TRP.RED: Home | Blogs - Forums.RED: ALL | TheRedPill | RedPillWomen | AskTRP | thankTRP | OffTopic
Hot New Old TopControversial
Login or Register
540
www.npr.org | 205 Comments | submitted 8 months ago by h0rkah [Post Locked]
[-] abdout77 197 Points 8 months ago

Yeah like anyone gives a shit. They are just going to hit us with that “but it’s misogyny” and proceed to say some completely stupid and illogical reasons why women shouldn’t go to war even if they are “equal” to us, but the beta males that govern us are going to take there words for it to not anger their cheating wifes.

[-] CainPrice 83 Points 8 months ago

Very few feminists argue that women shouldn't be required to register for selective service while men should. In fact, many feminists have argued for equality on this.

The mainstream feminist and liberal position on this circumvents the entire issue: They want to do away with the draft entirely. That way, no woman is ever drafted, but they can still argue that it's an equal system. That will be the next push - now that women can be drafted (even though it's unlikely that anybody of any sex will be drafted in this day and age), the push will be to do away with the draft. And it won't be a feminist or woman-centered push. It will just be a general push from the left about how forcing anybody to serve is bad, the draft isn't necessary since the military is well-staffed and the draft hasn't been needed in ages, and about how it's completely ineffective and illogical to force unwilling draftees to serve.

[-] SociopathicCamper 46 Points 8 months ago

Well, I mean, the draft is bad. No one wants it, not the military, not policy makers, and not the people.

[-] Onein1024th 48 Points 8 months ago

also, nobody wants a war big enough to require a draft.

Desperate times, desperate measures. that's the point

[-] SalporinRP 19 Points 8 months ago

Exactly. Realistically there are only two possible conflicts we'd need to implement a draft for: China and Russia.

And to be honest I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world where we're at open war with either of those countries. That means the world has gone to shit.

[-] party_dragon 3 Points 8 months ago

Battling nuclear powers with an army of soldiers doesn't make sense.

[-] Htowngetdown 5 Points 8 months ago

Sure it does. You just don’t use the nukes.

[-] good_guy_submitter 5 Points 8 months ago

If either country starts winning , just surrender? No, the losing gov will launch nukes instead of giving up power.

[-] NeoMedievalist 3 Points 8 months ago

I am not so sure about that. Agreements can be reached with elites before surrender.

[-] StellarMemez 2 Points 8 months ago

Not at all. If you lose the war, say you lose 40% of your population.

"NO, I wanna nuke em! I won't lose like this!"

Well you get nuked back and lose 80% of your population. Good job.

[-] good_guy_submitter 2 Points 8 months ago

The population is just cannon fodder. The bigger problem is nukes don't work well across wide spread out countries.

[-] Chaddeus_Rex 3 Points 8 months ago

Sure it does. Mop up duty and holding territory still requires soldiers.

Both the Russians and Americans wanted to do away with a standing army at different times, for the precise reason you mentioned - we already have nukes and rockets, what do we need an army for? Then they realised that logic was flawed if anyone survives the nukes.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] Toastlove -5 Point 8 months ago

I bet people thought the same during WW1 and 2 but they got though it.

[-] SalporinRP 13 Points 8 months ago

Well back in WW2 other countries didn't have the capacity to wipe us off the face of the earth with 2-3 missiles.

[-] Imperator_Red 6 Points 8 months ago

It's not good or bad. It's for emergencies where you have to call upon the manpower of the entire country.

[-] Proto_Sigma 12 Points 8 months ago

The only powers with militaries larger than our volunteers can handled are armed with nuclear weapons and a hot war with them would almost certainly result in the immediate annihilation of human civilization, which would make mobilizing an army pointless. The draft is not only immoral but obsolete.

[-] Mr_KenSpeckle 6 Points 8 months ago

However, if those opposing nuclear powers are well-equipped and well-manned with conventional forces, then they could take conventional military action and exploit our conventional unreadiness and then the question would be are we going to be the assholes to escalate with nukes over, say, the Baltic states or Taiwan? Even with nukes, conventional forces are not obsolete.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] Mr_KenSpeckle 2 Points 8 months ago

I'm not advocating for any particular foreign policy here. I am just noting a strategic dynamic. Having a doomsday weapon is largely meaningless against incremental encroachments. Some people were suggesting that having nukes obviated the need for a draft. I was just saying that's not the case. The merits or demerits of a particular deployment is another subject for another day.

[-] Proto_Sigma 2 Points 8 months ago

Conventional forces have their place. But we have over a million volunteers already. If a situation escalated beyond their ability to handle we’re fucked anyway.

[-] Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 1 Point 8 months ago

Million? Thats not a big number.

[-] Proto_Sigma 2 Points 8 months ago

1,356,929 million active duty personnel, the 3rd largest standing army in the world, with another 865,000 in reserve. Factoring in reservists it’s actually over two million.

I’m not saying it’s enough to fight a World War like the 1st or 2nd; the point is we will never fight a conventional war on that scale again because of nukes. Any large ground war would be either a skirmish between nuclear powers that by some miracle stays local and doesn’t escalate (unlikely) or between the US and a much weaker country, requiring and invasion force of maybe a few hundred thousand, tops.

[-] Imperator_Red 1 Point 8 months ago

It may be obsolete. It is not immoral.

[-] w8-a-sec 4 Points 8 months ago

But taxes are immoral amirite

[-] Proto_Sigma 0 Points 8 months ago

Taxation is theft. I know that TRP isn’t explicitly political and certainly doesn’t have an orthodox position on such matters, but taxes are absolutely immoral.

[-] Lazysaurus 3 Points 8 months ago

Then stay off the roads and sidewalks and don't use tap water or toilets.

[-] Philhelm 3 Points 8 months ago

I think that the argument can be better summed up as: involuntary relationships are less moral than voluntary relationships. It doesn't mean that there aren't things to be gained from involuntary relationships.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] frankzanzibar 1 Point 8 months ago

Exactly. The draft list needs to be compiled before an emergency so that we can move more quickly when we need to.

[-] yungassed 20 Points 8 months ago

The US military is actually desperate for people to enlist. They have a huge shortage of viable candidates. Its really only not a problem because we aren't in a world wide global conflict.

Think about it though (lets exclude potential female applicants for now) , 2/3 of the people of are overweight or obese, so you have to exclude them. Half the remaining 1/3 of the normal weight (not even necessarily fit, just not fat) people because of gender. That leaves 1/6 of the population. Now what percentage of them are even in the right age range of 18-35 since we have an aged society. Now minus any one with felony conviction or medical condition that will exclude them. And with the tiny fraction remaining, how many of them will have much better options than the military considering how shitty the pay is.

Did you know a big reason the NFL took such a strong stance on the Colin Kaepernick situation of him kneeling; because the department of defense has a large advertising budget to have the national anthem during games. Its their prime target audience to try recruit from and a protest during that time would fuck up their dwindling enlistment rates even more.

[-] SalporinRP 7 Points 8 months ago

Yeah now that poor people are obese/overweight at insane rates that takes away a lot of possible candidates that normally would have gone to the military.

[-] KiddoPortinari 3 Points 8 months ago

What is considered "viable" is very elastic, depending on necessity and scale of the conflict (war or not).

Plenty of people were rejected as unfit for service right before 9/11, then after 9/11 the military called them back with "hey we just created all these new loopholes in the rules if you still want to serve".

Same happened in Vietnam. If the need is perceived as great, they'll take anyone.

[-] Chaddeus_Rex 2 Points 8 months ago

2/3 of the people of are overweight or obese, so you have to exclude them. Half the remaining 1/3 of the normal weight (not even necessarily fit, just not fat) people because of gender. That leaves 1/6 of the population. Now what percentage of them are even in the right age range of 18-35 since we have an aged society. Now minus any one with felony conviction or medical condition that will exclude them. And with the tiny fraction remaining, how many of them will have much better options than the military considering how shitty the pay is.

This whole situation is easily solved tho - but it requires stepping on "democracy" a bit - enlist the fatasses, make them run, carry heavy shit and starve them and put them all in the same brigade and frequently humiliate them for being fatasses....voila you have skinny lean mofos out to kill.

Put the women in sniper battalions and tell them to stfu and no they can't leave. (The Russians did this during WW2 with great success).

Put felons into the army - I don't see the problem. Either have them in separate divisions that are "Penal Battalions" for severe crimes, or amongst normal people for non-severe crimes. They have the ability to wipe their record clean with acts of valour or 2 year service in dangerous areas.

People with medical conditions? If its not severe (i.e. eye glasses) either put them on the front lines or in HQ/Logistics.

Introduce conscription - then pay doesn't matter. Alternatively, use some of that R&D budget, to increase the salaries of soldiers so high that it becomes one of the best paid professions. Watch the sudden influx of qualified candidates.

[-] guy_24601 12 Points 8 months ago

Just like alimony its not a problem if it only impacts men.

I'd expect the right to want to see the draft ended to, so if the left wants to tear it down why not? who cares what the reasons are at that point.

[-] Bing_Bang_Bam 8 Points 8 months ago

I think if a woman initiates the divorce and doesn't allow the father to see the children, she should get zero child support and have to pay damages for pain and suffering to the father. (It hurts the child too especially in the long run.)

[-] guy_24601 13 Points 8 months ago

I dont care who initiates the divorce, decisions should be made on the best interests of the children. children are not proxies for revenge.

[-] Bing_Bang_Bam 8 Points 8 months ago

The best interest of the children is to remain with both parents. The person who breaks up the family just because she's hypergamous and bored sexually should not be rewarded.

[-] [deleted] 2 Points 8 months ago

[deleted]

[-] guy_24601 6 Points 8 months ago

/yes you can push logic far enough that you break it. its not an absolute where you just grab the nearest guy an pin a bill on him.

child support and alimony both need serious reform/modernization.

I'd start by including paternity verification as part of the process of getting a birth certificate. short of a good argument against it, sounds like a good idea to me. the amount of harm caused by wrongful paternity is unconscionable. What woman wants their son, brother, uncle, etc to go through that?

I wouldn't "force" the mother to consent, rather I'd say absent the paternity test, no man is legally considered the father.

If someone drops out of the workforce to raise a child thats one thing, but absent that, I dont see why a guy should get alimony for playing World of Warcraft all day for years.

[-] trueliberal1 1 Point 8 months ago

Just like alimony its not a problem if it only impacts men.

There is an exception to this rule. If it affects rich men or their sons, then it is still a problem and requires a solution. That solution is the national guard. Sons of rich men get to stay in the U.S. getting a paycheck for a cushy job while everyone else's sons get shipped off to the meat grinder.

[-] NohoTwoPointOh 3 Points 8 months ago

The Americans were damn close in the 2nd Iraq Police Action. The discussions were already happening as contingency if the Surge failed.

​

[-] _Anarchon_ 3 Points 8 months ago

I remember they had raised the age for entering service to 42. That's kinda old to be going to basic training.

[-] Imperator_Red 1 Point 8 months ago

No, we weren't close at all. I don't know who was discussing what, but there was zero chance a draft would have passed Congress.

[-] NohoTwoPointOh 1 Point 8 months ago

"No, we weren't close at all."

You sure about that?

I don't know who was discussing what,

Then I will cheerfully share another. Make sure to read to the bottom. Ol' Chuckles Rangel isn't exactly the picture of right-wing hawkdom.

IIRC, the enlistment age was raised to 42 for the US Army. Compared to the usual high-speed, low-drag youngsters zipping around the sandbox, a 42 year-old combat soldier is a fucking mummy.

but there was zero chance a draft would have passed Congress.

In a properly functioning America? Perhaps. In the 10+ blood-drunk years that followed 9/11? The President could have lawyered and executive ordered the mass murder of gingers and Portandians if they so wanted. The 2nd Iraq War gave America secret torture prisons, growing armies of off-the-books mercenaries, assassination attempts on heads of state, and the wiretapping of citizens under Messrs Bush and Obama, respectively. Not to mention, the greatest growth bloat of the Yank Federal Gub'mint in decades.

All this without ever having to officially declare war.

The cherries on top? US laws already allow for selective service and emergency powers. All the American President had to do was wave a magic wand to bypass congress. I was living in America during this time period. The Overton Window of unconstitutionality was sliding REAL fast.

[-] DeliciousPerformer 1 Point 8 months ago

It doesn’t really matter because when the shit will hit the fan, all that BS will go away.... or it won’t and it will be the end for the western civilization.

[-] Aggressive_Beta 1 Point 8 months ago

Feminists aren’t opposed to having women register and/or abolish the draft entirely. You just don’t see them voting for any politicians who say they’ll do either of those things. They’d rather vote for politicians who will promise to give them free shit

[-] vandaalen 44 Points 8 months ago

Why the fuck would you even want a woman besides you if you had to go to war?

[-] Imperator_Red 56 Points 8 months ago

You wouldn't.

Source: 90% of men in the military.

[-] iampattym 12 Points 8 months ago

I'm sure there are many outlier women who would be just as good as a man on the front line, there are plenty of buff and strong women who i'd easily pick to have fight next to me over a lot of my beta friends. These women tend to self select and are the ones who go to the military, there's issues of "equity" within the military (and other essential services) that will bump undeserving women up and that needs to be changed but I won't discount someone based on the fact that they're a woman.

BUT, the draft is a whole new problem. I wouldn't trust the average man to be physically fit enough to be of any real use on the front lines, how am I supposed to trust a woman with an average height at half a foot shorter, less capability to put on muscle and weaker cardio on average.

[-] iamthelogos 8 Points 8 months ago

The figure I've heard is that 4% of women can meet the male standard of fitness to be a front line combat soldier. So 1 in 25 randomly drafted women would be eligible for front line duty. The military needs people during war time - so as long as the other women weren't a net detriment, they'd put the rest in support/admin roles.

[-] iampattym 2 Points 8 months ago

Yea which now that I think about it wouldn’t be too bad. Probably 30-40% of men could go from where they are now to Combat Ready within the span of a few months, I don’t see (most) women being able to do the same.

Admin positions as well as support on bases and medical staff and intelligence could certainly be filled by the 60-70% of males and 96% of females.

If the US really went to a war so serious they enact the draft they would certainly need all hands on deck.

[-] iamthelogos 2 Points 8 months ago

There's some interesting conversation around IQ here too. Apparently people of a certain IQ or lower (I can't remember exactly but I think around 80) are actually a burden to the point that it's a net negative for them to be involved in the military. So even the US military, which would want "all hands on deck" has figured out that there's a line.

I think 96% is too generous. Once you factor in that of those 4%, many don't have the stamina (both mental and physical) necessary to be able to be a soldier day in day out and the fact that Female in group and male out group biases would cause soldiers to act irrationally to save the woman (because she's a woman) and cause sexual competition between the men, then having women in front-line combat units just doesn't really make sense. Maybe 1-2% max could add to a combat unit in a positive way from the front lines. Women aren't as easily replaceable as men, from an evolutionary biology standpoint, and nature (as well as human nature) knows that. Human nature is incredibly hard to change, if you'd even want to for risk of fucking the whole thing up.

[-] thewrecker8 4 Points 8 months ago

I don't care how buff or "alpha" a woman is. They simply lack the physical strength of males. Many soldiers are wearing over 50lbs of gear into battle. Figure an average weight of an adult male at 170 lbs. If you have a fit woman what is her body weight going to be? 120 lbs? If she needs to haul ass dragging or carrying a wounded soldier. How easy of a time is she going to have with someone weighing almost double her weight while she's loaded down with over 50 lbs of gear on?

[-] Chaddeus_Rex 1 Point 8 months ago

I wouldn't trust the average man to be physically fit enough to be of any real use on the front lines

Its an easy solution - anybody too weak can be made to carry heavy shit and run a lot and humiliated if they aren't...suddenly they become big fast and stop being beta...or die...the problem is solved either way.

[-] thirstybitch13 3 Points 8 months ago

To shoot my load in between shooting my gun?

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] Philhelm 0 Points 8 months ago

I wouldn't want my food to get burnt.

[-] GeneraIKenoA 1 Point 8 months ago

Is women being bad at cooking a new stereotype? Do you believe women are useful for literally anything?

[-] Philhelm 2 Points 8 months ago

It's more a matter of many women not knowing how to cook, and refusing to learn, as a point of pride due to misguided feminism. No man ever proudly states that he can't cook, since it's a part of being an adult.

[-] Chaddeus_Rex 2 Points 8 months ago

Eh, the Russians had women working as snipers and as spies behind enemy lines. Women were integrated into Spetsnaz units whose sole purpose was to infiltrate behind enemy lines and deliver women into cities to spy and deliver intel. The logic was that it would be strange to suddenly start groups of large, strong men in cities during wartime, but a group of women would not raise any suspicion.

Also, Russian women were taught the art of love by the KGB to act as "Juliet spies" to sleep with enemy officers and gather information and act as saboteurs.

I don't think American women would be up to the task though.

[-] SalporinRP 2 Points 8 months ago

Of course not in combat but there are so many non-combat related roles in the military that could be filled by women.

[-] vandaalen 6 Points 8 months ago

I would not want a woman in any role in the military. Besides maybe the company whores.

[-] SalporinRP 1 Point 8 months ago

There are tons of desk jobs

[-] DownyGall 2 Points 8 months ago

I'm thinking more cook jobs.

[-] throwaway-aa2 1 Point 8 months ago

You wouldn't, but that's not the point. You basically have three groups of people: people that believe women are "mostly" equal to men, people that actually believe women are equal to men, and people that don't.

Group 2 is stupid, so let's just ignore them.

Group 3 wants women in war, because they believe they have privilege in normal life to be on a man's level. We're essentially at the point where they want all the power, all the benefits, with no sacrifice. So the current mens rights movement, is to force them into positions of sacrifice and penalty that a man would get, as it's very clear they could never fully take on those sacrifices and penalties... and once we put them in this position, they'll be forced to admit that in a sense, and then hopefully we can wrestle back power.

Group 1 is mostly fine, we just need to keep them in check by demonstrating the above, so that they don't move to group 2, and start actively shaming / denigrating group 2. Right now you have group 1 which is very silent and let's group 2 run shit.

[-] vandaalen 2 Points 8 months ago

and once we put them in this position, they'll be forced to admit that in a sense, and then hopefully we can wrestle back power.

My sides are in fucking orbit. Repeat after me: Women aren't capable of logic.

[-] throwaway-aa2 1 Point 8 months ago

sure but that's not what I mean. When you attempt to make things equal, they'll either not be productive at it, or find ways of shirking responsibility, which then makes it easier to disprove further arguments of equality.

That being said, I think someone here had a good explanation for why this wouldn't work: most will try to get pregnant, and the ones that do go to war, will just be away from the war zones, and then they'll act like this is equality anyway.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] AlexDr0ps 1 Point 8 months ago

Is this satirical? I honestly can't tell anymore

[-] MattyAnon 165 Points 8 months ago

Drafting women is pointless:

Government: you're drafted girlie

Girl: woops, I'm pregnant

[-] Zabaoth 30 Points 8 months ago

If I remember correctly, the last time heavy drafting around first world powers was WW2. That ended with so many fatherless children, that women were forced to join the workforce (out of necessity, not because they wanted equality or wanted to find a mate). Fast forward 70 years. Women have more rights than men. So I don't really mind if they send a couple units as cannon fodder every day, as long as someone in the household has to go. Because creating orphans is counterproductive. So if the female member of the family wants to be the one drafted per household, more power to them. That's true equal rights. I strongly suspect that will not happen, and the list will be largely male, so when they're asked to back their words with action to achieve true equality, they just bury their heads in the sand.

[-] HumanSockPuppet 38 Points 8 months ago

So if the female member of the family wants to be the one drafted per household, more power to them. That's true equal rights.

Women are oversized children.

They want to play soldier, not BE soldiers.

[-] good_guy_submitter 21 Points 8 months ago

Men come back from war damaged and broken. Men can't handle it, women definitely can't handle it.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] scissor_me_timbers00 6 Points 8 months ago

There’s a few butches out there who really do want to be soldiers. But their inferior physiology renders them a liability no matter how real their intentions.

America is quickly becoming devoid of its adults in the room to tell these children no. China is touching itself to this whole retarded spectacle in the west.

[-] Zabaoth 3 Points 8 months ago

I know, so we treat them just like children.

"There're your uniforms and rifles, please don't bejewel them. You point them at the enemy and if you point them right, they die." Tomorrow you'll be on the frontlines of our assault. Make the country proud".

They want something that's bad for them, so the better solution is to let them fuck up, and learn from their mistakes. Since the most hardcore feminists will be the voluntary draftees, we also remove the root of the problem.

[-] HumanSockPuppet 6 Points 8 months ago

This isn't the same thing as letting your child eat baker's cocoa to teach them the value of your advice.

You don't let women fight on the front lines for two reasons:

  1. A person learns nothing in death.
  2. Losing the battle jeopardizes your own safety and/or objectives.

Given all the circumstances in our society at present, the correct course of action here is to let women into the military, hand them their uniform and a colouring book, and tell them that their mission to stay inside the lines is critical to the war effort.

[-] MattyAnon 4 Points 8 months ago

That ended with so many fatherless children, that women were forced to join the workforce

Women joined the workforce because there were no men left to build the weapons or keep society running with the basics of food and shelter.

So if the female member of the family wants to be the one drafted per household, more power to them. That's true equal rights.

If we've learned one thing in 100 years of feminism is that equal rights is the last thing they want. They want special treatment all the way. That's why it's taken 100 years. If they wanted across the board equality they could get that in one go in one law. "All men and women to be treated equally". The reason it's taken so long is they want equality in specific areas while maintaining special privilege in others, so it has to be very carefully managed only in specific areas. For example demands of wage equality while talking nothing of workplace death equality, parental right equality, "staying at home and doing fuck all" equality, etc.

I strongly suspect that will not happen, and the list will be largely male

This list will always be 100% male. Women can opt out at any time and society will allow it.

so when they're asked to back their words with action to achieve true equality, they just bury their heads in the sand.

Because true equality is not what they want. That's not their end goal. "Equality" is a convenient lie to get more for doing less in areas where women have underperformed. It's ignored in areas where women have the most privilege, using words like "that's just biology".

I wish more people understood that "equality" is a shit test, not a genuine desire.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] Chaddeus_Rex 2 Points 8 months ago

creating orphans is counterproductive In this society, yes. In general, no. A government that teaches people the correct values, and that raises children in a group of their peers, is superior to retarded parents (most parents are stupid and are incapable of teaching their children anything because they themselves do not know anything).

I strongly suspect that will not happen, and the list will be largely male, so when they're asked to back their words with action to achieve true equality, they just bury their heads in the sand.

that's why women should be offered a choice - either serve (pregnancy notwithstanding - give birth in a military hospital and then back to the front as soon as you can stand. the child then gets raised by the military) or lose the ability to vote for her and all her children born after military service.

[-] DownyGall 2 Points 8 months ago

And after the war most went back to their roles at home.

[-] RiskyRewarder -9 Point 8 months ago

Uhhhhh, you've never heard of the Vietnam war? ????

[-] [deleted] 5 Points 8 months ago

[deleted]

[-] xachariah 6 Points 8 months ago

WW2 was 66% draftees in theater vs Vietnam with 25% draftees in theater.

  • 11.5 million draftees in WW2 between 1941 and 1945.
  • 1.7 million draftees in Vietnam between 1965 and 1973.

WW2 had far more draftees as both a percentage and absolute number compared to Vietnam.

[-] RiskyRewarder 1 Point 8 months ago

Draftees represented over 30% of deaths

[-] bonusfruit 4 Points 8 months ago

At least the birthrates will improve

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] KlubTHEMinecarttrapb -8 Point 8 months ago

any woman that is pregnant should be drafted and their children put into a government program that trains their kids to be super soldiers. red pill af

[-] good_guy_submitter 10 Points 8 months ago

The government is your enemy. That is the red pill.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] MattyAnon 1 Point 8 months ago

You can take that view all you like, but the government will not.

[-] CainPrice 47 Points 8 months ago

The draft hasn't been used in forever. Once the economy got bad, the military became a place for a few really great guys who felt the calling, and a whole lot of losers who failed at life and couldn't find jobs. Then, the military had more than enough people and hasn't had to draft anybody ever since. Making women register for selective service is a good show on paper that won't change anything in the real world.

The same number of women will serve as usual. Some do just fine. Statistics show that women are more accurate with many types of firearms than men on the average (granted that's often because women take fewer shots). Some will be fuck-up leeches, like always. Back when getting deployed in the Middle East was a serious concern, the Navy saw a huge epidemic of women getting knocked up and given a cush stateside job (not to mention good health coverage) because they can't send pregnant women into a third world combat zone.

[-] UEMcGill 57 Points 8 months ago

I have a relative who did a few years in the Navy. Upon going to visit him and tour his carrier we had to go by base security and get cleared.

"This is where all the chicks go that get knocked up to avoid shipping out."

The entire front office was prego sailors.

I have both sons and a daughter, and I'm all for all of them having to sign up for the draft. But make no mistake, women will never have the same roles in the military as men. They are incapable of it and that front office showed me exactly what I'd expect to see if the shit really hit the fan and the world needed unfucking.

[-] CainPrice 25 Points 8 months ago

That was part of the reason many people (both conservative people and pro-woman advocates) were against women being drafted. It would just result in a bunch of women who did the military route for food, a paycheck, and healthcare without actually wanting to serve feeling forced to get pregnant to avoid actually serving.

[-] UEMcGill 36 Points 8 months ago

Right? Cause women have never been known to enter into an obligation to ensure a steady provider. Doesn't sound like them at all.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] SickOfIt518 12 Points 8 months ago

6 years served, can confirm.

[-] motivatedstogs 18 Points 8 months ago

I can say from personal experience, we wear uniforms on certain occasions where the medal of how well you shot is worn. Almost all men wear expert, the best medal one can get, with a few in between who shot sharpshooter, the second best. It’s rare to see a women shoot expert, you see more sharpshooters and marksmans (the worst medal) aka pizza box. I know women in platoons where the average expert number was 2-3 out of around 70-80. The rest were marksman or sharpshooter.

[-] chadwickofwv 7 Points 8 months ago

Yea, because the 70's was obviously hundreds of years ago...

Wake the fuck up dumbass. Many of the same people who sent our fathers and grandfathers to war are still in power, and the newer ones are just as bloodthirsty as the ones before them. Your argument is to simply ignore reality.

[-] Imperator_Red 6 Points 8 months ago

Statistics show that women are more accurate with many types of firearms than men on the average (granted that's often because women take fewer shots).

Bahaha no. Gonna need a source on that.

[-] Dokkobro 3 Points 8 months ago

Both of my grandfathers were drafted. half a century ago. that's really not that long of a time.

Statistics show that women are better at short range shooting than men. This has something to do with the evolutionary development of their eyes, I believe. Men still excel at further ranges.

You can look up records of expert marksmanship in rifle and pistol. That's just basically incorrect.

[-] Philhelm 0 Points 8 months ago

Perhaps counterintuitively, marksmanship is a very small part of soldiering.

[-] Dokkobro 1 Point 8 months ago

For women and mechanics and the military as a whole, sure.

[-] Philhelm 0 Points 8 months ago

I'd throw in infantry and other combat arms since they will spend relatively little time actually firing their weapons, and because of the group based nature of their combat role (suppressive fire, for an example). Marksmanship is more important for a bona fide sniper.

[-] Dokkobro 0 Points 8 months ago

You realize combat is predominately focused on maneuvering small arms elements into strategic places. They have to be able to hit what they are shooting at to be effective.

Look at what the Marine Corps did in Fallujah. They reported insane numbers of headshots. The entire USMC is dedicated to every Marine being an infantryman.

Are you talking about MILITARIES in general or the US military?

edit: expert marksman doesn't even mean sniper... idk wtf you're talking about.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Marines\_in\_Iraq\_taking\_headshots\_on\_BGandapos\_s\_with\_Acogs\_\_\_Media\_and\_Iraqis\_thought\_it\_was\_assasinations\_/5-969067/

read that\^ forum.

I shoot long range and I can assure you, what the public calls "Sniping" and what we associate with a potshot are two completely different things, so I'm curious where you're coming from with this perspective that military marksmanship is obsolete or whatever.

[-] Philhelm 0 Points 8 months ago

I did say this was counterintuitive and I anticipated it being contentious, so I'll try again.

I never argued that marksmanship was obsolete. I argued that "marksmanhip is a very small part of soldiering," and subsequently included even infantry within that assessment. Focusing on infantry soldiers alone, very little of their time is used actually firing weapons in combat. In other words, shooting isn't all that an infantryman does, even if it is an important part. They will also need to have discipline, be tactically and technically proficient, be able to utilize radio communication, administer first-aid, maintain equipment, etc. The broader point is that an accurate marksman doesn't necessarily make for a good soldier; therefore, taking for granted that women might be more or less accurate at certain ranges does not account for the 90% of other capabilities a soldier will need to possess.

My previous mention of "marksmanship" was colloquial, and wasn't a reference to the Marksman/Sharpshooter/Expert ratings. My point about the sniper was that accuracy is a much more important part in that role than it is for an infantryman (for an obvious reason).

[-] Dokkobro 0 Points 8 months ago

Okay so now we are talking about the daily activities of servicemen instead of marksmanship. Cool.

Way to come into a conversation and talk about something completely different while being vague af.

Obviously combat isn't > 50% of the time spent in combat zones. Humans sleep. Good job pointing out the military has radios and medics.

It's not even counter intuitive to state those things. It's just you being pedantic and acting like you know shit.

All I was saying is the draft wasn't that long ago and women do in fact shoot better on average at shorter ranges. In all honesty, I should have stated that and added *without military training*. Once you train men, I believe they excel because of the logical nature of our minds. Women just see things differently at shorter ranges. I don't have any articles to pull up to prove this.

[-] Philhelm 0 Points 8 months ago

No, we're talking about women potentially being conscripted into military service and why female marksmanship ultimately doesn't matter one way or the other.

[-] Dokkobro 1 Point 8 months ago

Statistics show that women are more accurate with many types of firearms than men on the average (granted that's often because women take fewer shots).

hmm............... it's almost like.... I can see into the past.

I'm done here. Talk to yourself.

[-] Chaddeus_Rex 1 Point 8 months ago

because they can't send pregnant women into a third world combat zone.

No but they can be sent to a military hospital to give birth and then back to the front line while the State 'holds on' to her kid in the meantime.

One just needs a bit of imagination to solve these problems...and not be a pussy.

[-] elgodo7 43 Points 8 months ago

Women hold men back in war. You won't want a women in your team especially if she is not their by choice. I remember some podcast on Joe Rogan guy said female units or mixed units always perform worse and slower then only men.

[-] WaspOnAWall 43 Points 8 months ago

This is pointless because :

1-Women can and will avoid it by getting pregnant (there was a epidemic of pregnancies among enlisted women when the US went to war).

2-Drafted women will be sent to safe posts like comms, meaning there would still be an unequal exposure to danger.

3-Even if they were sent to frontline units, they would mostly underperform and weight down their team. It was shown for instance that women in combat positions typically ended up protected by the guys at their own expense, and the guys would also end up carrying her gear.

4-A draft is so unlikely that this ruling is meaningless.

5-This ruling gives the appearance of removing an unequality in favor of men (for once) but as outlined above, it's an empty gesture, so in practice it will just prevent guys from raising that point during debates about equality.


So in conclusion, men will still account for most of war deaths, but now the women will be able to pretend that they have it just as hard as the guys.

[-] Ramp_Up_Then_Dump 4 Points 8 months ago

I want to add 1. If usa needs it again, it will come back like it was always there. Removing draft will be "cosmetic" change.

[-] throwaway-aa2 4 Points 8 months ago

lol. You made me change my mind about this... very good points.

[-] Chaddeus_Rex 2 Points 8 months ago

Women can and will avoid it by getting pregnant (there was a epidemic of pregnancies among enlisted women when the US went to war).

Easily solved tho - any woman who gives birth during wartime, will be sent back to service as soon as she can stand and the baby will be requisitioned by the State so that it will have a new generation of soldiers. This would easily dissuade women from getting pregnant.

[-] W66L 2 Points 8 months ago

You really made a lot of good points but regardless it helps shine light on this bullshit feminist push

[-] warlordchad 27 Points 8 months ago

I’m actually more interested in the reaction. In actuality this probably doesn’t matter, but it brings up the whole gender issue for public discussion.

[-] JeremyHall 18 Points 8 months ago

The draft isn’t Constitutional either. How can one be coerced by force to become property of the government to be disposed of as they deem fit or necessary?

Sounds like slavery with extra steps and slightly better pay.

[-] Imperator_Red 10 Points 8 months ago

Yes, it is. Congress is given the power to raise and maintain an army and navy in the constitution. This is understood to include the power of conscription. It's not explicitly mentioned because it was so obvious to everyone at the time that it was not necessary. Every man was required to serve in the militia and it was common sense that the state could compel men to defend the nations that they lived in.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] Imperator_Red 2 Points 8 months ago

Lol did you get that from Mel Gibson's the Patriot...? I'd think twice about getting your history from good 'ol Mel, though he does make entertaining movies.

[-] JeremyHall 1 Point 8 months ago

Authority to raise and maintain does not mean that they can do so without consent of the governed. People are not property.

[-] Imperator_Red 3 Points 8 months ago

without consent of the governed.

Yea the draft is a law passed by congress, so the governed have consented. Move on to next libertarian buzz word.

[-] KV-n -1 Point 8 months ago

By this logic jews consented to be gassed

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] MercyYouMercyMe 0 Points 8 months ago

NAZIS HITLER JEWS.

Last time I checked Juden couldn't vote you god damn retard .

[-] KV-n 1 Point 8 months ago

they still could when hitler won the election

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 16 Points 8 months ago

Texas: Equality, you say? Y’all have fun with that!

[-] autoeroticassfxation 15 Points 8 months ago

If women get drafted to combat roles too, you'll never go to war again. Because people actually give a shit about women. This is the solution to world peace.

[-] Kpwn88 13 Points 8 months ago

All a woman has to do to get out if it is cry to a shrink. Anytime a woman claim she wants things fair and equal, she will already have a loophole to get around it.

Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior.

  • Socrates
[-] DownyGall 11 Points 8 months ago

I'd rather a male-only military and not equality bullshit, but if we're gonna play at equality, women better register for the draft.

[-] slayer-booty 10 Points 8 months ago

It's inhumane to send women to war. Take away their rights instead and revert to the times before women could vote.

[-] throwaway-aa2 1 Point 8 months ago

yeah.... not going to happen my friend, at least not in our lifetimes.

[-] slayer-booty 1 Point 8 months ago

To the front lines it is then...

[-] TheAC997 9 Points 8 months ago

It's kind of weird how the voting age got lowered to 18 for men and women, because 18-year-old guys can be drafted.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] Radioactivebuny 7 Points 8 months ago

Real empowerment is demolishing a house with a Mk19

[-] EosMermaidGoddess 5 Points 8 months ago

Shit like this terrifies me. I (23F) dont fucking want to be "equal" to men. Were different and thats ok. I want to be safe at home with children- not dead in the first five minutes of combat because I have 0 chance against a bunch of strong men lol.

I hate feminism so much. This shit has gone too far.

[-] [deleted] 8 Points 8 months ago

LOL reap what you sow ladies!!!!

[-] throwaway-aa2 2 Points 8 months ago

I mean this is sort of dumb. Not all of them sowed it. Feminism is for the most part, 1 out of every 100 girls actually pushing that shit forward. 5 out of 100 actually disagree, and the rest sort of passively agree with it, only just because they're women and are shamed by other women into going along with it (e.g. this is how you should feel and act, etc etc)

[-] EosMermaidGoddess 1 Point 8 months ago

Yeah exactly. Id be willing to give up the right to vote as a woman if it means my daughter not being on the draft. My partner shares my political leanings and he's competent so I trust his judgement to make a good choice that represents the household.

[-] EosMermaidGoddess 1 Point 8 months ago

Not all of us are feminists... I didnt sow anything lol. Id gladly give up the right to vote as a woman if it means my daughter not being on the draft. My partner shares my political leanings and he's competent so I trust his judgement to make a good choice that represents the household.

[-] [deleted] 2 Points 8 months ago

wow not many of you out there.....good for you.

my statement is not meant to you

[-] EosMermaidGoddess 1 Point 8 months ago

unfortunately the feminists have the loud speaker and they think they speak for us all. a lot of us are just silent because we dont have better things to do than argue with irrational crazy drones.

[-] AutoModerator 4 Points 8 months ago

Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.

Register on our backup site: https://www.trp.red and reserve your reddit name today.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-] RiskyRewarder 4 Points 8 months ago

Only beta cucks are stupid enough to go to war. Sir yes sir.

[-] largepaycheckaddict 4 Points 8 months ago

This is designed to make you think “good were making progress!”

Truth is this is asinine. Women do not belong in combat. Period. If you’re on the ground wounded who do you want dragging your ass back to safety? A 6’2” jacked guy or a 5’7” woman who probably can’t lift you up?

It would be better to draft women into duties of nurturing children and other feminine virtues on the home front. Woman’s only place in military is nursing roles.

This is just another case of “equality “ going full retard in the west and causing cultural collapse. We don’t know what’s up or down anymore. Our men are wearing dresses and cutting their dicks off and our women think they’re fucking gi jane . God help us.

[-] Ryonne 4 Points 8 months ago

Anyone who doesn't think sending our women into battle is symptomatic of a dying society doesn't know enough about war or women. Women don't have the instincts or inclination for military service, and they all suddenly wind up pregnant when it's time to be deployed.

Well at any rate maybe the gift of free sex slaves in enemy POW camps will be a good impetus toward making peace.

[-] chadwickofwv 8 Points 8 months ago

This isn't about forcing women into the military, it is about how fucked up it is that we force men into it. It is a very blatant example of how men are treated as second-class citizens compared to women. It may only be the very tip of the iceberg, but it is still important to point out and crush.

[-] throwaway-aa2 1 Point 8 months ago

This isn't about forcing women into the military, it is about how fucked up it is that we force men into it.

Nope.

Ok so let's get this out of the way: if you don't believe in the draft, then you fight for abolishing the draft.

Ignoring that, you need people to go to war. Men are better suited for war and combat undoubtedly, but the act of the draft "is" forcing men to go to war... you're sort of conflating the two. Men are better for war, PERIOD. But yes the point of this, is to force women into the military as well. The main thing here, is basically highlighting that women are equal to men. This is important to people who believe women are as capable, but it's also important to us who feel women are not equal, and by giving them the opportunity to take on hardship like this, they will be forced to relinquish those notions.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] Proto_Sigma 1 Point 8 months ago

If a judge rules it the law is automatically changed. The Judiciary has the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation. It is a power that can be abused.

[-] MAGA_IowaPede 2 Points 8 months ago

But the ruling came in the form of a declaratory judgment and not an injunction, meaning the court didn't specifically order the government how to change Selective Service to make it constitutional. "Yes, to some extent this is symbolic, but it does have some real-world impact," said Marc Angelucci, the lawyer for the men challenging the Selective Service System. "Either they need to get rid of the draft registration, or they need to require women to do the same thing that men do."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/24/military-draft-judge-rules-male-only-registration-unconstitutional/2968872002/

[-] _foursix_ 3 Points 8 months ago

as a more serious inquiry, the cultural constructs of the past essentially meant that equal treatment under the law for women was wrong simply because of the value that was once placed on them. Men wanted women to stay alive because they needed them and valued them alive. They weren't expendables. The further back in time you go the woman was bound less to the law of the land and more to her man/husband who himself was bound to the law. He was held more responsible for the actions of his woman(s). But "times have changed" seems to now mean, women are expendable. Once they had superior value, in belonging to one man and having his full stewardship and care, now they really are just property...of a bureaucratic beast state, their new lord. And we all know how much bureaucracy cares about us as individuals. Oops.

[-] civilizedfrog 3 Points 8 months ago

I hope they get to taste a bit of draft privileges

[-] rygy3 3 Points 8 months ago

While in theory having women register sounds like the “equal” move, do you guys actually want women serving alongside you if you were drafted during a time of war? I certainly don’t. There are things men are better at, and things women are better at. Men are definitely superior at combat and honestly I think women registering for the draft is a bigger step back than forward.

[-] chadwickofwv 2 Points 8 months ago

No, we want the draft to be declared a violation of basic human rights and an amendment to prevent it from ever existing again.

[-] rygy3 5 Points 8 months ago

The draft violates the rights of a few in order to protect the rights of everyone. The draft played a major role in the outcome of the Second World War and without it we’d be living in a very different, and probably worse, world. If you don’t want to be drafted you can always move, since you don’t seem to appreciate the freedoms that only the US offers. I’d fight for free speech any day.

[-] FKaroundNfindOUT 1 Point 8 months ago

the freedoms that only the US offers.

TF are you on about? Hundreds of countries now have these and more freedoms.

[-] rygy3 2 Points 8 months ago

I can’t name any countries that entirely protect free speech. It’s a crime to misgender someone in Canada now. The right to bear arms is another right that exists is almost zero developed countries. You’re silly, bruh. Didn’t even think that one through.

[-] Imperator_Red 1 Point 8 months ago

He probably thinks that all the welfare entitlements that he gets from his government = "freedom"

[-] FKaroundNfindOUT 1 Point 8 months ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

I'll grant you the weapons because I'm lazy and you're probably right.

[-] Imperator_Red 1 Point 8 months ago

Actually they don't. Virtually no one protects the right to bear arms. Most don't protect speech beyond some lip service, as we're seeing people actually being arrested throughout the Canada and Western Europe for "hate speech." Outside the common law Anglosphere there is not right to trial by a jury of your peers - instead some state employed magistrate decides your fate.

[-] largepaycheckaddict 1 Point 8 months ago

If you are not willing to fight and die defending not only your land, but cultural values as well, you are not a man you are a slave.

I honestly find it immoral to just give citizenship to anyone simply because they were born in a country and pay taxes. Citizenship should be earned. It seriously baffles me that we let 18 year old children who have barely worked or know a thing about the world vote.

That being said, I would like to see mandatory conscription and some kind of teenage boot camp as means of earning citizenship. Teach them young what civics means. Teach them a democratic ownership role in their countries and to be proactive in doing good things for their country and neighbors. Kids these days spend their leisure time in a nihilistic drug/alcohol induced stupor or waste their time doing some low IQ cashier job you can program a computer to do.

This will also teach them to grow the fuck up so they’re functioning adults by 18 and not overgrown 12 year olds. America is seriously fucked with concepts or “adulting” it’s insane. I see people in their 30s with the emotional maturity of 13 year olds and these people have voting rights.

[-] Imperator_Red 1 Point 8 months ago

But conscription isn't a violation of basic human rights.

[-] SKRedPill 3 Points 8 months ago

And then it will be misogyny the way they're treated in a war zone - i.e. disposable.

One feature of feminine nature is it's insatiable need to be included (which runs hand in hand with need for commitment). That explains everything.

[-] Shadow_Of_ 3 Points 8 months ago

Women shouldn't really be allowed in combat roles, for there own sakes.

[-] Herdsengineers 2 Points 8 months ago

meh. make women register, but if draft is ever needed again, they can structure the classifications in a way that the call up a lot less women than men anyway. women are fine as docs/nurses, rear area support roles, etc., but keep them out of the combat roles.

[-] menial_optimist 2 Points 8 months ago

This doesn't mean anything. For it to mean anything as far as I understand the USA system, the federal Supreme Court of the United States would have to make the same ruling. This is a district court in Texas.

[-] russian_nigger 2 Points 8 months ago

any draft violates the constitution and my right as a human. fuck the state.

[-] AverageLedditor 2 Points 8 months ago

disability cases rise to 50%

[-] NikolaGeorgiev 2 Points 8 months ago

When you know about war brides, I imagine how women will switch sides if shit hits the fan.

[-] anonlymouse 1 Point 8 months ago

Archive link: https://archive.fo/KE5ek

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] [deleted] 1 Point 8 months ago

[deleted]

[-] trueliberal1 1 Point 8 months ago

That case, dating from the early 1980s, had held that requiring only men to register for the draft didn't violate the Constitution. Since only men were eligible to serve in combat, the court reasoned, it would have made no sense to require women to register.

Typical nonsensical court logic. Women can't serve in combat, therefore protecting them from being used as cannon fodder while not protecting men from the same thing isn't an example of unequal protection. The common sense thing would have been for the Supreme Court back then to conclude that the draft and selective service violated the 14th Amendment precisely because women could not serve in combat and therefore were protected from being forced to do so.

[-] OlofPalmeBurnInHell 1 Point 8 months ago

There will be no more draft then.

[-] Ironic_Gangster 1 Point 8 months ago

Should women be drafted? Yes

Should they be drafted for combat roles? Fuuuuuuuck Noooooo

I think this solves the dilemma quite well.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] IRunYourRiver 1 Point 8 months ago

Ironically, if we're ever in a situation where we need to draft soldiers, our opinion about the roles of the sexes will change dramatically and this ruling will be deemed null and void. That said, it doesn't bother me. Logical consistency is in short enough supply these days that I'll agree with the ruling.

[-] mrrooftops 1 Point 8 months ago

If women weren't 'conflict averse' then the armed forces would be 50/50 gender split by now.

[-] [deleted] 8 months ago
[-] Goddamnhologram 1 Point 8 months ago

Looks like all the whining finally paid off. Now everybody loses.

[-] Heremhd 1 Point 8 months ago

Sounds good to me since equality and shit. Besides short of ww3 I doubt we will ever use the draft again

[-] [deleted] 1 Point 8 months ago

About damn time we did somethin' like this. Still, I ain't planing on any wars breaking out in my time but if they do I don't know how I'd feel about having a Woman next to me. Not even in a sexist sense but I think my instinct to protect her would kick in too much.

[-] ethbytes 1 Point 8 months ago

May be of interest. https://www.channel4.com/programmes/sas-who-dares-wins/on-demand/68500-001
UK TV series where candidates are put through simulated special forces selection. This series was the first with female candidates allowed; interesting for the interactions and reactions, females who look after themselves and know what they want?.

[-] omega_dawg93 1 Point 8 months ago

Israeli women and Vietnamese women make excellent soldiers.

girls in the USA want equality, they can put down their cell phones and mirrors, turn off social media and fight!

[-] [deleted] 1 Point 8 months ago

[deleted]

[-] RU_Student 1 Point 8 months ago

The current US is a pretty far call from the soviet union

[-] DownyGall 0 Points 8 months ago

Wow, .01% - that's significant

[-] [deleted] 1 Point 8 months ago

They want gender equality? I say we give it to them. WITH ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY IT ENTAILS.

We live in the an era of Mutually Assured Destruction via nuclear weapons anyway. Land wars with other super powers are extremely unlikely.

[-] trueliberal1 1 Point 8 months ago

On Friday, a federal judge in Texas ruled that a males-only draft violates the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

I said this exact thing 30 years ago. Why did it take the courts so long to conclude something so obvious?

The real surprise is that Texas was the state to actually do something right. Didn't see that coming.

[-] mette13 1 Point 8 months ago

I actually support the draft in times of National Defense. Attacking? Nah, but to defend our civilization, im ok with that. Protecting civilization is what men have done for thousands of years.

Then again, 80% of the men here don't give two shits about our civilization.

[-] Aroundwork -12 Point 8 months ago

Who gives a fuck about this?? This is like the last reason I come on here to read about this shit.

While you're out at a bar go ahead and tell chicks about this and see if it gets you laid, or makes you look like a fucking pussy loser

[-] cheetopapito 6 Points 8 months ago

Real men find warfare and politics interesting, thats what we were made for. This was the purpose of men back in the day, sex was just a small part of their priorities. You fucking idiot

[-] Aroundwork -5 Point 8 months ago

I got accepted into West Point bruh I am very well versed in warfare. My point is this is some gay ass Men's Rights shit that comes across to me as complaining. Should we be happy that we live in a feminist society that requires women to be part of the draft too? Do you think the patriarchal societies in the east would allow this shit? What's the end goal here?

[-] cheetopapito 2 Points 8 months ago

Its an interesting read, and im patriarchal asf. You dont have to agree with the article lol

[-] Islam-Delenda-Est 4 Points 8 months ago

You must slay at the bar...