The general decline in standards today

[AtomicEraTom]

My best friend watches Jersey Shore. He likes the fistfights. He made me watch it, instead of Hee Haw last week (you all know I was unhappy about it lol) and as I'm watching it, for the first time, I'm just sitting there thinking 'My God, this is what people call entertainment now?' It was some of the worst television I've ever witnessed in my life. We watched MTV the rest of the night and each show was almost as bad as Jersey Shore. It gave me a huge insight on why things are going down the tubes.

I have never watched the program, "Jersey Shores" and to me, for me, I think, the show would have no attraction or entertainment value to give me a desire to watch it.

I have often wondered how or why shows like that even get watched at all? How would anyone find those shows "entertaining"?

 

[rue]

My best friend watches Jersey Shore. He likes the fistfights. He made me watch it, instead of Hee Haw last week (you all know I was unhappy about it lol) and as I'm watching it, for the first time, I'm just sitting there thinking 'My God, this is what people call entertainment now?' It was some of the worst television I've ever witnessed in my life. We watched MTV the rest of the night and each show was almost as bad as Jersey Shore. It gave me a huge insight on why things are going down the tubes.

I watched it one time and had the same reaction that you did Tom. I could not believe that people watch that crap!

 

[Widebrim]

Servicewomen are currently MPs and in the Seabees. I have never met a Seabee that would say they "don't fight" and throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the military police of all branches have been used more in a combat arms role than their normal combat support.

Of course if you are serving in the military in any capacity that involves getting shot at (even occasionally or intermittantly) I'd say that counts as "fighting." [huh]

You're right, Viola; there are some female Seabees. The Seabees main task, though, is to construct, and construct is what they have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, female Seabees have been used to search Muslim women at traffic and entry control points in Iraq. (And just to say that you do fight, doesn't simply make it so.) MPs, as you mentioned, are normally combat support, and are generally used for security, although there are times when their role is expanded. As I mentioned, some women (and men) in support MOSs do go outside the wire, and they can become casualties; this is especially true in our modern war zones, where there really aren't any front lines. Yet my point is that when it comes to combat operations, missions which have as their purpose actively seeking out and engaging the enemy, it is those men who are in combat MOSs (either primary or secondary) who are employed. They are the ones who are actively and consistently "fighting" the enemy; this is the norm and not the exception. Will this change in the near future, that is, will women be allowed into ground combat MOSs? It looks likely so, since they're already allowed in war zones, but the long-term consequences (military and social) can only be conjectured at this point.

 

[Effingham]

Ditto. I felt brain cells dying every minute. I couldn't stand "Jersey Shore" past the second commercial break.

And these people are "celebrities" and >gack< role models now?

 

[Widebrim]

For those that think women don't fight, ask the female Army vet who was decorated with a Silver Star, I believe. Her convoy was ambushed and she was manning a .50 caliber gun. As any veteran will tell you, the primary target is the heavy guns, making her THE primary target. She lit 'em up with the big .50 and is credited with saving 50 lives, if memory serves. She was actually wounded in the firefight and didn't even realize it until after it was all over. Just be respectful, lest you make her angry!

SGT Hester greatly deserved the Silver Star that she received for her actions that day, no doubt about it, although her squad leader needs to get some of the credit, too. Being the first female Soldier since WWII to receive the award is quite an achievement and honor. She definitely is an exception when it comes to a woman actively engaging the enemy, which is what fighting comes down to.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

You're right, Viola; there are some female Seabees. The Seabees main task, though, is to construct, and construct is what they have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, female Seabees have been used to search Muslim women at traffic and entry control points in Iraq. (And just to say that you do fight, doesn't simply make it so.) MPs, as you mentioned, are normally combat support, and are generally used for security, although there are times when their role is expanded. As I mentioned, some women (and men) in support MOSs do go outside the wire, and they can become casualties; this is especially true in our modern war zones, where there really aren't any front lines. Yet my point is that when it comes to combat operations, missions which have as their purpose actively seeking out and engaging the enemy, it is those men who are in combat MOSs (either primary or secondary) who are employed. They are the ones who are actively and consistently "fighting" the enemy; this is the norm and not the exception. Will this change in the near future, that is, will women be allowed into ground combat MOSs? It looks likely so, since they're already allowed in war zones, but the long-term consequences (military and social) can only be conjectured at this point.

I'm not for it Widebrim. No women engaging in combat. I just couldn't stomach it. I'd rather protect them..than have them fighting alongside of me. I hate to see my Brothers wounded and in agony..a woman would just be too much. I'd prefer seeing a draft again before allowing that.

 

[Pompidou]

I'm not for it Widebrim. No women engaging in combat. I just couldn't stomach it. I'd rather protect them..than have them fighting alongside of me. I hate to see my Brothers wounded and in agony..a woman would just be too much. I'd prefer seeing a draft again before allowing that.

The way I see it, there are four R words that need to all be equal if any one of them is going to be equal - rights, risks, rewards and responsibilities. As we make headway on equality of rights and rewards, breaking glass ceilings, or at least raising them another story, there's going to come a time when it won't be right for women not to be sharing equally in the brutal deaths on the battlefields.

 

[rue]

I hope I'm dead when that happens.

 

[Pompidou]

I hope I'm dead when that happens.

You're still pretty young, so if old age is your destined end, I doubt it. I imagine it'll be in the next 15 years. If there's no draft, though, and the only people serving in the military are those who choose to, I don't see any problems. So long as our military is a military of volunteers, I'm all for total equality of service. I suppose I'm fundamentally against a draft, believing that if you can't get your population to volunteer for a war, you probably shouldn't be engaging in it. When a war is just, like WWII, people will stop at nothing to serve.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I hope I'm dead when that happens.

Yeah..guess I'm old fashion...possibly 'old hat'. I can understand ideas of equality of the sexes in a sense...or certain circumstances...but then along with that full court press of 'inclusion'...I can see from the sidelines the unfortunate blurring of the unique qualities of each sex. The built in 'differences' that are being lost in the process. The ideal of surely what we should be overcoming erasing what we really are. Losing many of the ways we naturally do/have complimented each other. Scrambling responsibilities...courtesies...respect of those differences into a confusion of ever changing values and actions of how we should now act/react toward each other. What we should or shouldn't expect and value with each other. Ignoring or diminishing the once appreciated strengths and weaknesses of each sex that once teamed together those distinguishing assurances for a structured family life. Where it all begins. Are we really upgrading..bettering ourselves..all for the better good? Or are these 'improvements' the source of igniting 'the general decline'? If you look closely isn't it really emphasizing the 'Me' over the 'We'? Disguised as Equality?

 

[sheeplady]

You're still pretty young, so if old age is your destined end, I doubt it. I imagine it'll be in the next 15 years. If there's no draft, though, and the only people serving in the military are those who choose to, I don't see any problems. So long as our military is a military of volunteers, I'm all for total equality of service. I suppose I'm fundamentally against a draft, believing that if you can't get your population to volunteer for a war, you probably shouldn't be engaging in it. When a war is just, like WWII, people will stop at nothing to serve.

But there was a massive draft for WWII in the US- my grandfather and a grandfather in-law were both drafted- my other grandfather-in-law enlisted. I believe more men were drafted than volunteered during WWII in the US. I've heard the statistic that 2/3 of US soldiers were drafted.

I don't know the statistics for other countries that participated, but I'd think they are close. If anybody knows- I'd like to know.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Yes the draft was in force...and full force through Viet Nam finally broken down to a lottery system...ending shortly after that conflict.

 

[TidiousTed]

And these people are "celebrities" and >gack< role models now?

Now they are celebrities, 50 years ago they would have been given a full frontal lobotomy

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yep, the World War 2 draft began in the US a year and a half before we were actually involved, and there was a *lot* of griping about it to say the least. Men went because it was their duty to go, but the rush to enlist didn't begin until after Pearl Harbor. The British waited until a month *after* their declaration of war in 1939 to even begin draft registration.

By 1941, the British also had a draft for women -- they weren't sent into combat, but all single women between 20 and 30 were subject to being drafted into war-related jobs.

 

[C-dot]

I can see from the sidelines the unfortunate blurring of the unique qualities of each sex. The built in 'differences' that are being lost in the process. The ideal of surely what we should be overcoming erasing what we really are. Losing many of the ways we naturally do/have complimented each other.

I quite agree with you. Many people today would be surprised to hear a young woman like me say so, but I don't think it's old fashioned, I think it's common sense. It's wonderful that women can now choose any career or lifestyle they want (financial circumstances allowing): doctor, lawyer, police officer, advertising executive, homemaker, military. But "equality" doesn't mean "assimilation" - We don't have to become men in the process.

A successful man in the corner office will always be just that, but a woman will always have a double standard applied to her. As long as that exists, why not work it to our advantage? After all, that is something only a woman can do.

Yep, the World War 2 draft began in the US a year and a half before we were actually involved, and there was a *lot* of griping about it to say the least. Men went because it was their duty to go, but the rush to enlist didn't begin until after Pearl Harbor. The British waited until a month *after* their declaration of war in 1939 to even begin draft registration.

By 1941, the British also had a draft for women -- they weren't sent into combat, but all single women between 20 and 30 were subject to being drafted into war-related jobs.

A few years back, I remember my mother's friend in California saying to her that if a draft was instituted - and there was danger there would be - she wanted to send her then 18-year old son up to us in Canada. I think this was during Iraq.

I don't know all the details of this (I'm sure someone could enlighten me) but even though it never happened, it does show that the draft is always a possibility in times of conflict, even today.

 

[sheeplady]

A few years back, I remember my mother's friend in California saying to her that if a draft was instituted - and there was danger there would be - she wanted to send her then 18-year old son up to us in Canada. I think this was during Iraq.

I don't know all the details of this (I'm sure someone could enlighten me) but even though it never happened, it does show that the draft is always a possibility in times of conflict, even today.

Men in the US are required to register for the selective service at age 18. Most young men I know go to a local Post Office to register. They remain registered, and can be called up via a lottery system to be drafted into the military until age 26. At age 26 you automatically leave the system and you are no longer draftable *unless* a new law is passed which raises the age limit.

In order to receive federal financial aid, a federal job, or obtain citizenship if you are a male, you must be registered with the SS if you are between the ages of 18 and 26. All men between those ages in the US- legal residents, citizens, and illegal aliens are required to register. Although you must register, since selection is done via lottery it is not automatic that everyone registered will be drafted. Women are exempt.

In addition, if the US ever faces wartime and a draft lottery is put into place, congress has plans and the ability to draft healthcare workers through age 54.

Whenever there is a conflict, the draft is discussed. It is overall very unpopular, for many different reasons. During Vietnam, many "draft dodgers"- people who had been called via the lottery- went to Canada. Until the 1990s, those people faced jail if they re-entered the US. I believe President Clinton provided those individuals with amnesty.

 

[Tomasso]

During Vietnam, many "draft dodgers"- people who had been called via the lottery- went to Canada.

I know of several WWII veterans who sent their sons to Canada and many more who were prepared to do so if nessesary.

 

[fortworthgal]

My grandfather was drafted into service during WWII. He was older (29) and had 2 very young children. He died in Belgium on November 24, 1944.

Yep, the World War 2 draft began in the US a year and a half before we were actually involved, and there was a *lot* of griping about it to say the least. Men went because it was their duty to go, but the rush to enlist didn't begin until after Pearl Harbor. The British waited until a month *after* their declaration of war in 1939 to even begin draft registration.

By 1941, the British also had a draft for women -- they weren't sent into combat, but all single women between 20 and 30 were subject to being drafted into war-related jobs.

In early 1945, Roosevelt asked congress to draft Army Nurses, but it was never enacted.

 

[rue]

I don't have a problem with women in the military (my grandmother was a sergeant in the Marines during WWII and had the oh-so- lovely job of telling parents that their sons were killed :eeek, but I do have issues with women in combat. To me when that happens it will be a definite decline.

Lee... I knew that, but I always include women, because someone will jump in and say... "women serve too!"

I also know there are exceptions where women have to grab a gun, so nobody jump on me! lol

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Several years ago a Congressman who was opposed to the war in Iraq, strangely enough, sponsored a bill reinstating the draft which would have made women subject to the draft AND would have extended the draft age to 42! His intent was to generate more opposition to the war by reintroducing the draft just like it did during the Vietnam war. Not surprisingly the bill was voted down. He even voted against his own bill!