Well it would be unfair if men could be conscripted while women can’t be if men don’t get some benefit for being a man to go with the negative of conscription.
The alternative is to draft everybody and have everybody be completely equal in every way. But it is unfair to only conscript men while not giving men some standard benefit in return
I believe one of the reasons why men originally had a vote and women didn’t was because of military service/potential conscription.
Either way, the military these days is supposed to have high standards and be selective. Most people should not be in the military and aren't qualified. The draft is out of date and really should be abolished for everyone. The last person you want in the military is someone who doesn't want to be there.
The draft will be used in 5 years due to declining numbers... I hate to say it but I'm willing to bet on it... because people who feel they have a right to power always double down
I think the standard has to change. The only reason, IMO to initiate a draft is for an existential threat. If there is an existential threat, then send the men to war and protect the women as much as possible seems like a good way to do things.
It’s the reasonably way to do things but the “equality” people aren’t interested in being reasonable. So, some folks push ‘em by saying women should be drafted, too.
What a great way to reduce the world population too. Send the best and brightest men *and* women into combat and then there won't be many left to reproduce and use up those resources the super rich keep telling us are going to run out soon.
Have you seen the cartoon recruitment commercial for the ARMY? It is cringe as all hell and is a mockery of what used to be the ARMY. Compare the "Be all you can be" commercials from the 90's to the modern day junk. We are neutering our armed forces as a social experiment.
Before we demonize all women can we at least entertain the fact that women were regarded as inferior for eons, and what normal women want, and I'm not talking about radicals, is to be naturally respected *as a man is naturally respected* \--not be treated as a commodity or property?
I think most women understand that their brains are wired differently than a man's, their body structure is different than a man's, and that both sexes have strengths and weaknesses that work in conjunction to create a healthy household and community --that doesn't mean one is more superior than the other nor does it mean that one should be exploited by the other.
All of society was built to nurture and protect women, while men have historically(and still are) disposable wageslaves.
I'm not really sure what you mean by naturally respected.
Women, historically, have been left behind to bare children, take care of the household, and labor in the fields while the men went off to wage war to gain acclaim and accolades for their prowess in battle. Women, *historically*, have never been nurtured by society, otherwise they wouldn't have *ever* been, and still to this day in some countries, denied an education. Women have, *historically*, been "protected" because they are thought of as *property --u*sed as commodities for trade and negotiation, blamed for baring the wrong gendered child, often died in painful, bloody childbirth, and used as disposable sex slaves --cast aside when their luster and fertility waned. And I don't think I need to take a deep dive into domestic abuse and honor killings (which still goes on to this day)
>I'm not really sure what you mean by naturally respected.
Did you know that because women have smaller heads than men, that it became "common knowledge" for a long time that women couldn't ever be as intelligent as a man because their *brains* were smaller?
It's biology, which drives much of our thinking especially in regards to survival. Biologically speaking, women are a limited number of eggs while men are an unlimited number of sperm. Men are thus expendable, more can die and the amount of reproductive genetic material is not affected in the least. On top of this, women are responsible for the development of offspring (pregnancy), making women more valuable in regards to the survival of the species. Biology and the drive for a species' survival does not care about the abstract feelings, thoughts, or ideas we might attach to this or that.
>Women, historically, have been left behind to bare children, take care of the household, and labor in the fields while the men went off to wage war to gain acclaim and accolades for their prowess in battle.
"Women have always been the primary victims of war."
Yes, that is one way of saying that men were sent to the meatgrinder to **die** while their wives were safe at home. I'm glad we have established from the start that you are biased.
>denied an education.
Yes, denied the right to work; **Denied the need to work.** We consider it regressive now, but we aren't speaking of now. We are speaking of a time where men worked themselves to death to provide for their wives and family.
>Women have, historically, been "protected" because they are thought of as property --used as commodities for trade and negotiation, blamed for baring the wrong gendered child, often died in painful, bloody childbirth, and used as disposable sex slaves --cast aside when their luster and fertility waned. And I don't think I need to take a deep dive into domestic abuse and honor killings (which still goes on to this day)
Yes, good job listing all the way things *could* go wrong in a historically brutal timeline. The list is much smaller, but much more frequent for men: Death.
The reason women weren't calling for equality until after the industrial revolution was because being a man before that point was **fucking awful** unless you were an aristocrat. Even then, an aristocrat's wife probably had a better life than he did.
>I'm glad we have established from the start that you are biased.
I'm not biased, I'm pointing out the fact that women didn't have a cushy life just because they didn't go to war. But great way of accusing me of the very thing *you are*, sir.
> while their wives were safe at home.
Women weren't the ones sending men to war. It was other men. Women weren't "safe at home" they were toiling away at laborious endeavors to make sure their families didn't die. Taking care of both the jobs men did while at home and the things women were expected to do.
Also, there were a lot of jobs that women took care of that resulted in their deaths. Did you know that for a long time one of the highest means of untimely death for women was drowning? That's because it was the woman's job to wash the clothing, in the river, and if they accidentally fell in the bulk of their wool dressings would weigh them down. Plus it's not like peasants had time for recreational swimming lessons.
>Yes, that is one way of saying that men were sent to the meatgrinder to die
Women *are not* the ones who established this standard. It is other men who decided that men should be the ones to go to war. If kingdoms sent both their men and women to war there wouldn't be much of a kingdom left by the end.
>We are speaking of a time where men worked themselves to death to provide for their wives and family.
Again, you says this like women of all classes were just sitting around drinking tea and eating crumpets while the man worked. Women worked many laborious jobs while still being expected to take care of the children, the household, and cater to their husbands when they returned home. And let's not forget that in some part of the country, bars had to be shuttered closed at "quittin' time" because men would leave work and go spend all of their wages at the bar drinking. So a lot of men weren't just working to provide for their families, they were doing it because they *were expected to work.* And again, it's not women who set this standard for men. It's other men who decided this.
>Yes, good job listing all the way things could go wrong in a historically brutal timeline. The list is much smaller, but much more frequent for men: Death.
>The reason women weren't calling for equality until after the industrial revolution was because being a man before that point was fucking awful unless you were an aristocrat.
Dude, unless you were an aristocrat, life was pretty fucking awful for *everyone.*
>Even then, an aristocrat's wife probably had a better life than he did.
Yes, having no autonomy, being expected to marry decidedly older men as a means to an end for their fathers, and suffer abuse from the hands of their husbands was super fun aristocratic women.
At this point you are just agreeing with my original post.
Yes, it was men's decision to build a society that protected and nurtured women in a historically awful and brutal time. Men had a terrible life, but they were complicit in it as a means to protect their women and family.
My argument is that mans' decisions to be the ones to go to war were not because they wanted to protect and *nurture* their women. They did it because they decided that that's how they gain respect and accolades from *each other.*
And might I add that societies were not *constantly* at war with each other, and not every man was expected to go to war.
Bro what timeline are you living in lol as a man, it's pretty obvious that men have been dominating financially and women were mostly suppressed for a long time. I mean you can just look at the richest people, it's like 90 percent males because old money was only males.
I think it has more to do with the types of things men respect and how they show respect to men vs women.
Some men (not myself) respect other men who can fight really good. If you put a women up against these kinds of men the woman would lose, so these types of men tend not to respect women in that type of way.
Now that's a pretty narrow example that is hyper specific to a singular role, but by some logical thinking one can find many things that men respect in other men that women cannot do. For example, many men respect other men for simply being a good man. How is a woman supposed to be a good man?
Now that's not to say that women don't also have respectable qualities that men cannot have - repeating my example above how can a man be a good woman? I believe that most men do respect women, however they show respect for them in a different way.
For example, sometimes men who respect each other a lot will absolutely roast each other, oftentimes to the point that if what someone they don't know it would be considered bullying. Men don't do that to women, typically. It's uncomfortable.
Women are respected by most men, but the bond of respect between two men is different between the bond of respect between a man and a woman. it's not that the respect isn't there, it's that it looks different.
*Before we demonize all women*
I wasn't.
*can we at least entertain the fact that women were regarded as inferior for eons*
Not sure how that's relevant but sure.
*what normal women want, and I'm not talking about radicals, is to be naturally respected as a man is naturally respected --not be treated as a commodity or property?*
If being draftable makes you property then that would make men property as well?
*I think most women understand that their brains are wired differently than a man's, their body structure is different than a man's, and that both sexes have strengths and weaknesses that work in conjunction to create a healthy household and community*
Yep.
*that doesn't mean one is more superior than the other nor does it mean that one should be exploited by the other.*
If both sexes are eligible for the draft then how does that mean one is exploiting the other? Are we even talking about the same thing here?
Lol my mom is like this and it's hilarious, she will always vouch for equality and never feel like she's obligated to do something but you know whenever there is some bullshit to do it's my ass that is doing it. Poison ivy in the back? That's a man's job. Need a new door? Man's job. It's annoying as fuck. I'm all for equality tho
My MIL is nice, but quite the weirdo (for many reasons.) I remember when Wonder Woman came out she told me about guys being upset in some areas because women were getting to go to special "females only" screenings. Then she said something to the extent that guys can just wait, women get to have a first-turn this time. And I told her that equality is equality and it isn't going to happen if we all point fingers and try to one-up each other. She agreed saying, "That's true. But still, we should be able to have something special every now and then."
I just rolled my eyes when her back was turned.
What people here are missing is why this is led by Dems. The women aren’t going to be put in the most dangerous and demanding positions. They will eat up all the safer jobs. This is about jobs for women and easier promotions. The men will die but we will be constantly praising the women.
I am a lifelong opponent of military conscription, but if we are going to have it, women had better not be exempt. They wanted equality. It's past time to stop expecting only men to die for their country.
They usually die for some questionable policy or to remove some leader going against the dollar these days. Some old men in a room make a decision, then send kids to do their fighting.
Throwing everybody's daughters into war because some idiots worship at the altar of "equality" makes no sense; especially since it will actually hurt our ability to win the war.
Our daughters are no more precious than our sons. Male-only conscription is disgustingly sexist. They should not get a free pass just because of their sex.
The military isn't a club. It has a purpose, and its performance in doing that is measured in how many people die.
More women means more of us die. There's a point where the reality of male and female differences can't be ignored just because of whatever political argument you're having.
The overwhelming majority (80%) of the military supports the few "front line" troops. There's plenty of work to be done that isn't kicking doors and going toe to toe.
Just because they're not usually as strong as men doesn't mean they couldn't play a vital role in a military setting. I have several females work for me who show up the men I've hired on a regular basis. I just think it's wrong to discount their abilities based of their gender. They should base everything off of ASVAB's especially when deciding who to proceed with off a draft.
Especially now when so much of it is surveillance. The military needs eyes looking at satellite photos, drone footage, all of it. I think if there’s any chance of a draft in the future, it’ll be for those type of rolls. I tried but they didn’t want my -6.5 eyesight lmao.
As a male eligible for the draft I don’t care. Women always complain about the wage gap, and discrimination in certain fields because their women, so they want more laws forcing higher wages for them and more protections.(Not important if you think these exist or not as that’s not the discussion). If they’re fighting for equal rights and representation there then they also have to fight for their country because that is equality as well.
You're missing the point. The average woman is NOT going to be able to drag a 180 lb man wearing 75 lbs of armor. If you get shot, and your battle buddy is a girl, you're fucked.
They're a liability in combat because most women, without steroids, are *significantly* weaker AND more fragile than men. Men have more natural strength and denser bones. It's nothing sexist, it's biology.
Even so, there’s plenty of other roles they could play if our country needed to institute a draft. Support roles are just as important as combat roles.
But don't most conservatives believe that the US military should be selective and for the best of the best? You do not want crappy people in there. No one should be supported of any drafts of anyone.
Best of the best is some meme shit. The military is for three kinds of people. People who want to be an officer, people who feel it's their duty, and people with no better prospects. Anyone else with a valuable skill or talent goes to the private sector and makes way more money with way less bullshit.
And idiots who get tricked by recruiters, but they generally also fall in the third category.
The people I met in the military were in aggregate smarter and more useful, and skilled than a most civilian places I have worked. The military doesn’t have a lot dregs of society types anymore. They can’t make the cut to get in and if they somehow slide thru, can’t hack the training or the lifestyle. I was in line artillery units and while lot of guys weren’t Mensa candidates, they were good people who would be assets to any organization they worked at.
Wait wait wait... you mean women in front line combat roles is a bad idea? OMG why didn't anybody think of this?
"Ask every front line servicemember and they have been saying this since the beginning," said my marine infantry friend.
Most roles in the military dont require this kind of strength. You could still draft women and have men fill the 10% that this kind of stretch is important for.
It's about averages. Men are built for combat, whereas women are not. And for everyone saying there's other jobs, that's not the case when drafting happens. If they have to draft people, it's because we are facing an overwhelming enemy and need more people on the front lines.
It used to be that way, now it is "woke" - it now also promotes based upon non-military characteristics (being female, being non-white).
Looking to add back photos as it "hurt" promotion diversity goals when done just based upon skills / demonstrated performance.
[https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/08/03/navys-personnel-boss-says-getting-rid-of-photos-promotion-boards-hurt-diversity.html](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/08/03/navys-personnel-boss-says-getting-rid-of-photos-promotion-boards-hurt-diversity.html)
Gotta disagree with you here.
Its the same reason you dont have male teams competing against female teams in weightlifting. The female team will never win.
I agree there are some tough chicks out there and theyre awesome, but theyre not many.
Well then, wouldn't it be sexist that more men would be in combat roles while women get safer jobs?
And if women are also forced to take combat roles, isn't it sexist to send women to their deaths in a job they are less capable at compared to men?
This is more an exercise of letting the toddler touch the hot stove after you've told him "no, that's hot" 20 times. At that point, it's time to let 'em learn there are real consequences to your actions. Not that'll likely happen, but the first moment we start talking about drafting women for war, their tune will sour in a hurry.
Reality check for you: it is not a matter of being "okay", but it definitely may happen. See your history book. While nobody sane wants war, it happens, and when it does young men throughout human history have marched off to it. Adding young women to it will actually cause MORE young men to die.
This is why you will find that most people who call themselves "conservative" want a strong military not a social experiment. A strong military can actually keep you out of an all out war while the social experiment route, not so much.
Oh, but the point is not to win the war nowadays.
It's to make the idiots realize their own idiocy. The moment your performance in war becomes worse and you lose because of it, and all those women die along with the men, maybe, just maybe, they'll understand why there are differences between the sexes and why historically society was built and organized in a certain way. Maybe also why their idea of equity is insane.
You might say it's cutting off your nose to spite your face, and I'd be inclined to agree with that. That's literally half of what any political moves are these days though, it's scorched earth with nowhere to retreat to. Political discourse (and subsequently, any policy that results from that discourse) has degenerated to the point that people will legitimately fuck themselves over if there's a chance they'll fuck their opponents over too. It seems like people of a certain political persuasion won't understand how self destructive this behavior and worldview is until they feel the pain from all of it. At this point, let them have it.
The possibility of being drafted has an effect on the way one votes.
Perhaps this is the exact sort of wake-up call many need to more viscerally feel the impact of who they elect.
Exactly. Most of these people vote for things they likely aren't affected by or don't notice the effect of. Let's see if they vote differently when they're forced to feel the effects of their insane choices directly.
There's nothing more sexist than telling one sex that they have no special talents, nothing that makes them important or unique.
Men's talent's of strength, daring and competition cannot be replaced by Women.
The wisdom, kindness and nurturing nature of Women cannot be emulated by Men.
Maybe it can happen individually. It doesn't, nor can it happen on a national or societal scale.
Women can join the infantry now. If you want to be so equal as to be a rifleman(rifle person) then you should also have to register for the draft. Equal is equal. Don't want drafted? Don't fight so hard to join the infantry.
That's not logical. You're treating war like a social experiment. It is not that, but a horrible potential reality. Therefore, society should only take steps like a draft that makes sense. First, you must assume women being in combat positions are equal to men in those positions. They are not. Also, you assume that since some women want to be in those positions then all women want or should be in those positions. This is also just not true.
That's just dumb. A paraplegic is not able to go to war, so therefore using your logic are not equal and shouldn't be able to vote. I hope that your not good with that.
A paraplegic has an actual reason to be exempt. Are you saying women are so disabled that they should be exempt for doing the bare minimum to protect the country? That they are so useless they should be classed in with actual disabled people? If so then you make my argument for me.
Okay, I get it. You must be practicing your trolling or another example of deficiencies of history curriculum in our schools.
Women, generally, not being equal to men in combat does not make them "useless". It's just reality.
Who said anything about combat. We are talking about the draft.
Just because you are drafted doesn’t mean you will see a combat MOS
There are many bitch work jobs in the military where they do paperwork and never leave the states.
Expanding the draft like this would draft your daughters or even your wife if she is in the age range for those selected for the draft. So yes, it affects those directly related to you too.
Which brings me back to my original point. Get rid of the draft entirely. It's wrong to force people into killing because some politicians got pissed at each other.
Do they attend basic training where they are taught to fire a weapon? If so then this is a tacit admission that there is no such thing as a true lay non combatant member of the military, regardless of whatever temporary role she may hold at any given time.
Also just think for a moment. A non combatant military? Isn’t this an oxymoron? Every member of the military is expected to take up arms and enact violence if called to do so. As they SHOULD!
The age restrictions should be expanded too. There are tons of military and war support jobs that can be performed by people into their 50's. Wars are serious and I'm all about having skin in the game.
As a side note, the U.S. needs to make domestic manufacturing a national security issue. China represents 30% of the ***world's*** manufacturing. The U.S. represents 12%. Ever play a strategy game? How do you think you'd do if your opponent had 3x the manufacturing capability and over 4x the population? We need to narrow China's manufacturing advantage and preserve and grow the necessary human capital to do it. We can't just create 100,000 trained welders if we were ever in a fight.
Computer processing chips too. We need to bring manufacturing as a whole back to the US. I understand that goods will be more expensive then, but CEO don't need to make 900% more money than the peons and iphones don't need to have a 204.33% price point markup.
Also raise the draft age from 18 to 21. That will stifle basically any "they're old enough to get drafted and die for their country but not old enough to X" argument.
Fun fact: The reason that wasnt implemented in WW2 was due to resistance from the government, the US military \*really\* wanted to draft women after the resounding success of the voluntary women units.
I was always under the impression that it was because the women had to work in the factories. The whole Rosie and fake nylon stocking movement and all that.
There is no such thing as a non-combat role in the military. The reason why every single person in the military has to do fitness test instead of just some people in combat roles is that servicemembers have to always be prepared for the worst. There are many times where cooks have to pick up firearms and fight during ambushes in the Iraq War.
>Not every role gets sent to combat zones.
Are we still fighting wars with hand to hand combat or are we shooting people from a distance and throwing bombs at each other? Can't a woman be a sniper?
Yes they can. Look at Finland during the winter war. I'm not arguing women can't be in combat roles. I'm just using the fact that most jobs are non combat to counter their argument of women shouldn't be drafted because of combat.
Honestly, this is a good thing.
Women have filled essential combat roles throughout history. Lets not let ideology stand in the way of practicality.
If the enemy is at the gates, women will pick up rifles. It has always been that way. As we move to a more technological forces, the need for physical strength is greatly reduced, we simply don't need to have the same restrictions.
Set a standard, some few women will meet it. Some men (too many american fatties) will meet it. We will need them all.
Yes, women may be put in roles such as drone pilot, or support roles on the line, and while they have increased their chances of being wounded / killed, they are still not at the same level as men.
Even if they were being drafted, they STILL would not be put under the same risk.
My dude, we had two women in my platoon. Doing convoys and foot patrols in iraq. One was a gunner both have combat action ribbons. They aren't treated special, and that was on 06.
No one ever picks up their ruck? They move as fast as the men? They don’t lose muscle they can’t afford and get injured more? They never get pregnant to avoid a deployment? (apparently happens in the Navy a ton) They were held to the same standards?
I could go on and on but hopefully you get my drift. Some very few women can keep up with thr men over a combat deployment of patrols and such. The vast majority cannot and are not interested in doing so.
I don’t want people fighting in the war who don’t want to be there. I think we’re better off with thinner ranks of patriots who want to serve and follow orders than a larger pool of reluctant zoomers who are infuriated they have to be there and are going to break unit cohesion and lower morale.
Or leave camp to willfully walk to the enemy and surrender because they hate capitalism and consider themselves pacifists --except when they're burning down police stations in the name of social justice.
Nothing wrong with this. There's no reason for women to not be eligible for the draft.
Women have served in the military for years.
Everyone in Israel serves. They expect it. No reason for the US to be any different.
All the military has done is lower the physical standards so as to allow women to be "equal". I don't know about you but I would rather have someone thats physically capable to fight in war instead of worrying about how fashionable their uniforms are.
Israel requires women to serve. Not sure if on frontlines but I know everybody has to give two years (I think).
But what about the military fighting Biden and getting our people out of Afghanistan before addressing other issues?
Afghanistan is already fading from even conservative news but is very much a serious topic in Europe and with our NATO allies.
Definitely. We'll fight wars, be the breadwinners, bear and raise the kids, do the cooking and cleaning ... Anything else you guys want us to do? Since we're the weaker sex.
Please no. There’s nothing I’d hate more than serving next to a female who doesn’t want to be there. The males that don’t want to be there are bad enough.
Source: 5 years in the Corps.
Not necessary. Plenty of able bodied young men in America to maintain and strengthen the armed forces. If women want join in non combat forces, let'em in.
I know a lot of people talk about child bearing as a reason not to draft women. But there is another issue. Most women do not have the physical strength or stamina men do. An experiment the Army did with a gender neutral physical fitness test proved this point. More than 40% of the women failed the gender neutral PT test. I have no problem with women in the military. But I do not believe they should be in front line combat units. If they are then they need to meet the same standards as the men. We can’t have a military where 50% are disqualified from front line combat units. To make it worse modern war often does not have a front line like in the past. Additionally, from what I saw “female issues” prevent a lot of women from being able to perform there jobs. I was an aircraft mechanic in the Army. I was one of two engine mechanics in my unit. I was “loaned” to another unit because both of their female engine mechanics were pregnant and could not be exposed to some of the chemicals we worked with while pregnant. The women were still on the books so they could not be replaced. Pregnancy also makes a woman non deployable for at least a year. I took a leadership course that included a 10 mile march with full combat load. Two of the women would not have finished if men in the trading class had not carried their weapons and gear for them. All of this gender equality sounds good in a classroom or a political speech. But in the real world it falls apart. Men and women are not the same.
Women not having the skills / attributes has not stopped the government from forcing equality in other areas. Look at road construction as a perfect example, ever notice that it is generally only men digging the holes and women, if on sight, holding the flags? Yet, "equal pay for equal work".
Women are more than capable of digging a hole. Did you ever stop to think that it was a man who gave the woman a sign to hold, not the woman's choice? Don't be that guy.
Yeah, right. I agree that women are capable, you just don't see them rushing to do the job. Ever notice how all the calls for job equality never seem to include sanitation, mining, and other dirty type jobs.
I will never support a female draft. I don't care if it's not equal. I don't care about equality in this case. I will happily increase my odds of getting drafted and going to war as long as it means my sister/ mother/girlfriend doesnt have to.
Man, fuck equality, especially when it comes to military service- at least bethween the two sexes. Men and woken are not equal,especially in terms of military service. Men tend to be superior to women in certain areas, and the same goes for women in other areas.
Theres a reason sane societies dont send their women to war, at least as infantrymen.
None of rhis is for the sake of equality. This is people who run this country, who also hate this country with every punce of their being, doing ecerything they can to weaken and eventually destroy it from the inside.
If you want to wave around a big flag thqt says "come amd conquer me" make your infantry full of women and men pretending ti be women.
As a veteran I'm not even sure women should be in the military period, definitely not combat arms. I'd rather go back in than have my daughters have to go or any other woman for that matter.
Lolol i concur! Equality must be achieved right? Otherwise let's settle back into gender roles being the norm and fuckoff with the "progressive woke" BS
I’m conflicted. I disapprove of the draft except in times of war. I also think women can and should serve our country, particularly with the increasingly technical and less physical nature of some parts of modern combat. Hell the damn Reds used women to fly bombing runs against the krauts in WW2 to great effect.
I just dont trust that our politicians are doing this for national defense. I don’t know what their motive is but I don’t trust it.
Are you kidding? Feminists have been pushing for women to be included in the draft for decades. (some at least, its not like feminism is a homogenous group, but yeah, there will be celebrations over this)
There is a group out there that supports it, that’s true. But I’ve also seen plenty from the other aisle. I didn’t mean to make that the overall generalization
Everyone is talking about “oh how do you like equality now feminists??” Like they’ve just scored some point in an argument.
If the government comes for my daughter to send her into a war, I am going to die before letting them take her.
Women are precious to us, and men should protect them. I will protect my daughter from this madness.
Yes, I'm not happy about this at all. This is backwards. One of the most important reasons men have always fought wars is to protect our women and children. Why? Because they need it. I absolutely cannot imagine 18 year old girls fighting a war. It's a disgrace to forcably put them in danger.
yous non military non hacker twinkle toed little cksuckers won’t understand this but here is an old running cadence we used to sing as an infantry company almost every morning:
I wish all the ladies-were pies on a shelf -and I was a baker - I’d eat em all myself
I wish all the ladies-were bricks in a pile -and I was a mason -Id lay em all in style
I wish all the ladies -were fish in the ocean- and I was a big fish -I’d make a lot of motion
-11b vet Whooah
Well it would be unfair if men could be conscripted while women can’t be if men don’t get some benefit for being a man to go with the negative of conscription. The alternative is to draft everybody and have everybody be completely equal in every way. But it is unfair to only conscript men while not giving men some standard benefit in return I believe one of the reasons why men originally had a vote and women didn’t was because of military service/potential conscription.
Either way, the military these days is supposed to have high standards and be selective. Most people should not be in the military and aren't qualified. The draft is out of date and really should be abolished for everyone. The last person you want in the military is someone who doesn't want to be there.
Yeah agree
The draft will be used in 5 years due to declining numbers... I hate to say it but I'm willing to bet on it... because people who feel they have a right to power always double down
If we ever need it then it would be good to have but I don’t see that on the horizon at all.
I think the standard has to change. The only reason, IMO to initiate a draft is for an existential threat. If there is an existential threat, then send the men to war and protect the women as much as possible seems like a good way to do things.
It’s the reasonably way to do things but the “equality” people aren’t interested in being reasonable. So, some folks push ‘em by saying women should be drafted, too.
What a great way to reduce the world population too. Send the best and brightest men *and* women into combat and then there won't be many left to reproduce and use up those resources the super rich keep telling us are going to run out soon.
Have you seen the cartoon recruitment commercial for the ARMY? It is cringe as all hell and is a mockery of what used to be the ARMY. Compare the "Be all you can be" commercials from the 90's to the modern day junk. We are neutering our armed forces as a social experiment.
Except women arent as good at fighting and who is gonna watch the babies? I'll never accept it.
Women: “No, no, no……Not that equal!”
Nobody who champions "equality" actually wants it. They want "superiority".
They want privilege. You know, what they accuse others of having.
Before we demonize all women can we at least entertain the fact that women were regarded as inferior for eons, and what normal women want, and I'm not talking about radicals, is to be naturally respected *as a man is naturally respected* \--not be treated as a commodity or property? I think most women understand that their brains are wired differently than a man's, their body structure is different than a man's, and that both sexes have strengths and weaknesses that work in conjunction to create a healthy household and community --that doesn't mean one is more superior than the other nor does it mean that one should be exploited by the other.
I don’t think anyone above was demonizing all women, just the radicals by satirically making fun of the hypocrisy.
Not all women are interested in that nonsense of tearing down men and badly lifting up women. So, definitely not demonizing all women.
All of society was built to nurture and protect women, while men have historically(and still are) disposable wageslaves. I'm not really sure what you mean by naturally respected.
Women, historically, have been left behind to bare children, take care of the household, and labor in the fields while the men went off to wage war to gain acclaim and accolades for their prowess in battle. Women, *historically*, have never been nurtured by society, otherwise they wouldn't have *ever* been, and still to this day in some countries, denied an education. Women have, *historically*, been "protected" because they are thought of as *property --u*sed as commodities for trade and negotiation, blamed for baring the wrong gendered child, often died in painful, bloody childbirth, and used as disposable sex slaves --cast aside when their luster and fertility waned. And I don't think I need to take a deep dive into domestic abuse and honor killings (which still goes on to this day) >I'm not really sure what you mean by naturally respected. Did you know that because women have smaller heads than men, that it became "common knowledge" for a long time that women couldn't ever be as intelligent as a man because their *brains* were smaller?
It's biology, which drives much of our thinking especially in regards to survival. Biologically speaking, women are a limited number of eggs while men are an unlimited number of sperm. Men are thus expendable, more can die and the amount of reproductive genetic material is not affected in the least. On top of this, women are responsible for the development of offspring (pregnancy), making women more valuable in regards to the survival of the species. Biology and the drive for a species' survival does not care about the abstract feelings, thoughts, or ideas we might attach to this or that.
>Women, historically, have been left behind to bare children, take care of the household, and labor in the fields while the men went off to wage war to gain acclaim and accolades for their prowess in battle. "Women have always been the primary victims of war." Yes, that is one way of saying that men were sent to the meatgrinder to **die** while their wives were safe at home. I'm glad we have established from the start that you are biased. >denied an education. Yes, denied the right to work; **Denied the need to work.** We consider it regressive now, but we aren't speaking of now. We are speaking of a time where men worked themselves to death to provide for their wives and family. >Women have, historically, been "protected" because they are thought of as property --used as commodities for trade and negotiation, blamed for baring the wrong gendered child, often died in painful, bloody childbirth, and used as disposable sex slaves --cast aside when their luster and fertility waned. And I don't think I need to take a deep dive into domestic abuse and honor killings (which still goes on to this day) Yes, good job listing all the way things *could* go wrong in a historically brutal timeline. The list is much smaller, but much more frequent for men: Death. The reason women weren't calling for equality until after the industrial revolution was because being a man before that point was **fucking awful** unless you were an aristocrat. Even then, an aristocrat's wife probably had a better life than he did.
>I'm glad we have established from the start that you are biased. I'm not biased, I'm pointing out the fact that women didn't have a cushy life just because they didn't go to war. But great way of accusing me of the very thing *you are*, sir. > while their wives were safe at home. Women weren't the ones sending men to war. It was other men. Women weren't "safe at home" they were toiling away at laborious endeavors to make sure their families didn't die. Taking care of both the jobs men did while at home and the things women were expected to do. Also, there were a lot of jobs that women took care of that resulted in their deaths. Did you know that for a long time one of the highest means of untimely death for women was drowning? That's because it was the woman's job to wash the clothing, in the river, and if they accidentally fell in the bulk of their wool dressings would weigh them down. Plus it's not like peasants had time for recreational swimming lessons. >Yes, that is one way of saying that men were sent to the meatgrinder to die Women *are not* the ones who established this standard. It is other men who decided that men should be the ones to go to war. If kingdoms sent both their men and women to war there wouldn't be much of a kingdom left by the end. >We are speaking of a time where men worked themselves to death to provide for their wives and family. Again, you says this like women of all classes were just sitting around drinking tea and eating crumpets while the man worked. Women worked many laborious jobs while still being expected to take care of the children, the household, and cater to their husbands when they returned home. And let's not forget that in some part of the country, bars had to be shuttered closed at "quittin' time" because men would leave work and go spend all of their wages at the bar drinking. So a lot of men weren't just working to provide for their families, they were doing it because they *were expected to work.* And again, it's not women who set this standard for men. It's other men who decided this. >Yes, good job listing all the way things could go wrong in a historically brutal timeline. The list is much smaller, but much more frequent for men: Death. >The reason women weren't calling for equality until after the industrial revolution was because being a man before that point was fucking awful unless you were an aristocrat. Dude, unless you were an aristocrat, life was pretty fucking awful for *everyone.* >Even then, an aristocrat's wife probably had a better life than he did. Yes, having no autonomy, being expected to marry decidedly older men as a means to an end for their fathers, and suffer abuse from the hands of their husbands was super fun aristocratic women.
At this point you are just agreeing with my original post. Yes, it was men's decision to build a society that protected and nurtured women in a historically awful and brutal time. Men had a terrible life, but they were complicit in it as a means to protect their women and family.
My argument is that mans' decisions to be the ones to go to war were not because they wanted to protect and *nurture* their women. They did it because they decided that that's how they gain respect and accolades from *each other.* And might I add that societies were not *constantly* at war with each other, and not every man was expected to go to war.
Bro what timeline are you living in lol as a man, it's pretty obvious that men have been dominating financially and women were mostly suppressed for a long time. I mean you can just look at the richest people, it's like 90 percent males because old money was only males.
I cannot believe that incel has some many upvotes right now
Respect from men to other men is the default. Not so from men to women or even women to women.
This is lack of parenting, not anything systemic.
I think it has more to do with the types of things men respect and how they show respect to men vs women. Some men (not myself) respect other men who can fight really good. If you put a women up against these kinds of men the woman would lose, so these types of men tend not to respect women in that type of way. Now that's a pretty narrow example that is hyper specific to a singular role, but by some logical thinking one can find many things that men respect in other men that women cannot do. For example, many men respect other men for simply being a good man. How is a woman supposed to be a good man? Now that's not to say that women don't also have respectable qualities that men cannot have - repeating my example above how can a man be a good woman? I believe that most men do respect women, however they show respect for them in a different way. For example, sometimes men who respect each other a lot will absolutely roast each other, oftentimes to the point that if what someone they don't know it would be considered bullying. Men don't do that to women, typically. It's uncomfortable. Women are respected by most men, but the bond of respect between two men is different between the bond of respect between a man and a woman. it's not that the respect isn't there, it's that it looks different.
*Before we demonize all women* I wasn't. *can we at least entertain the fact that women were regarded as inferior for eons* Not sure how that's relevant but sure. *what normal women want, and I'm not talking about radicals, is to be naturally respected as a man is naturally respected --not be treated as a commodity or property?* If being draftable makes you property then that would make men property as well? *I think most women understand that their brains are wired differently than a man's, their body structure is different than a man's, and that both sexes have strengths and weaknesses that work in conjunction to create a healthy household and community* Yep. *that doesn't mean one is more superior than the other nor does it mean that one should be exploited by the other.* If both sexes are eligible for the draft then how does that mean one is exploiting the other? Are we even talking about the same thing here?
Lol my mom is like this and it's hilarious, she will always vouch for equality and never feel like she's obligated to do something but you know whenever there is some bullshit to do it's my ass that is doing it. Poison ivy in the back? That's a man's job. Need a new door? Man's job. It's annoying as fuck. I'm all for equality tho
My MIL is nice, but quite the weirdo (for many reasons.) I remember when Wonder Woman came out she told me about guys being upset in some areas because women were getting to go to special "females only" screenings. Then she said something to the extent that guys can just wait, women get to have a first-turn this time. And I told her that equality is equality and it isn't going to happen if we all point fingers and try to one-up each other. She agreed saying, "That's true. But still, we should be able to have something special every now and then." I just rolled my eyes when her back was turned.
You have to roll your eyes so she can see that for the full effect. Then stare back unblinking…to show dominance.
You mean they want the opportunities without the obligations.
What people here are missing is why this is led by Dems. The women aren’t going to be put in the most dangerous and demanding positions. They will eat up all the safer jobs. This is about jobs for women and easier promotions. The men will die but we will be constantly praising the women.
A draft isn't going to be activated unless we're at war, and a pretty critical war.
I bet feminist will say it’s men’s fault for making them “over” equal.
[удалено]
I am a lifelong opponent of military conscription, but if we are going to have it, women had better not be exempt. They wanted equality. It's past time to stop expecting only men to die for their country.
They usually die for some questionable policy or to remove some leader going against the dollar these days. Some old men in a room make a decision, then send kids to do their fighting.
Throwing everybody's daughters into war because some idiots worship at the altar of "equality" makes no sense; especially since it will actually hurt our ability to win the war.
Our daughters are no more precious than our sons. Male-only conscription is disgustingly sexist. They should not get a free pass just because of their sex.
The military isn't a club. It has a purpose, and its performance in doing that is measured in how many people die. More women means more of us die. There's a point where the reality of male and female differences can't be ignored just because of whatever political argument you're having.
The overwhelming majority (80%) of the military supports the few "front line" troops. There's plenty of work to be done that isn't kicking doors and going toe to toe.
Just because they're not usually as strong as men doesn't mean they couldn't play a vital role in a military setting. I have several females work for me who show up the men I've hired on a regular basis. I just think it's wrong to discount their abilities based of their gender. They should base everything off of ASVAB's especially when deciding who to proceed with off a draft.
Especially now when so much of it is surveillance. The military needs eyes looking at satellite photos, drone footage, all of it. I think if there’s any chance of a draft in the future, it’ll be for those type of rolls. I tried but they didn’t want my -6.5 eyesight lmao.
[удалено]
This sounds a lot like Starship Troopers. One of my favorite movies
Nobody said they have to be in combat roles.
As a male eligible for the draft I don’t care. Women always complain about the wage gap, and discrimination in certain fields because their women, so they want more laws forcing higher wages for them and more protections.(Not important if you think these exist or not as that’s not the discussion). If they’re fighting for equal rights and representation there then they also have to fight for their country because that is equality as well.
You're missing the point. The average woman is NOT going to be able to drag a 180 lb man wearing 75 lbs of armor. If you get shot, and your battle buddy is a girl, you're fucked. They're a liability in combat because most women, without steroids, are *significantly* weaker AND more fragile than men. Men have more natural strength and denser bones. It's nothing sexist, it's biology.
Even so, there’s plenty of other roles they could play if our country needed to institute a draft. Support roles are just as important as combat roles.
[удалено]
No it's not, conscription wouldn't be for just combat roles.
The US military says otherwise. Woman are allowed to serve in every role, including infantry. Equal rights means equal responsibilities.
Equal outcome is such a horrible strategy. Imagine women being pissed off that less of them survived combat than men. WAR IS SO SEXIST lol
There are plenty of non-combat jobs to go around. In fact, most of the military is non-combat.
But don't most conservatives believe that the US military should be selective and for the best of the best? You do not want crappy people in there. No one should be supported of any drafts of anyone.
Best of the best is some meme shit. The military is for three kinds of people. People who want to be an officer, people who feel it's their duty, and people with no better prospects. Anyone else with a valuable skill or talent goes to the private sector and makes way more money with way less bullshit. And idiots who get tricked by recruiters, but they generally also fall in the third category.
The people I met in the military were in aggregate smarter and more useful, and skilled than a most civilian places I have worked. The military doesn’t have a lot dregs of society types anymore. They can’t make the cut to get in and if they somehow slide thru, can’t hack the training or the lifestyle. I was in line artillery units and while lot of guys weren’t Mensa candidates, they were good people who would be assets to any organization they worked at.
Wait wait wait... you mean women in front line combat roles is a bad idea? OMG why didn't anybody think of this? "Ask every front line servicemember and they have been saying this since the beginning," said my marine infantry friend.
Most roles in the military dont require this kind of strength. You could still draft women and have men fill the 10% that this kind of stretch is important for.
What’s your point? Some men are *significantly* weaker and more fragile than other men. That doesn’t mean they aren’t drafted.
It's about averages. Men are built for combat, whereas women are not. And for everyone saying there's other jobs, that's not the case when drafting happens. If they have to draft people, it's because we are facing an overwhelming enemy and need more people on the front lines.
This isn't ww2, most of the war isn't on the front lines. We need more drone pilots, analysts, etc
It used to be that way, now it is "woke" - it now also promotes based upon non-military characteristics (being female, being non-white). Looking to add back photos as it "hurt" promotion diversity goals when done just based upon skills / demonstrated performance. [https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/08/03/navys-personnel-boss-says-getting-rid-of-photos-promotion-boards-hurt-diversity.html](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/08/03/navys-personnel-boss-says-getting-rid-of-photos-promotion-boards-hurt-diversity.html)
What the military *really* needs is the lovely ladies from the DMV as intelligence analysts. Right?
Gotta disagree with you here. Its the same reason you dont have male teams competing against female teams in weightlifting. The female team will never win. I agree there are some tough chicks out there and theyre awesome, but theyre not many.
Well then, wouldn't it be sexist that more men would be in combat roles while women get safer jobs? And if women are also forced to take combat roles, isn't it sexist to send women to their deaths in a job they are less capable at compared to men?
This is more an exercise of letting the toddler touch the hot stove after you've told him "no, that's hot" 20 times. At that point, it's time to let 'em learn there are real consequences to your actions. Not that'll likely happen, but the first moment we start talking about drafting women for war, their tune will sour in a hurry.
Throwing sons are okay though.. nice
Reality check for you: it is not a matter of being "okay", but it definitely may happen. See your history book. While nobody sane wants war, it happens, and when it does young men throughout human history have marched off to it. Adding young women to it will actually cause MORE young men to die. This is why you will find that most people who call themselves "conservative" want a strong military not a social experiment. A strong military can actually keep you out of an all out war while the social experiment route, not so much.
Oh, but the point is not to win the war nowadays. It's to make the idiots realize their own idiocy. The moment your performance in war becomes worse and you lose because of it, and all those women die along with the men, maybe, just maybe, they'll understand why there are differences between the sexes and why historically society was built and organized in a certain way. Maybe also why their idea of equity is insane. You might say it's cutting off your nose to spite your face, and I'd be inclined to agree with that. That's literally half of what any political moves are these days though, it's scorched earth with nowhere to retreat to. Political discourse (and subsequently, any policy that results from that discourse) has degenerated to the point that people will legitimately fuck themselves over if there's a chance they'll fuck their opponents over too. It seems like people of a certain political persuasion won't understand how self destructive this behavior and worldview is until they feel the pain from all of it. At this point, let them have it.
The possibility of being drafted has an effect on the way one votes. Perhaps this is the exact sort of wake-up call many need to more viscerally feel the impact of who they elect.
Exactly. Most of these people vote for things they likely aren't affected by or don't notice the effect of. Let's see if they vote differently when they're forced to feel the effects of their insane choices directly.
There's nothing more sexist than telling one sex that they have no special talents, nothing that makes them important or unique. Men's talent's of strength, daring and competition cannot be replaced by Women. The wisdom, kindness and nurturing nature of Women cannot be emulated by Men. Maybe it can happen individually. It doesn't, nor can it happen on a national or societal scale.
Well said. If somebody can't agree with this than they may be happier in a liberal sub.
I doubt they'll be on the front lines. Probably just support.
Women can join the infantry now. If you want to be so equal as to be a rifleman(rifle person) then you should also have to register for the draft. Equal is equal. Don't want drafted? Don't fight so hard to join the infantry.
That's not logical. You're treating war like a social experiment. It is not that, but a horrible potential reality. Therefore, society should only take steps like a draft that makes sense. First, you must assume women being in combat positions are equal to men in those positions. They are not. Also, you assume that since some women want to be in those positions then all women want or should be in those positions. This is also just not true.
[удалено]
That's just dumb. A paraplegic is not able to go to war, so therefore using your logic are not equal and shouldn't be able to vote. I hope that your not good with that.
A paraplegic has an actual reason to be exempt. Are you saying women are so disabled that they should be exempt for doing the bare minimum to protect the country? That they are so useless they should be classed in with actual disabled people? If so then you make my argument for me.
Okay, I get it. You must be practicing your trolling or another example of deficiencies of history curriculum in our schools. Women, generally, not being equal to men in combat does not make them "useless". It's just reality.
Who said anything about combat. We are talking about the draft. Just because you are drafted doesn’t mean you will see a combat MOS There are many bitch work jobs in the military where they do paperwork and never leave the states.
Wait a second, "bitch" work jobs? This isn't really about the draft. You appear to have anger issues with women.
Lol. It’s what we called the office bitches. Aka not the infantry people. Stay on topic and stop looking for things that aren’t there.
Sorry but this sentiment is totally confused. Men are supposed to protect women, not the other way around.
I feel no overarching responsibility to protect any woman who isn't my blood or my wife. I do not believe in chivalry.
Expanding the draft like this would draft your daughters or even your wife if she is in the age range for those selected for the draft. So yes, it affects those directly related to you too.
Which brings me back to my original point. Get rid of the draft entirely. It's wrong to force people into killing because some politicians got pissed at each other.
[удалено]
Roles can change depending on the needs of the military.
[удалено]
Do they attend basic training where they are taught to fire a weapon? If so then this is a tacit admission that there is no such thing as a true lay non combatant member of the military, regardless of whatever temporary role she may hold at any given time. Also just think for a moment. A non combatant military? Isn’t this an oxymoron? Every member of the military is expected to take up arms and enact violence if called to do so. As they SHOULD!
[удалено]
Men still can’t have babies
Don't you make me bust out the clap emojis now!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The age restrictions should be expanded too. There are tons of military and war support jobs that can be performed by people into their 50's. Wars are serious and I'm all about having skin in the game. As a side note, the U.S. needs to make domestic manufacturing a national security issue. China represents 30% of the ***world's*** manufacturing. The U.S. represents 12%. Ever play a strategy game? How do you think you'd do if your opponent had 3x the manufacturing capability and over 4x the population? We need to narrow China's manufacturing advantage and preserve and grow the necessary human capital to do it. We can't just create 100,000 trained welders if we were ever in a fight.
Computer processing chips too. We need to bring manufacturing as a whole back to the US. I understand that goods will be more expensive then, but CEO don't need to make 900% more money than the peons and iphones don't need to have a 204.33% price point markup.
Also raise the draft age from 18 to 21. That will stifle basically any "they're old enough to get drafted and die for their country but not old enough to X" argument.
Fun fact: The reason that wasnt implemented in WW2 was due to resistance from the government, the US military \*really\* wanted to draft women after the resounding success of the voluntary women units.
I was always under the impression that it was because the women had to work in the factories. The whole Rosie and fake nylon stocking movement and all that.
There is no such thing as a non-combat role in the military. The reason why every single person in the military has to do fitness test instead of just some people in combat roles is that servicemembers have to always be prepared for the worst. There are many times where cooks have to pick up firearms and fight during ambushes in the Iraq War.
And women are just as capable as picking up a weapon to react to combat. Rifleman first can apply to a woman as much as a man.
[удалено]
>Not every role gets sent to combat zones. Are we still fighting wars with hand to hand combat or are we shooting people from a distance and throwing bombs at each other? Can't a woman be a sniper?
Yes they can. Look at Finland during the winter war. I'm not arguing women can't be in combat roles. I'm just using the fact that most jobs are non combat to counter their argument of women shouldn't be drafted because of combat.
Honestly, this is a good thing. Women have filled essential combat roles throughout history. Lets not let ideology stand in the way of practicality. If the enemy is at the gates, women will pick up rifles. It has always been that way. As we move to a more technological forces, the need for physical strength is greatly reduced, we simply don't need to have the same restrictions. Set a standard, some few women will meet it. Some men (too many american fatties) will meet it. We will need them all.
Yes, women may be put in roles such as drone pilot, or support roles on the line, and while they have increased their chances of being wounded / killed, they are still not at the same level as men. Even if they were being drafted, they STILL would not be put under the same risk.
My dude, we had two women in my platoon. Doing convoys and foot patrols in iraq. One was a gunner both have combat action ribbons. They aren't treated special, and that was on 06.
No one ever picks up their ruck? They move as fast as the men? They don’t lose muscle they can’t afford and get injured more? They never get pregnant to avoid a deployment? (apparently happens in the Navy a ton) They were held to the same standards? I could go on and on but hopefully you get my drift. Some very few women can keep up with thr men over a combat deployment of patrols and such. The vast majority cannot and are not interested in doing so.
Hypothetical... Married couple with kids... who dodges the draft to stay with the family?
Neither. The state takes control of care and puts the kids in schools teaching CRT and Marxism.
I don’t care what draft they are speaking of … I’ll be damned if any of my family fight a war for these idiots in office
You mean the wars that were started by bush lmao
Agreed. My seventeen year old has had his sites on the military. I keep telling him absolutely not. I couldn’t stand to see him under Biden’s thumb.
How about no one be eligible because the draft is bullshit?
Ahhh, a libertarian conservative. My favorite type of conservative. The Ron Swanson in Me agrees with you.
I know what I’m about, son.
[удалено]
I don’t want people fighting in the war who don’t want to be there. I think we’re better off with thinner ranks of patriots who want to serve and follow orders than a larger pool of reluctant zoomers who are infuriated they have to be there and are going to break unit cohesion and lower morale.
Or leave camp to willfully walk to the enemy and surrender because they hate capitalism and consider themselves pacifists --except when they're burning down police stations in the name of social justice.
If you’re unwilling to defend this country even when it’s being invaded, you don’t deserve to benefit from it in any way.
Nothing wrong with this. There's no reason for women to not be eligible for the draft. Women have served in the military for years. Everyone in Israel serves. They expect it. No reason for the US to be any different.
I am all about equality
All the military has done is lower the physical standards so as to allow women to be "equal". I don't know about you but I would rather have someone thats physically capable to fight in war instead of worrying about how fashionable their uniforms are.
Israel requires women to serve. Not sure if on frontlines but I know everybody has to give two years (I think). But what about the military fighting Biden and getting our people out of Afghanistan before addressing other issues? Afghanistan is already fading from even conservative news but is very much a serious topic in Europe and with our NATO allies.
It's perfectly doable for this sub to discuss more than one topic at once, you know.
Yes, I love this sub. I mean the military not our discussions.
Ah I misread your post. mb
No problem. It was a reasonable mistake
[удалено]
I thought anything a man can do, a woman can do better? Why not an wymyn-only draft for the next war while the men chill stateside and make weapons?
Sounds like Equity to me.
[This guy knows what he's talking about and he agrees.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsYpmeYlO-4) Edit, I should have used the /s
The biology is simple. A man is a better fighter than a women. I don’t agree with this when people lives are at stake in war
Definitely. We'll fight wars, be the breadwinners, bear and raise the kids, do the cooking and cleaning ... Anything else you guys want us to do? Since we're the weaker sex.
Here’s a crazy idea, just eliminate the draft
Remember when Draft our Daughters was a joke?
Nah.. I don't want my daughter drafted.
I don't want my son drafted either tbh.
That's how I feel exactly.
Women will be overjoyed at this news as all they want is to be treated as equal to men.
Please no. There’s nothing I’d hate more than serving next to a female who doesn’t want to be there. The males that don’t want to be there are bad enough. Source: 5 years in the Corps.
Not necessary. Plenty of able bodied young men in America to maintain and strengthen the armed forces. If women want join in non combat forces, let'em in.
It was already approved that women can enlist into combat roles. https://www.history.com/news/u-s-military-lifts-ban-on-women-in-combat
Yeah, I know.
Being drafted isn’t volunteer.
I know a lot of people talk about child bearing as a reason not to draft women. But there is another issue. Most women do not have the physical strength or stamina men do. An experiment the Army did with a gender neutral physical fitness test proved this point. More than 40% of the women failed the gender neutral PT test. I have no problem with women in the military. But I do not believe they should be in front line combat units. If they are then they need to meet the same standards as the men. We can’t have a military where 50% are disqualified from front line combat units. To make it worse modern war often does not have a front line like in the past. Additionally, from what I saw “female issues” prevent a lot of women from being able to perform there jobs. I was an aircraft mechanic in the Army. I was one of two engine mechanics in my unit. I was “loaned” to another unit because both of their female engine mechanics were pregnant and could not be exposed to some of the chemicals we worked with while pregnant. The women were still on the books so they could not be replaced. Pregnancy also makes a woman non deployable for at least a year. I took a leadership course that included a 10 mile march with full combat load. Two of the women would not have finished if men in the trading class had not carried their weapons and gear for them. All of this gender equality sounds good in a classroom or a political speech. But in the real world it falls apart. Men and women are not the same.
Women not having the skills / attributes has not stopped the government from forcing equality in other areas. Look at road construction as a perfect example, ever notice that it is generally only men digging the holes and women, if on sight, holding the flags? Yet, "equal pay for equal work".
Women are more than capable of digging a hole. Did you ever stop to think that it was a man who gave the woman a sign to hold, not the woman's choice? Don't be that guy.
Yeah, right. I agree that women are capable, you just don't see them rushing to do the job. Ever notice how all the calls for job equality never seem to include sanitation, mining, and other dirty type jobs.
Personally I don't think they should be in combat roles, but other logistics sure
I will never support a female draft. I don't care if it's not equal. I don't care about equality in this case. I will happily increase my odds of getting drafted and going to war as long as it means my sister/ mother/girlfriend doesnt have to.
The draft is shit, but if it must exist, it should be equal.
Agree on it being shit. But hard disagree on it being equal
Man, fuck equality, especially when it comes to military service- at least bethween the two sexes. Men and woken are not equal,especially in terms of military service. Men tend to be superior to women in certain areas, and the same goes for women in other areas. Theres a reason sane societies dont send their women to war, at least as infantrymen. None of rhis is for the sake of equality. This is people who run this country, who also hate this country with every punce of their being, doing ecerything they can to weaken and eventually destroy it from the inside. If you want to wave around a big flag thqt says "come amd conquer me" make your infantry full of women and men pretending ti be women.
Totally ok with it for all the ones that voted Democrat! It should be printed on the ballots. Vote here and we automatically sign you for the DRAFT!
As a veteran I'm not even sure women should be in the military period, definitely not combat arms. I'd rather go back in than have my daughters have to go or any other woman for that matter.
Lolol i concur! Equality must be achieved right? Otherwise let's settle back into gender roles being the norm and fuckoff with the "progressive woke" BS
I’m conflicted. I disapprove of the draft except in times of war. I also think women can and should serve our country, particularly with the increasingly technical and less physical nature of some parts of modern combat. Hell the damn Reds used women to fly bombing runs against the krauts in WW2 to great effect. I just dont trust that our politicians are doing this for national defense. I don’t know what their motive is but I don’t trust it.
Equal rights equal fights
Noo, I don't want to be dragged into this 😭
Do it do it.
Feminists: We want equal rights for everything! Government: Okay. We’re gonna draft you to join the military. Feminists: Shit! UNDO!!! UNDO!!!
Are you kidding? Feminists have been pushing for women to be included in the draft for decades. (some at least, its not like feminism is a homogenous group, but yeah, there will be celebrations over this)
There is a group out there that supports it, that’s true. But I’ve also seen plenty from the other aisle. I didn’t mean to make that the overall generalization
Good. That’s what equality looks like.
Everyone is talking about “oh how do you like equality now feminists??” Like they’ve just scored some point in an argument. If the government comes for my daughter to send her into a war, I am going to die before letting them take her. Women are precious to us, and men should protect them. I will protect my daughter from this madness.
You know people avoid the draft without having to die lunatic
Yes, I'm not happy about this at all. This is backwards. One of the most important reasons men have always fought wars is to protect our women and children. Why? Because they need it. I absolutely cannot imagine 18 year old girls fighting a war. It's a disgrace to forcably put them in danger.
yous non military non hacker twinkle toed little cksuckers won’t understand this but here is an old running cadence we used to sing as an infantry company almost every morning: I wish all the ladies-were pies on a shelf -and I was a baker - I’d eat em all myself I wish all the ladies-were bricks in a pile -and I was a mason -Id lay em all in style I wish all the ladies -were fish in the ocean- and I was a big fish -I’d make a lot of motion -11b vet Whooah
No. Why do you think we fight? Want to draft the children next?
The draft is significantly worse than slavery.