Re: [討論] 女生覺得自己弱,不能當兵是父權遺毒嗎?已回收
之前有釋憲過
決議女生不用當兵的理由大概是
「女性體力較男性差,無法負荷兵役的勞動要求」
基本上仔細去看當中的操作 就可以知道 為女生開脫的成分 絕對大於法律實質
我簡單列舉490號釋字瑕疵
瑕疵1: 一般來說大多數男生體能會比女生好,但也是存有女生體能比男生好的狀況。
所以若要以體能為標準,應該要讓大家都去公平的接受體能測驗,達到一定標準
就要當兵,而不是單純用男女做劃分。
<例如:女生體能最好的前10趴,很有可能會勝過男生體能最後10趴>
瑕疵2: 最近幾年都開放大量名額可以抽替代役,若真是擔心體能問題,為求平等,
女生大不了也可以服替代役。
瑕疵3: 募兵制後,變成4個月軍事訓練役,都是在學校單位學習基礎的軍事技能。
若真的擔心體能,女生也能學習軍事醫護方面的知識,以貫徹全民國防。
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
其實講那麼多,就算再怎麼有道理,還是不可能改革。因為得罪的族群太大,而且要講
道理,可能會先被打成仇女,一被打成仇女,說再多都沒用。
綜上所述:
很多在台灣喊男女平權的 基本上就是
挑自己想平權的來平權 對自己不利的就無視
也就是 只齊頭式把權利平等 <講權力的時候就忽視男女先天差異>
然後講義務時 就主張男女先天有別 不該盡同義務
我不是仇女 也贊成男女平等
但選擇性的平等、只享受權利不願盡義務的平等 不是真的平等
只覺醒自己想覺醒的部分 只會讓人瞧不起
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 59.127.241.119
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/WomenTalk/M.1471075289.A.32F.html
推
08/13 16:02, , 1F
08/13 16:02, 1F
※ 編輯: s49971616 (59.127.241.119), 08/13/2016 16:07:25
推
08/13 16:03, , 2F
08/13 16:03, 2F
推
08/13 16:05, , 3F
08/13 16:05, 3F
推
08/13 16:17, , 4F
08/13 16:17, 4F
→
08/13 16:19, , 5F
08/13 16:19, 5F
推
08/13 16:20, , 6F
08/13 16:20, 6F
→
08/13 16:23, , 7F
08/13 16:23, 7F
→
08/13 16:25, , 8F
08/13 16:25, 8F
推
08/13 16:26, , 9F
08/13 16:26, 9F
推
08/13 16:27, , 10F
08/13 16:27, 10F
→
08/13 16:28, , 11F
08/13 16:28, 11F
→
08/13 16:30, , 12F
08/13 16:30, 12F
→
08/13 16:30, , 13F
08/13 16:30, 13F
推
08/13 16:30, , 14F
08/13 16:30, 14F
→
08/13 16:30, , 15F
08/13 16:30, 15F
→
08/13 16:31, , 16F
08/13 16:31, 16F
→
08/13 16:31, , 17F
08/13 16:31, 17F
→
08/13 16:32, , 18F
08/13 16:32, 18F
→
08/13 16:34, , 19F
08/13 16:34, 19F
→
08/13 16:37, , 20F
08/13 16:37, 20F
推
08/13 16:38, , 21F
08/13 16:38, 21F
→
08/13 16:42, , 22F
08/13 16:42, 22F
推
08/13 16:43, , 23F
08/13 16:43, 23F
→
08/13 16:43, , 24F
08/13 16:43, 24F
→
08/13 16:43, , 25F
08/13 16:43, 25F
→
08/13 16:45, , 26F
08/13 16:45, 26F
→
08/13 16:45, , 27F
08/13 16:45, 27F
→
08/13 16:46, , 28F
08/13 16:46, 28F
→
08/13 16:46, , 29F
08/13 16:46, 29F
推
08/13 16:48, , 30F
08/13 16:48, 30F
→
08/13 16:49, , 31F
08/13 16:49, 31F
→
08/13 16:49, , 32F
08/13 16:49, 32F
推
08/13 16:58, , 33F
08/13 16:58, 33F
推
08/13 17:00, , 34F
08/13 17:00, 34F
推
08/13 17:06, , 35F
08/13 17:06, 35F
噓
08/13 17:14, , 36F
08/13 17:14, 36F
推
08/13 17:30, , 37F
08/13 17:30, 37F
→
08/13 17:30, , 38F
08/13 17:30, 38F
推
08/13 17:44, , 39F
08/13 17:44, 39F
推
08/13 17:44, , 40F
08/13 17:44, 40F
→
08/13 17:44, , 41F
08/13 17:44, 41F
→
08/13 17:45, , 42F
08/13 17:45, 42F
→
08/13 17:45, , 43F
08/13 17:45, 43F
→
08/13 17:47, , 44F
08/13 17:47, 44F
→
08/13 17:47, , 45F
08/13 17:47, 45F
噓
08/13 17:49, , 46F
08/13 17:49, 46F
推
08/13 17:59, , 47F
08/13 17:59, 47F
推
08/13 18:01, , 48F
08/13 18:01, 48F
→
08/13 18:03, , 49F
08/13 18:03, 49F
→
08/13 18:03, , 50F
08/13 18:03, 50F
推
08/13 18:12, , 51F
08/13 18:12, 51F
推
08/13 18:14, , 52F
08/13 18:14, 52F
→
08/13 18:14, , 53F
08/13 18:14, 53F
推
08/13 18:19, , 54F
08/13 18:19, 54F
→
08/13 18:19, , 55F
08/13 18:19, 55F
推
08/13 18:20, , 56F
08/13 18:20, 56F
推
08/13 18:21, , 57F
08/13 18:21, 57F
推
08/13 18:24, , 58F
08/13 18:24, 58F
噓
08/13 18:36, , 59F
08/13 18:36, 59F
推
08/13 18:38, , 60F
08/13 18:38, 60F
→
08/13 18:38, , 61F
08/13 18:38, 61F
→
08/13 18:38, , 62F
08/13 18:38, 62F
推
08/13 18:39, , 63F
08/13 18:39, 63F
→
08/13 18:40, , 64F
08/13 18:40, 64F
推
08/13 18:45, , 65F
08/13 18:45, 65F
推
08/13 18:57, , 66F
08/13 18:57, 66F
→
08/13 19:01, , 67F
08/13 19:01, 67F
推
08/13 19:27, , 68F
08/13 19:27, 68F
推
08/13 20:07, , 69F
08/13 20:07, 69F
→
08/13 20:07, , 70F
08/13 20:07, 70F
推
08/13 20:23, , 71F
08/13 20:23, 71F
推
08/13 23:23, , 72F
08/13 23:23, 72F
→
08/13 23:23, , 73F
08/13 23:23, 73F
推
08/14 14:55, , 74F
08/14 14:55, 74F
→
08/15 08:14, , 75F
08/15 08:14, 75F
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文:
完整討論串 (本文為第 3 之 4 篇):