Selwyn Duke
Drafting women: do we believe in equality or don't we?
By Selwyn Duke
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 has 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.
© Selwyn Duke
May 17, 2016
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 has 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.
© Selwyn Duke
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
