fMRT-Scans: Kann der parametrisch-statistischen Methoden vertraut werden?

(Siehe auch)

Warum Frauen nicht für einen Wehrdienst registriert werden sollten

In den USA sollen nunmehr zur Umsetzung von Gleichberechtigung auch Frauen gemustert und für einen potentiellen Wehrdienst registriert werden. Darüber hatte ich auch bereits einen Artikel.

In einem Artikel zieht nun eine Feministin die „Mutterkarte“.

Sie leitet zunächst ein:

I’m a feminist, a law professor, a Mormon, and a mother. And in each of these capacities, I am advocating opposition to the extension of the military draft to women. Last week the Senate voted overwhelmingly in support of extending selective service registration to women. The bill is now in congressional committee before being sent to the president.

I am a grateful beneficiary of the feminist movement. Because of feminism, I was able to become a lawyer and practice at prestigious firms in New York City and Indianapolis. Feminism declared that women are not prisoners forced to stay at home and to stay out of the centers of economic and political power—the core ideals of feminism being choice and empowerment. I embrace this declaration and join in advocating the empowerment of women.

But there are many women who in fact choose to be at home. Being a Mormon, I have numerous friends and family who are full-time stay-at-home mothers and/or wives. For these women, being at home is not a show of weakness, brainwashing, or subjugation—rather it is their own freely-chosen path. How can that be? Because many women believe the adage, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. They believe the best use of their time, talents, and life is to live for their children. They could be doctors or lawyers or CEOs. But they have chosen to employ their talents at home instead. This is an empowered choice. Indeed, while I am a law professor, I also have five children. I am thrilled to live in an era when I can simultaneously be a mom and a professor; but if I had to pick one of those roles, I would choose mom. Not all women should be required to make that same choice—that’s why I’m a feminist.

Das ist soweit eine im Feminismus nicht untypische Idee: Frauen sollen sich aussuchen können, was sie sein sollen und sie sollen auch alle Rollen wählen können, am besten ohne das dies für sie Nachteile in anderen Bereichen bedeutet. Natürlich gibt es auch hier Feministinnen, die widersprechen, und meinen, dass Frauen keine Wahl haben sollten, eben weil das Private politisch ist, aber das ist schon an sich eine nicht selten anzutreffende Auffassung.

Wie soll nun aber aus dieser freien Wahl, Mutter zu sein, etwas für einen unfreiwilligen Zwangsdienst folgen? Immerhin werden auch Männer verschiedenste Lebenswege planen, bei denen ein „Draft“ ihnen eher hinderlich ist.

Which leads to my objection to extending the draft to women. Isn’t this just a matter of equality? As a law professor, I understand the importance of equal obligations in a system of justice. If men can be drafted, shouldn’t women also be subject to a potential draft? I remain unconvinced.

Several major religious traditions hold that a woman’s greatest role is raising her children at home. And many women sincerely believe as much—without cowering to husbands or religious leaders. Other women want to join the military and agree to leave children and/or opportunities for child-bearing and child-rearing behind while they are gone. I’m happy they can make that choice. But it is a different matter to create a law that can force any woman to give up, at the government’s beck and call, getting pregnant, having a child, breastfeeding her baby, raising her preschoolers, being home when her kids get out of school each day, or even preparing to start a family and finding a partner? Keep in mind that women have a relatively short window of healthy fertility and childbearing.

There are numerous Muslim, Mormon, and other Christian and religious (and non-religious) women who truly believe their greatest duty and joy in life is to have a family and to build and be present in a safe and beautiful home for their children. And we’re saying now that such women should be drafted? Should be torn from their dreams of motherhood, from their cradles, and from their babies (both born and unborn)? As a devout member of such a religion, I’m asking Congress, are we building into this law a conscientious objector exception for women who devoutly believe that their God-given mission in life is to be in their happy home creating a family and then building a safe place for their children to grow in a loving and secure environment? We must continue to allow women to make that choice.

Dieser unglückliche Militärdienst, der Frauen davon abhält, ihren Lebenstraum zu verwirklichen, Kinder zu bekommen. Schon blöd, wenn man dafür im Falle eines Krieges etwas weniger Zeit hat. Das wäre wirklich unfair. Nicht das auch Männer vielleicht ein Studium unterbrechen müssten oder anderweitig daran gehindert wären, ihre Ziele zu erreichen, vielleicht sogar dadurch, dass sie erschossen werden.

Have we considered the psychological effects on women who are drafted against their will—especially taken from their children (and opportunities to have children) when they sincerely believe it is their life mission to build a family? What happens psychologically to women who are torn from their children? Have you ever heard of a mother bear? What is the effect on children of having their mothers taken from them? What about breastfeeding women? Medical science shows that it is significantly better for the physical and psychological health of both the baby and the mother to breastfeed the baby, reducing cancer risks for both, providing immunities to the baby, and improved healing and health for both. Will breastfeeding moms be excluded from the draft? According to the Selective Service’s own website, “If Congress and the President were to reinstate a military draft, Selective Service procedures currently in place would not treat married registrants, or those with a dependent child, any differently from men who are single.” Would the same be true for women?

Natürlich könnte man das Argument leicht auf Männer umschreiben. Die meisten Männer würden es wohl doch deutlich vorziehen, wenn sie als Vater bei ihrer Familie bleiben würden und nicht Leute erschießen und ihrerseits erschossen werden. Die psychologischen Folgen eines Krieges sind auch für Männer beträchtlich, nicht nur wegen der Kinder, sondern weil man in schreckliche, Trauma verursachende Situationen geworfen wird.

This genetic difference between the sexes is why violence against women is a serious world-wide problem. On the whole, women are less able to physically and psychologically respond to and reciprocate violence from men. Why would that be less true in combat? That’s why we have women who flee to shelters across the US. And violence against women is significantly worse in many parts of the world. According to Amnesty International, “across the globe, women are beaten, raped, mutilated, and killed with impunity”—subject to “gender-specific persecution including genital mutilation, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, and domestic violence.” What about our women conscripts who are captured in such countries?

Dass weibliche Soldaten nicht an der direkten Front eingesetzt werden, schon weil sie in der Regel zu schwach dafür sind, sondern in wesentlich ungefährlicheren Bereichen, dass blendet sie da als Möglichkeit anscheinend aus. Es ist eine reichlich bescheuerte Argumentation, wobei eine feministische Mormonin wahrscheinlich auch nicht das alltäglichste ist.