleases us. As soon as it doesn’t feel right, we take our ball and go home.

So within the context of our faux-equality society, I have no problem with drafting women into the military. For to use a twist on an Abraham Lincoln line, the best way to eliminate a bad social code is to enforce it strictly. In fact, noting that female athletes have often lobbied for the prize money/salaries their male counterparts command (women soccer players most recently), I advocate eliminating separate tours, leagues and teams for women/girls. With the mile record for 15-year-old boys surpassing the women’s world record, it would be an excellent object lesson in the realities of equality. As it stands right now, though, it’s no surprise feminists are all in for “equality” — they’re some of the people more equal than others.

Speaking of which, here’s a question for those advocating equality in principle but against drafting women. One of the arguments for giving 18-year-olds the vote was that if you’re man enough to make the ultimate sacrifice — perhaps having to fight and die for your country — you’re man enough to vote for those who may send you to war.

The idea is that with responsibility comes authority.  We don’t give children adult authority, but they also don’t have adult-level responsibility (this is one reason they aren’t punished as harshly for crimes). Yet isn’t it also true that with authority comes responsibility? If women are “man enough” to vote for those who may send Americans off to war, should they not be considered man enough to have to make that ultimate sacrifice? Some might even say our current status quo ensures that women, especially single women without military-age male family members, will have little or no skin in the game.

None of this means that I, Mr. Mayberry Meets the Middle Ages, subscribe to all these arguments, mind you. I’m more role-oriented. But the inconsistencies in our thinking should be addressed. And what should be said unabashedly is that equality dogma must die. What has it wrought? The Left is now even using it to justify allowing men to use women’s/girls’ locker rooms (the Charlotte, NC, ordinance). Note, too, that this is based on nothing but feelings: so-called “transgender” individuals (a designation invented by psychiatrists) feel they’re actually members of the opposite sex, and they feel uncomfortable using the facilities for their own. But what of the great majority of people who feel uncomfortable having them in their sex-specific facilities? Why should the feelings of less than 1 percent of the population take precedence over the feelings of more than 50 percent of the population? Some feelings are more unequal than others, too, apparently.

You may now say that we have to try harder to apply the principles of equality. You’re not paying attention. Since equality is not a thing of this world, it’s unachievable; moreover, unless you like drafting women and letting 10-year-olds vote, buy alcohol and enter into contracts, you should know it’s undesirable. It’s always just a matter of what version of inequality will be accepted or implemented. Will it be fact-based or fraud-based? We can accept that having persistent feelings that you’re a member of the opposite sex (“gender dysphoria”) — just like having strong feelings that a body part should be amputated (Body Integrity Identity Disorder) — is inferior to a normal state of being. Or we can entertain fantasies. But it’s yet another fantasy to expect fantastical thinkers to be able to conceptualize what true equality would involve — or to give us the just version of inequality.

As for our latest bad policy proposal, we should stop fighting to draft women — just as soon as we stop fighting for that poison pill of leftist inequality wearing the pretty Equality label.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (738 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Drafting Women: Do We Believe in Equality or Don’t We?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Note that the implication of unlimited “transgender” rights (and I gather the Obama Gang ukase includes this) is that men who claim to feel they’re women can compete in sports/athletics as women. So equalizing the awards would still leave men getting it all in the end. If liberals really believe their transgender dogma, they should get rid of sexually segregated sports and athletics entirely.

    As for the draft, the easy way to eliminate the problem is to get rid of draft registration. I don’t think we’ll ever resume the draft, though many liberal Demagogues push it (no doubt for the same reason you support registering women).

    • David Ray says:

      You might have already heard of this (i didn’t get it’s name over the radio), but some guy/boxer traded his member for a jar of formaldehyde and estrogen shots.
      Needless to say his XY had absolute dominance over all the YY chromisomes once he/she stepped into the boxing ring.

      I can’t recall how the boxing commission responded to the torent of female boxers crying foul.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        The gates re now open for any man to enter the ladies room if he wanted to. But I’d rather crawl up to the wall that separates North from South Korea. I’d rather the ladies room remain a mystery. I don’t really want to know what goes on in there.

        And although I wouldn’t mind showering with the Swedish bikini team, any thoughts of showering with the women at the YWCA (assuming the “C” has an bearing anymore) must be tempered by the fact that the YWCA is not the domain of the Swedish bikini team.

        It’s interesting to see our society, or parts of it, roll over to accommodate perverts. Someone tell me why rape is still bad? If any sexual inclination is okay if it comes from the god of the self, how is rape bad? Why is pedophilia wrong?

        I don’t see any of this bathroom gender-bending as being “sensitive” to anyone’s needs. If some man wants to think of himself as woman, have at it. But don’t require any of us to share your fantasy or malady. But all means, seek psychiatric help. But it’s of no help to simply confirm and play to someone’s delusions.

        The same could be said of homosexuality. Or if you prefer sex with animals. Why normalize something that isn’t good or normal? Is it really being kind or “sensitive” to make it easy for people to live a dead-end lifestyle, and one that is known to be unhealthy and unfulfilling?

        • Timothy Lane says:

          As I say, for liberals freedom of perversion trumps everything else. When you have no moral code, it becomes impossible to figure out how to say “no” to any perversion. Add to this their tendency to glamorize underdog minorities (and no one can be more of an underdog than the “transgendered”), their disdain for normalcy (which is what the commoners go for as far as the elites are concerned), and the politics of it (the “transgenders” are linked to the homosexual community, and predominantly are believed to vote for Demagogues), and you get what we see.

          I’ve been expecting pedophilia to become acceptable for liberals for some time. It turns out the “transgendered” got there first, delaying the normalizing of pedophiles.

          • David Ray says:

            Give liberals a little more time.
            It’ll happen as soon as NAMBLA writes a big enough check and stages a “victim” senario in which an evil christian expresses his proper distain.
            (Muslims apparently have no problem with pedophilia, so they needn’t apply for the job)

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            One of the things that attracts me to Christian culture, David & Timothy, is that they are (or should be) anchored in something deeper and longer-lasting than mere pop fad.

            I know that 99% of the people in America gain a sense of identity from popular culture (particularly Kumbaya Christians). But I liken it to working in a sewer. Of course, we need people to work in the sewer system or civilization would not be possible. But I assume at the end of the day, these workers go home and shower. They don’t pretend that Eau de Sewer is a hip cologne to wear.

            But that’s exactly what people do in pop culture. They are like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland: “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Things such as gay marriage are unthinkable and completely ridiculous one moment. But the next they are not only natural, but required or else you are considered a bigot and perhaps your property or business will be subject to confiscation.

            And, as you said, when one is rooted (if that is the word) in pop culture, it becomes impossible to say “no” to anything.

            Yes, there is a disdain for normalcy. Those who treat various grievance groups like harmless Chia Pets have little to no idea of the deep disdain for normalcy that lurks in the homosexual movement. They may be eaten last by the alligator, but they will be eaten.

  2. Rosalys says:

    If we really believed in equality under the law, Bill would have been convicted of perjury, John Corzine would be in jail, Hillary would be indicted, etc., etc., etc.. Equality? I’ll settle for sanity!

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I’ve noted myself that any liberal who believes in “equal justice” should want to see a lot of Clinton Gang (and Obama Gang) members given long jail terms. As for settling for sanity, maybe next year that will be possible. Maybe.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    No one knows if this idea of “equality” in all things is produced by idiots or produces idiots.

    • Tom Riehl Tom Riehl says:

      Brad, I do! It’s both. Hillary should by wearing an orange prison jumpsuit now, and those who love her should be whipped in the public square.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Tom, the word “equality” works like an incantation to today’s Pajama Boys and Pajama Girls. It stops all thinking and puts only a positive buzz in their minds.

        And it screws with their ability to think for none of them actually are for equality if it’s their property or themselves that must be reduced to suit someone else’s utopian goal. “Equality” is generally seen as something that comes with no price tag, at least for one’s self.

        “Equality” is either about supporting some stupid leftwing cause (such as “gay marriage”) whereby one is aligning with the reigning social dogma of one’s clique — and any costs of such beliefs are ignored and easy to ignore — or “equality” is about some other guy having to give up something in the name of being equal. But in both cases, it’s not about anyone personally having to make a sacrifice, at least from the point of view of those using this incantation.

        But, good god, suggest to any of these Pajama Boy or Pajama Girl schmucks that they should let some homeless person sleep on their lawn, or in their spare bedroom, because to not do so would be promoting “inequality,” and you’ll soon see them trying to rationalize their way out of it. (But they’re more than happy for the homeless to sleep on your property.) “Equality” is either a social justice perfume you waft over yourself or it is a way to get “free stuff” from others. But by no means does anyone want true “equality” if it means them giving up something or being inconvenienced.

        Nor do these same low-information Pajama Boys or Pajama Girls have any idea what the end game is for those who promote “equality.” They are just useful idiots…and they haven’t any idea what that term means either.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Another PragerU video that doesn’t answer the question in its title: Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women? Just more descriptive conservatism.

    So why don’t women fight for Muslim women? I hate to pick too hard on Dennis Prager. He’s trying to do good. But a video such as this doesn’t do a heck of a lot to explain anything. It’s one reason I’ve stopped watching them. Descriptive conservatism just doesn’t do it for me anymore.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Feminists don’t fight for Muslim women for the same reason that they didn’t seek the conviction of O. J. Simpson: because “race’ (including being Muslim) trumps “gender” in the identity-group hierarchy.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Okay. Thanks for that. I do think you are correct. We see that at least the Muslim totalitarian ideology (call it race, religion, or whatever) trumps gender.

        But why? My explanation is wholly psychological: The Left and Progressives are a bunch of pansies who want to stay forever juvenile as they pine for Utopia. When faced with authority they act like a toddler in his highchair who throws his strained peas against the wall and then shoves the plate onto the floor.

        For the Left, Islam represents that plate-shoving force. In their own minds, they are compatriots because they both despise Christianity and Western Civilization, neither of which promise utopia and both of which put adult-like lids on our appetites, particularly our sexual appetites.

        If I’m correct, you could still dig deeper down, I suppose, to some more ultimate cause. And I’m fine with that. But if the purpose is to understand why the Left doesn’t give a rat’s ass how Muslims treat their women it’s because, first, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And, second, they can (and I’ll give the video some credit for this) pass it off as multicultural (relevant to the particular culture). This, along with the deeply indoctrinated idea that it is “racist” to hold other “people of color” races to our standards, makes it very easy to not give a flying fart how Muslims treat their women and justify this monstrous behavior as being “sensitive.”

        Should I do a StubbornU video? I don’t have the time or care to bother. Maybe Selwyn will do a video.

    • pst4usa says:

      Brad, In the New Testament, Paul feeds the young churches milk because they are not ready for meat. The audience for these videos are not ready for the answers yet, but if he can get them to even understand that there is even a question that needs to be asked, then he has done more than most all other recent conservatives combined. The leftist government indoctrination centers that we have subjected our children to, are churning out committed leftist that buy everything that the progressives are selling, no questions asked.
      By the way, Dennis, according to him, does not tell the presenters what to say, just the time limit and they are chosen by topic.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        All that you say is true. And certainly I’m not the intended audience for these videos. But putting myself in the place of those who are, I don’t see it hitting the notes that need to be hit. People needed to be challenged. Descriptive conservatism like this is easy to ignore.

        • pst4usa says:

          No doubt Brad, but you have a perspective problem here, your site has you surrounded by intelligent folks that deeply understand this stuff, so you may not be able to dumb yourself down enough to judge the impact on the yutes.
          Dennis has Prager U ambassadors and they are in the belly of the beast and their comments are that these tools are working very well as a tool to open up eyes and conversations with their peers, other college students. You may be right, and these ambassadors may be just marketing tools, but it does not seem like it. And the views he is getting is in the many millions, so even if it is a small percentage of impact, it is worth it.
          By the way, you should do a ST video, it would be meat, that is sure.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Maybe we need to do a series of ST videos. My opinion on this PragerU video still stands. I think it is weak “descriptive” conservatism that offers no solution and doesn’t really outline the core of the problem. Any video on the subject worth it’s salt needs to assault the viewer with some unpleasant truths such as:

            1) If you are lesbian, the Democrat party cares more about Jihadists than it does you. (See: Orlando)

            2) If you are a woman, you have rights only if it serves the need of the Democrat Party to make voters feel like victims. If one is an actual victim (such as Islamic women) then they don’t count. And you can make up any excuse you want for this, but if those women voted they would suddenly be “cared” about.

            3) If you are a woman, your privacy (such as using a bathroom without men, or pretend women, invading your space) is not respected by the gender anarchists of the Democrat Party. Once again, you women are just chattel in a war that the Democrats have against this country. They will drop you in a heartbeat and put the interests of others over you…all while rope-a-doping you and keeping you in a perpetual state of grievance with their “war on women” baloney. The same party who told you to burn your bra has no intention of actually removing the many chaines that bind you to their sick party.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The link is to a story about fraud on a very large scale. What makes it kind of special is who the perp is.


    Those of us who have followed the story of Theranos suspected something was amiss from the beginning. A twenty-year-old female starts a company based on “revolutionary” new technology which makes all the other blood test methods obsolete. Hum????

    How much do you think the fact that she was a young, attractive FEMALE had to do with the way that money was thrown at her?

    In this case, the progressive dream only cost investors some US$700+million.

    In the case of women soldiers in the trenches, such progressive dreaming could lives.

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    A feminine take on taking the loyalty oath when extending one’s National Guard service.


    A softer and gentler military?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, not in this case. I’m surprised they enforced standards, but then Tennessee is a more traditional state than New York or California. This probably wouldn’t have raised a stir in either one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *