[wizzairflyer]

I am not blaming the women for not having served. What I wanted to highlight with the "draft dodge" between quotes is that the reason they weren't drafted is as void as pretending that you had bone spurs, from a modern progressive standpoint. I'll concede that women didn't have a lot of representation back in the day, but so did a lot of the men required to serve. And they nonetheless did have the right to vote, so they do share part of the collective responsibility for the behaviour of elected politicians.

From a modern, progressive point of view, it seems obvious that if you are going to require people to serve then everyone should serve, regardless of race, gender or social status. This was not the case during the Vietnam era, and I think that draft dodging should thus be seen more as civil disobedience than something shameful. However, the framing it is given when used to shame politicians by progressive outlets such as the NYT is far from that, I think it is hypocritical to fight for equality yet fail to recognize how young men, and young men alone, were buried under this obligation.

[danso]

> the reason they weren't drafted is as void as pretending that you had bone spurs

Women weren't drafted because the government didn't mandate it. Trump avoided the draft by receiving a questionable diagnosis from a doctor.

> and I think that draft dodging should thus be seen more as civil disobedience than something shameful

And yet, they are not the same thing, because civil disobedience is a protest against the government, and ultimately accepting the consequences. President Trump does not claim his efforts at getting deferred and exempted were an act of protest against the war. Furthermore, he goes on to mock those who he deems to have performed inadequately during the Vietnam War, notably Senators McCain [0] and Blumenthal.

It's possible for people to hate the Vietnam War, support equality, and condemn the hypocrisy of a jingoistic commander-in-chief. It's really amazing how you see these stances as mutually exclusive, even within an overly simplistic worldview.

[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hes-not-war-h...

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/trump-berates-da-nang-dick-b...

[wizzairflyer]

> Women weren't drafted because the government didn't mandate it. Trump avoided the draft by receiving a questionable diagnosis from a doctor.

For something to be justified it needs to be more than just government mandated. If the government mandated to only draft black men, would you call a black man with a questionable diagnosis of bone spur in the feet a draft dodger?

All of Trump's behaviour when it comes to the Vietnam war could be criticized without using the term draft dodger, especially without using it like it's usually used, i.e. with the implication that having draft dodged is bad, which imo is quite an hypocritical stance to have for someone opposed to the Vietnam war.

[DonHopkins]

Just as immigrants can be criticized without using the terms "rapists" and "murders" and "enemies of the state" and "send her back". But why should Trump be exempt and immune from one particular criticism of something he actually did?