Is magic mike sexist towards men?

Rostker v. Goldberg

"In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote "[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them." Implicit in the obiter dicta of the ruling was to hold valid the statutory restrictions on gender discrimination in assigning combat roles. Men and women, because of the combat restrictions on women, are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft therefore, there is no violation of the Due Process Clause."

""Our country has never drafted women, ever," said Lewis C. Brodsky, director of public and congressional affairs for the Selective Service. "The president asked that it [requiring women to register] be looked at about a year and a half ago. They [Department of Defense] looked at it and say they've reached no conclusion.

"Certainly the role of women is changing in the military. We may have to look at it more as the role of women continues to evolve," he said. "But right now, they feel that volunteers are all that are needed, in terms of women."

Brodsky said women aren't being considered for a draft because, historically, the draft was used to fill combat units. "Ninety-seven percent of all draftees went to the Army from 1948 to 1973, when the draft ended," he said.

With the current combat-exclusion laws covering women service members, they are precluded from being drafted for these units. Congress would have to change the law to require women to register and be drafted, Brodsky said.

An estimated 94 percent of the 18- to 25-year-old men in the United States have registered for the draft. Congress reinstated the registration requirement in 1980, after a seven-year lull. Men are required by law to register with the Selective Service System upon reaching their 18th birthday.

"However, if we had to draft health-care professionals -- doctors, nurses, medical technicians -- there's a very strong likelihood, with the numbers DoD would require in such a draft, a skill-specific draft, women ... could be considered because so many women are doctors, nurses and medical technicians," Brodsky said.

The huge feminist organization N.O.W. opposes any conscription but says if it's going to happen then women should be drafted too. They have testified to this before Congress.

The Servicewomen's Action Network has done a lot in favor of getting women in all areas of the military.

The SPLC women's chapter aided legally in a lawsuit asking for equality under a draft.

Until women are integrated fully in the military an equitable draft cannot happen. Those fighting for full female participation in the armed forces first and foremost are doing it right.

Men were turned into objects of war by other men. Women were never drafted because men enforced patriarchal views that women are weak and wouldn't be able to fight/they'd distract the men, and that men are strong and superior and are the default for soldiers. Men also started all of the wars that they forced other men to fight in.

To be fair, no one, regardless of gender, should ever be forced or drafted into war without their consent. But once more, it was men that made this rule, not women. Men didn't want to give women the right to vote (men should have never been in the position to give and take rights from people as they see fit) because they didn't believe women were logical/mature, and because they knew women wouldn't support the archaic laws and restrictions on society that men had put into place over the course of time.

But that's the case with every background character or group of characters, to just be something to look at, as I said with my builders example.

How does it depend on who it is made for and who it isn't? Let's say that material is made for men and it has women in the background of a scene stripping. I assume you would view that as sexism, but why is that sexism? Being attracted to the opposite sex wouldn't be sexism and showing "some" of the opposite in a certain aspect (physical attraction) does not make it objectification, it's just showing a single aspect of them.

This is why I say that most people that like using the term, "objectification" don't seem to understand what it means. They seem to think that showing a woman in a sexual position makes her objectified rather than the woman being viewed as a "person" in a sexual position. Single aspects/traits of people that are signled out for entertainment or some other purpose is not implying that it's the only thing that person has or is good for.

I've been talking about these issues for a long time. I don't appreciate the condescension within that last statement, especially given that you seem to have avoided some of my main points I made and then made such a comment to imply I don't know what I'm talking about.