AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Here's a bit directly related to the military that's a little more relevant to modern society than the draft.

For the APFT, which is supposed to test the physical fitness of soldiers throughout the army/army guard, the female standard is considerably lower than that of males.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/afpt.htm

For the 17-21 age group (because it's directly related to me), I have to do 46 push-ups 53 sit-ups, and run the 2-mile in 15:54 or less. A female in the same age group only has to do 19 push-ups and run the 2-mile in 18:54.

The usual defense for this is "well females are build differently and weaker to men!" Not only should that be inherently insulting to females (including the ones who will automatically use it as a defense), but that completely ignores the entire point of the test. It's to make sure you're physically able to deal with the physical stresses involved with the United States military. Anyone who even has relatives in the military will tell you that. So when I barely fail with a 16 minute 2 mile, and a female barely passes with an 18:50 two mile, you tell me who's more physically capable of dealing with the stresses of a military career. Me, who failed, or her, who passed? It's a 2:50 minute difference in my favor, yet because of difference in standards, I'm the one who's deemed "physically unfit."

What's more is females are excluded from MOSes that'd put them directly in combat. Those are restricted for males. The closest a female can get to being in combat is by being an MP, which, if you ask any of the females in my unit, 90% of them will tell you that that's exactly why they chose to be an MP.

These are things most females in the armed forces hate to death, and most males resent.

BurntToShreds wrote:The point still remains that it's still socially acceptable in western society for males to have their genitals mutilated without consent. The procedures for males and females are drastically different in their effects, yes, but it doesn't make it right for one of them to continue just because the effects are less severe. Neither does said practice's place in society as an acceptable act.

Well it's a false equivalence. To fix my eyesight I could either get lasik or jab forks into my eyes so my remaining senses will get stronger like daredevil.

Wait, what's wrong with male circumcision?

Noffletoff wrote:Wait, what's wrong with male circumcision?

Mainly that it's an irreversible procedure that is done without the consent of the person it's being performed on. It's pretty unnecessary, too. There are probably other reasons but the big issue is the consent.

I still don't see what the big deal is?

You get a piece of your body chopped off without you knowing or having any say in the matter for no good reason. That's pretty bad.

Not really, I'm circumcised, and I am pretty ok with it, It's not like I walk around everything thinking "daisies, I wish I hadn't had my penis skin cut off"

I'm not and I like my skin where it is thank you very much.

Noffletoff wrote:Not really, I'm circumcised, and I am pretty ok with it, It's not like I walk around everything thinking "daisies, I wish I hadn't had my penis skin cut off"

Yeah likewise. But if I were to have a son, I would ask the doctors not to chop up his dick. It shouldn't happen without his consent.

'Well I'M okay with it, so it must not be that bad!' is a poor line of thought to follow and I would not recommend it

D-vid wrote:You get a piece of your body chopped off without you knowing or having any say in the matter for no good reason. That's pretty bad.

I just

independent of the good reasons not to do it anyway

would like to politely point out that while a growing number of parents in America are choosing to do it on pretty much a whim, it is still a very important part of several religions

that's all.

A religion is in my opinion still not a good reason to circumvent the personal choice of the person it's done to.

Just because something is religious doesn't mean that it should be continued as a tradition, otherwise stoning and other such archaic things must be considered okay as well

How could you compare male circumcision to stoning? It's not like being circumcised is killing the kid.

I'm thinking the main point is that it's perfectly normal for a male to get his penis cut off "because religion" but the second the same idea is applied to females, everyone loses their shit.

Besides, just because something is done "because religion" it doesn't mean it's a good idea, or even necessary. There's a lot we used to do "because religion" that we don't do anymore because we either found out it was a shitty way of doing things, or completely unnecessary.

Noffletoff wrote:How could you compare male circumcision to stoning? It's not like being circumcised is killing the kid.

It shouldn't matter if it does or not, the point is it's unnecessary, and the only justification people have for it include how "harmless it is". For one, no it's not. You're inflicting a wound. Second, there's a lot of shit out there that is harmless, but unnecessary as hell so we don't bother with it. it's unnecessary, so we should stop wasting our time with it.