Another example of our fine "Justice System"

[TriPack]

Quote from ARogueTrader:



Have you ever read the following?

Article. II.

Section. 1.

Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows....

The above is from the United States Constitution. See anything there which could cause a problem for women?

If you take a strict use of language, the following is sexist:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office.....

Technically speaking, Hillary could not be president without a sex change operation.

She could be elected by the people, and then a loaded republican supreme court could strictly speaking deny her the presidency on this basis of constitutional grounds.

A thorough examination of all the articles of the Constitution reveals it was written by sexist men, not men who were thinking of granting women equal rights under the law.

The equal rights amendment would fix that problem....but men of course have a problem with that.

This country will undergo a constitutional crisis within the next 50 years is my prediction. It may be over women's rights, it may be over religion, it may be over sexual freedoms for gays, I don't know, but it is coming.

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.

 

[TriPack]

Quote from ARogueTrader:



If you had said that you don't want either men or women to be drafted, that is not sexist.

However, that is not what you said.

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.

"behavior, policy, language, or other actions of men or women which expresses institutionalized, systematic, comprehensive, or consistent views that women are inferior"

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.

If you are offering up a clarification of your position by indicating you treat men and equally when it comes to the draft, i.e. you oppose it for both sexes, that of course is not a sexist position.

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.

If part of being a citizen during a time of war in which a draft is instituted, not drafting an able bodied citizen on the basis of gender is discriminatory.

In my view discrimination against men in this case is justified.

Therefore, the draft was discriminatory to men by not allowing women as part of the draft for sexist reasons. Though this form of benefit to women came as a result of discrimination, it was none the less discriminatory in effect.

If we have a draft, and women are capable of helping in participating in the armed services, they have no reason not to be drafted. If there is a reason that when drafted they are unable to serve, they could be issued a deferment.

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.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from TriPack:



Either the statement is sexist or not.

The statement needs to be examined in context of the argument to determine if it is sexist. A statement out of context may or not be sexist on its own.

Your reasoning process is faulty in your conclusion that a statement is either sexist or it is not, as what is sexist is relative to context of the previous statements and/or following statements. The art of philosophy and understand what someone is communicating is not in examining a statement on its own, but evaluation of a statement in context of an overall argument.

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.

Legally they do, if the law requires them to be applied equally.

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 you don't want women to be drafted on its own may or may not be sexist.

However, if you said "I don't want black people to be drafted" you would be questioned as to WHY you don't want black people to be drafted. If your reason for not wanting black people to be drafted was on the basis of racial preferences, then your statement would be racist.

Saying I don't want women to be drafted is either a sexist statement or it isn't on its own merits.

No it is not necessarily as explained above. It is an incomplete expression, as it lacks the reason for the statement in context of the discussion of equal rights for women. In context of the discussion, it begs the question, "WHY?"


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 irrelevant to whether the statement treats women in an inferior manner.

Sophistry on your part. Your entire defense is trying to take a statement out of context and build a case that you are not sexist on the basis of that sentence, rather than the entire body of comments.

The issue is equality of opportunity for women, and not being denied equal opportunity or responsibility on the basis of gender.

In my view discrimination against men in this case is justified.

That is your view. Many have the view that discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, ethnicity, race is also justified. That is why we have laws to override the discriminatory practices of others toward anyone on the basis of factors that have nothing to do with the job or responsibility in question.

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.

A desire to protect a woman is sexist in as much as it influences the decision making process which would deny a woman equal rights and responsibilities.

Clearly, you don't understand the concept of what is sexist as it relates to fairness of law.

What it means ultimately, is that any decision that is under the jurisdiction of federal law and/or state law should be made on the basis of factors other than gender. If gender is involved in the decision making then the decision is discriminatory toward women. Equally, if favoring a woman is not fair to a man that is also discrimination.

If there is risk, that risk should be shared EQUALLY by a man or women, unless there is a reason beyond the job itself why a man or woman should be exempt beyond their gender.

 

[Error 404]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:



But you must see that this conservative to liberal transformation is the exception, not the rule. Surely you recall the famous dictum that any man who is not a socialist at age 20 is heartless and any who remains a socialist at age 40 is mindless? Who said that anyway?

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

 

[TriPack]

Legally they do, if the law requires them to be applied equally.

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.

Saying you don't want women to be drafted on its own may or may not be sexist.

However, if you said "I don't want black people to be drafted" you would be questioned as to WHY you don't want black people to be drafted. If your reason for not wanting black people to be drafted was on the basis of racial preferences, then your statement would be racist.

The statement needs to be examined in context of the argument to determine if it is sexist. A statement out of context may or not be sexist on its own.

Your reasoning process is faulty in your conclusion that a statement is either sexist or it is not, as what is sexist is relative to context of the previous statements and/or following statements. The art of philosophy and understand what someone is communicating is not in examining a statement on its own, but evaluation of a statement in context of an overall argument.

If my reasoning process was faulty then you are a Sophist for calling my statement sexist before you knew the context.

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 irrelevant to whether the statement treats women in an inferior manner.

Sophistry on your part. Your entire defense is trying to take a statement out of context and build a case that you are not sexist on the basis of that sentence, rather than the entire body of comments.

The issue is equality of opportunity for women, and not being denied equal opportunity or responsibility on the basis of gender.

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.

That is your view. Many have the view that discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, ethnicity, race is also justified. That is why we have laws to override the discriminatory practices of others toward anyone on the basis of factors that have nothing to do with the job or responsibility in question.

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?

A desire to protect a woman is sexist in as much as it influences the decision making process which would deny a woman equal rights and responsibilities.

Clearly, you don't understand the concept of what is sexist as it relates to fairness of law.

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?

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

You are entitled to your opinion, honest or dishonest as it may be.

What is dishonest about my opinion? You may think my opinion is contrary to yours, but what makes it dishonest?

The issue is whether or not the system is broke, or whether or not the people in the system are doing their jobs. If it is not the system that is really at fault, but the fault of those who are processing the system, that should be our focus.

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.

Normally we don't recall human beings when they make mistakes, unless they are governors of the state of California.

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. It is the reasoning ability of man as he evolves that leads to sweeping reforms and changes. The followers may become emotionally engaged, but historically great leaders have only used emotion as a tool to motivate others.

Most of the great laws we have in this country is the product of rationality, not emotionalism.

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.

It is normal for people to become frustrated when life seems "unfair." I suggest you repeat the serenity prayer as often as necessary to help you with your emotional issues:

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.

 

[TriPack]

Quote from TriPack:



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.

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?

     Article 1
     Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
     Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.
     No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

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.

 

[ARogueTrader]

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!

Quote from TriPack:



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.



Sophistry on your part. Your entire defense is trying to take a statement out of context and build a case that you are not sexist on the basis of that sentence, rather than the entire body of comments.

The issue is equality of opportunity for women, and not being denied equal opportunity or responsibility on the basis of gender.

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]

 

[ARogueTrader]

Quote from hapaboy:

What is dishonest about my opinion? You may think my opinion is contrary to yours, but what makes it dishonest?

I am not claiming your opinion to be either honest or dishonest. It is something I cannot know for a fact one way or the other. Just because someone says IMHO doesn't mean it is honest.

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.

The question is when someone has paid their debt to society, should they be released back into society.

Is the failure due to the system itself, or the application of the system?

You seem to think there is a perfect system, and in a sense to murder everyone who breaks the law is a perfect way to prevent that person from ever committing a crime again, but I think that is an extreme position, and leads to cruel and unusual punishment.

We certainly needs standards of punishment for certain crimes, and you may be right that sexual offenders should never be released back into society. I just don't know if that is the best solution, until we have exhausted other solutions that give those an opportunity to reform and re-enter society a chance.

I am not in favor or throwing people away just because we don't know how to help them. I don't believe they are evil, but I believe they are sick.

You disagree, but that is just the nature of opinion that people disagree where there is no clear evidence to prove that these people are sick or evil.

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.

I have no problem if the police do the job they are supposed to do in order to protect and serve, as long as that job is within the rules they are supposed to follow.

It's considered a fully justifiable use of force.

I don't disagree with this, and after every shooting by an officer there is a review to determine if in fact their use of force was reasonable and justifiable.

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?

Automobiles, pharmaceuticals are mass produced and can be changed in mass.

Humans don't fall into that category.

I disagree. Most of the great laws we have and the greatest reforms seen around the world have occurred 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.

Followers follow, leaders lead. A good leader can be unemotional, yet inspire through emotion to get his follower to follow.

Emotional leadership is a bad idea though in my opinion. I want the General to be unemotional, not emotional to the point that he can't see the entire battlefield when he makes his decisions.

Are you refuting that further casualties among an innocent populace is acceptable to you?

Casualties are part of life in society, whether the casualties are innocent or guilty. Balancing the desires of an entire society between freedom and security means some people will not be happy, and some may die.

Accidents happen. Life is mostly gray in my opinion where people are involved, not black and white.

BTW, you're being sarcastic again. I'd hate to use your tactics and accuse you of emotional abuse.

I disagree.

 

[TriPack]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

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/

[/b]

This is all a strawman argument. You so far have said nothing that relates to my initial argument.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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 just don't like the way women look in uniform.

Maybe you should stop making strawman arguments.

I personally think a woman in uniform is hot!

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:

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:

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:

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.

And no answer for this either:

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.

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?

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?