GENDER ISSUES FROM A MALE PERSPECTIVE

Gathered together are a number of articles related to how men and boys are treated by society and the media. The articles, for the most part, concentrate on misandry, domestic violence and female violence and reflect an anti-RADICAL FEMINIST viewpoint. Although articles are pro-male, they are not anti-female.

Name:
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada

Monday, October 10, 2005

UNIQUE GROUP OF RARELY MENTIONED MEN

Remembering America's War Dead - Who Never had the Right to Vote

Sadly, our societal institutions are a little misandrist these days, respecting the sacrifices of millions of men who died in our nation’s wars with questionable sincerity. The lack of respect appears to extend to all male veterans, living and dead. Ironically, some say hypocritically, a large segment of our nation chooses to blame men for the violence that plagues the world, and our society at home. Our nation is a little “gender short sighted” in embracing a gender feminist movement that says, “Men are prone to violence and use violence to have power and control ,” then passes laws so the male gender is almost exclusively the only one required to serve in combat situations.

Historically, it is men who almost exclusively make up the millions who’ve been “asked” to die for their country, and in that group of millions is a select group of men seldom mentioned. Sadly, that group of Americans (all male) from a recent time in our history, were asked to make the supreme sacrifice for their country (and did so) without having ever been granted the sacred right of voting in their own country (America). Their story is a sacrifice, not fully told or honored as we ring the sacred bell of freedom in patriotic celebration for our most revered heroes, the honored dead, this Memorial Day.

Much has been written and talked about in gender feminist, women’s studies circles about the privileges that males in American society enjoy, and the historic oppression that women have endured. Here is one example: http://wgst.intrasun.tcnj.edu/newsletter/archives/april2002.html

“Over the course of a semester in any Women’s and Gender Studies course, students become aware of how, despite extraordinary advances in recent decades, gender inequality still permeates our society. Every male in the U.S., no matter his age or race or class, finds his path made just a bit smoother every day because he happens to have an X and Y chromosome.” - Women's and Gender Studies Newsletter, The College of New Jersey, April 2002, Male Privilege, Men’s Responsibility, by Michael Robertson

I have heard nary a word in any college class, about the historical oppression that males have endured as a group. The historical, “Patriarchal” oppression of women’s voting rights never fails to occupy a significant amount of curriculum time in these classes. Yet, there are few if any women who lived in the 20th century who endured the oppression of their voting rights on a scale comparable to the thousands, or tens of thousands of men who died fighting for their country in war (without ever having had the right to vote).

The 19th amendment to the U. S. constitution, giving women the right to vote, was ratified on Aug 26, 1920. http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staff/hancock/pol204/history.htm

Many states were even allowing women to vote before this date. Within the time parameters of the date of passage of the 19th amendment, it is fairly safe to say that, no woman, born in the 20th century, was ever denied the right to vote in America in her lifetime (at least because of her gender). My own dear Mom who was born in 1908, and who died in 1997 at 89 years of age, was never without her right to vote upon reaching the eligible age of 21.

In the 60’s and 70’s the Vietnam conflict was raging, and once again, males only were required by law to register for the draft when turning age 18 (Selective Service has no requirements for females to register, but many harsh penalties for men who fail to register). http://www.sss.gov/regist%20information.htm Once again, males only were being drafted and sent to fight in this nation’s war. Once again, men comprised over 99.99% of the dying and wounded, and as history shows, many of them didn’t even have the right to vote. I’m sure young men of less than voting age died, or were wounded, or served in WWI, WWII, and the Korean War as well, but from what I’ve read it appears the age of the American Serviceman was as young as it’s ever been during the Vietnam conflict.

I can only speculate that the reason for the spike in the number of deaths in the 19 and 20 year old age groups (see below) was due to the fact that at age 19, often on a man’s birthday, he would receive a letter from his draft board beginning with the salutation, “Greetings.” He really didn’t need to read the rest. Translating that into simple terms, “Your drafted buddy!” I know. I got one of those letters.

Often at this point, many guys would enlist in a favorite branch of the service, sometimes trying to negotiate some civilian transferable job training out of a recruiter, but often a guy just waited for the inevitable paper work giving instructions as to where he was to report for boot camp.

On the web page listing the names of the people whose names appear on the Vietnam wall there is a wealth of information detailing the lives of those who died. http://thewall-usa.com/

The information appears far better documented than that from earlier wars, and there’s even a search engine to make doing research a whole lot less time consuming. The sad truth of the matter is that there were so many names that came up, when I put in the search criteria, that I kept getting “There were too many matches,” as an “invalidating” response. I swallowed the lump in my throat, narrowed my search to just include California men who died in the Vietnam conflict (who were not 21 years of age), then I was even more saddened to see how many of them were so very young. The results are as follows:

There was one (1) - 17 year old.

There were two hundred twenty eight (228) - 18 year olds.

There were eight hundred twenty five (825) - 19 year olds.

There were one thousand three hundred seventy two (1,372) - 20 year olds.

That makes for a sub total of 2,426 men, but we must subtract the men who died after July 1, 1971. On July 1, 1971, the 26th amendment to the U.S. Constitution became law and 18 year olds were given the right to vote. I rechecked the dates for all 2,426 California men who died in Vietnam and subtracted 45 of them, under 21 years of age, who died after July 1, 1971. After subtracting those 45 men, I wound up with a great grand total of two thousand three hundred eighty one (2,381) California men who died in Vietnam without ever having the reached legal voting age.

All eight (8) American women who died in Vietnam where over the age of 21 at the time of their deaths. http://thewall-usa.com/women/ However, all those who died serving their country in Vietnam (without ever having the legal right to vote) were male.

There were many, many other 20th century, American men, and a few women, who didn’t have the right to vote while serving their country in the military in time of war (because they were less than 21), who are still alive today. I’m one of them. I was in Vietnam, or Southeast Asia in 67, 68, 69 and 70 for a total of 21 months, and I was first allowed to vote in the Nixon/McGovern election of 1972 after I was honorably discharged from military service.

Please remember, the male deaths I am citing are only from one state (California) and one war (conflict), Vietnam. There are names from 49 other states on the Vietnam Wall memorial. There are thousands, or more likely tens of thousands, of young men who died in Vietnam without ever having had the right to vote. There are men, many men, from other wars in this century who gave their lives for America without ever having been given the right to exercise their choice for the leadership and direction of their country.

The further back we go in time, the more difficult it becomes to get detailed information concerning America’s war dead, but this site offered relevant data concerning the lives of twelve courageous Marines who where involved in one of the most famous and celebrated events of WWII, the flag raising on Iwo Jima

http://www.findagrave.com/php/famous.php?page=pr&FSctf=176

It bears mentioning that there were actually two flag raisings on Iwo Jima, but it is the second one that is most often remembered due to a photograph that has become nothing short of an American icon, http://www.iwojima.com/raising/lflage.gif

The lives of the second flag raisers at Iwo Jima are chronicled on this web site, http://www.iwojima.com/raising/raisingc.htm

One key piece of information that can be gleaned from the information given on the “Find A Grave, Claim to Fame: Flag Raisers at Iwo Jima” web page is the age of those flag raisers at the time of their deaths. Of the twelve flag raisers, six died in the war, and four of those six died having never reached America’s legal voting age of 21:

Block, Harlon Henry, November 6, 1924 d. March 1, 1945 (age 20 years, 3 months)

Charlo, Pvt. Louis Charles, September 26, 1926 d. March 2, 1945 (age 18 years, 5 months)

Sousley, Franklin, September 19, 1925 d. March 21, 1945 (age 19 years, 6 months)

Thomas Jr., Boots (Ernest Ivy) March 10, 1924 d. March 3, 1945 (age 20 years, 11 months)

Considering the present, politically correct, gender feminist climate in America’s educational and governmental institutions, I guess I really don’t expect much recognition concerning the historical voting oppression experienced by America’s apparently ten’s of thousands of eternally silenced American males.

In California, where I live today, we don’t talk about men’s historical oppression in any college classroom that I’ve seen, and we sure don’t bring it up in the politically correct halls of our government buildings. On a trip to Sacramento (California’s Capitol) a few years back, I visited a local museum in “old town.” I was appalled to see an exhibit honoring the contributions of Californians to WWII, where a woman stood prominently in the foreground in military garb and a male G.I. stood obscurely behind her, almost as an afterthought.

Today in Iraq, women comprise roughly 3% of America’s war dead and casualties, and they are exempted by current law from the vast majority of combat. From this Time Magazine Cover of 2003 (Person of the Year) it appears some journalistic paradigms don’t require nearly the same sacrifice of women before they are honored in standing in front of, instead of beside, men.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3338809.stm

Special services and privileges for women, and special duties and responsibilities for males seems to be the forte in all areas of life in America today (not just in the military), especially in politically correct California. By California law there is no recognition of men as victims of domestic violence (only females) - even if you‘re a male veteran and victim of a battering wife. Shelter services for battered men are virtually non-existent.

For years some male California veterans have been horribly targeted and cheated by Paternity Fraud, http://hometown.aol.com/vetsvspf/ while California governments at all levels do everything they can to consider the rights of California’s male veterans last.

For the men of California who died serving their country in Vietnam (having never enjoyed the privilege of voting), all the recognition I’ve ever seen them receive in “Academia” is that they where patriarchs (prone to violence) who where unfairly entitled with privilege by fact of their male birth. I find it ironic that our liberal colleges plaster billboards in the hallways of classroom buildings with posters asking, “What can men can do to stop their violence against women,” while hypocritically doing nothing to see that males aren’t unfairly targeted by law for military service, and the violence the ensues subsequently. I find it hypocritical that Title IX, especially in California, spends so much effort worrying about equity in sports programs, but ignores combat roles for females. When will that playing field be leveled?

Under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), billions have been spent to help women who’ve "allegedly" been victims of violence, while purposely, systematically, egregiously ignoring male victims of heterosexual, intimate partner violence. Much of VAWA’s money has come to California, yet there’s pitifully little money available under this program to help the many men who are victims of heterosexual, intimate partner violence. Shockingly, the sexist, anti-male VAWA is coming up for billions more in reauthorization money. Where is a Violence Against Men Act (VAMA) for our returning war vets? At last count, about 97% of America’s war dead and wounded in Iraq were men. Historically, that number has been 99.999%. Spending billions more on a fraudulent Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that does nothing for men, and is heavily lacking in any kind of scrutiny or accountability is a gross misspending of taxpayer’s money. When we consider that our returning male war veterans have been intimately exposed to the most horrific experiences of violence, that flagrant fraud known as VAWA is all the more despicable for its anti-male, anti-veteran sexism. VAWA is not only a California disgrace, it’s a National disgrace.

On the web site of the National Coalition of Free Men, Los Angeles, NCFMLA addresses the issue of the position of Deputy Secretary of Men’s Veterans Affairs, or rather the lack of that position. NCFMLA’s insight speaks volumes about the lack of respect and honor that the State of California shows to its current male war veterans: http://www.ncfmla.org/past_activities.html

“In the matter of veteran's affairs, California has established a "Deputy Secretary of Women Veterans Affairs" that has responsibility over women's veteran affairs. Nevertheless, male veterans are apparently seen by California as being war chattel that is to be consumed in battle and returned in a casket. Otherwise, California would recognize the equal need for a "Deputy Secretary of Men's Veterans Affairs." It seems clear that California presumes that males have no need for a "Deputy of Male Veterans Affairs," because of their gender and their absence of value - except that derived from being war chattel.”

Let us place our hands over our hearts, face the flag and give a special salute to those “overlooked” American men who never got the chance to vote in their lifetimes. Let us salute all the brave Americans who gave their all for the freedom our country enjoys today. Let us not forget this Memorial Day how actively our country works, especially in California, to disenfranchise America’s male military veterans for the sake of an un-American gender feminist agenda. The un-American gender feminist agenda that bigotedly strives to undermine the constitutional guarantees of equal protection, equal rights, and equal justice for all (including men) honors no one, but instead, harms us all.

by Ray Blumhorst, May 28, 2005
SOURCE: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/blumhorst/2005/blumhorst052805.htm

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home