# Men’s Group wins lawsuit. U.S. Women may be forced to be drafted to wars.



## SG854 (Feb 24, 2019)

Thoughts?



> On Friday, a Texas judge ruled that the Selective Service System (SSS) violates the Constitution by requiring only men to register for the draft. The court ruled with the National Coalition for Men (NCFM) in a lawsuit claiming the male-only draft constitutes discrimination against men. NCFM's lawyer told PJ Media that even if the SSS appeals, they are likely to lose again. He also suggested the Pentagon will not end the draft, so women may have to register



Source


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 24, 2019)

Funny, but terrible idea. Aside from maybe office work, unless that's what they're talking about, women are a dangerous liability on the battlefield.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 24, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Women are *Sexism* *is *a dangerous liability on the battlefield.


I fixed that for you.


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I fixed that for you.


Sexism may be part of my concern, but there's more to it. It's bad enough that we have plenty of men coming back psychotic and suicidal over wars that serve no national purpose. This is not the kind of equal right women are looking for even if it is well deserved after years of militant feminism. It's not really their fault afterall, as they are just victims of brainwashing.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 24, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> This is not the kind of equal right women are looking for even if it is well deserved after years of militant feminism.


Plenty of women want draft equality. There's an argument to be made that we'll be more respectful of the draft if women are also subject to the draft.



Glyptofane said:


> It's not really their fault afterall, as they are just victims of brainwashing.


Forgive me if I didn't follow you correctly, but are you arguing that a woman who doesn't agree with you is necessarily brainwashed?


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Forgive me if I didn't follow you correctly, but are you arguing that a woman who doesn't agree with you is necessarily brainwashed?


Only the ones who organize to commit to the destruction of their own race.


----------



## gman666 (Feb 24, 2019)

Fair is fair... But I can't help to think of this as a crabs in the barrel mentality. Almost like, "If I have to die for my country, you have to die for my country!".


----------



## Lacius (Feb 24, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Only the ones who organize to commit to the destruction of their own race.


In your opinion, how are people committing to the destruction of their own race?


----------



## tatripp (Feb 24, 2019)

Women shouldn't have to participate in the draft. That's stupid and inefficient.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 24, 2019)

tatripp said:


> Women shouldn't have to participate in the draft. That's stupid and inefficient.


Why not?


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> In your opinion, how are people committing to the destruction of their own race?


Supporting nonsense like this lawsuit is a good start. It's Sunday though and I want to drink, not write an essay that I'll have to reword over and over again before posting in order to avoid a ban.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 24, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Supporting nonsense like this lawsuit


What about this lawsuit will lead to the destruction of a race?

Don't get me wrong. Men's rights organizations like the NCFM are actually nonsensical, but I also support equality under the law.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 24, 2019)

I'll probably get some heat for this  but bear with me for a second.

Here's the thing : if feminism is really about equal rights, then it is a great day for feminism. And if it isn't... Then it's not really worth pursuing.

The thing with rights is that it always comes with responsibilities. And the way I've come to learn about feminism is that there's quite some push in areas where women are either behind or perceived behind, they lobby hard to even up. These are other discussions  and heavily debated ones. But in other fields  - and this is one of them - there's open discrimination for no other reason than that this was always the case 

I'm also reminded of the first South Park movie. In it  there's a war. And the American side just makes sure that all the afro Americans are in the front lines (even strapped to the tanks).it's basic discrimination, and it's comedy because it's so over the top. But at the same time : why are it always boys and men who are sent out to do the dangerous stuff? It's not like soldiers WANT to be in a war zone, and the politicians who start wars are never in the front lines. 

And .. I hope I'm not too cynical, but perhaps the risk of women dying on the battlefield will make for some stronger anti war lobbying.

(but in a final note : exactly which battlefield? Nowadays wars are done by using drones and airstrikes. What was called the second Iraqi war was just the USA slaughtering up the place. It was so uneven you had more casualties from friendly fire than from the enemy)


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> What about this lawsuit will lead to the destruction of a race?
> 
> Don't get me wrong. Men's rights organizations like the NCFM are actually nonsensical, but I also support equality under the law.



Equality to become murderers, mentally ill for life, or outright dead though. I guess the less extreme case is that they become career military people traveling the world whoring themselves out and never starting a family.

That's what's humorous about it. Normally, I support the resistance known as Men's rights, at least the idea, but I don't think this will accomplish what they think it will. In practice, it's shaping up to be as idiotic as any other special interest group.


----------



## Lacius (Feb 24, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Equality to become murderers, mentally ill for life, or outright dead though. I guess the less extreme case is that they become career military people traveling the world whoring themselves out and never starting a family.


I'm noticing there isn't an argument against this ruling that can't also be used as an argument against the draft in general.



Glyptofane said:


> Normally, I support the resistance known as Men's rights, at least the idea


The men's rights movement is largely misogynistic and usually supports inequality skewed in favor of men. Since men aren't a marginalized group, the movement typically doesn't address any real issues.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 24, 2019)

Thoughts? Okay, it shouldn't be like that, but if it happens everyone will deal it with it, 'done. (IMO a better question is if this is right.)


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I'm noticing there isn't an argument against this ruling that can't also be used as an argument against the draft in general.
> 
> 
> The men's rights movement is largely misogynistic and usually supports inequality skewed in favor of men. Since men aren't a marginalized group, the movement typically doesn't address any real issues.


The draft is bad for men, worse, at least in my opinion, for women.

Men and women are equal in that they are equally important to the survival of their species, not that they are equal when it comes to any and every determinable skill.

I consider any group that already has a negative birthrate, the lowest population on the planet and is being systematically replaced to be marginalized. We don't need another factor for women to be disposed of like trash.


----------



## tatripp (Feb 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Why not?


Because women are a liability on the battlefield. Also, as long as there are able-bodied men, it is unjust to draft women.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 24, 2019)

tatripp said:


> Because women are a liability on the battlefield. Also, as long as there are able-bodied men, it is unjust to draft women.


Unjust? Who told you it was? Apparently the majority agrees that it's okay, and the majority rules, so when the majority say it's okay they say it's okay. (Doesn't mean it's* right* though.)


----------



## tatripp (Feb 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I'm noticing there isn't an argument against this ruling that can't also be used as an argument against the draft in general.
> 
> 
> The men's rights movement is largely misogynistic and usually supports inequality skewed in favor of men. Since men aren't a marginalized group, the movement typically doesn't address any real issues.



From what I have seen from the men's right activist group, most of the men seem to genuinely feel victimized and think that they are being treated unfairly by many groups. I think that this stunt they are pulling is misogynistic or at the very least is just intended to point out hypocrisies in feminism.

This might not apply to you, but I find it funny that people who talk about marginalized groups are usually very anti-man. They assume that men have no issues and are causing all of the problems of the world. I have never seen any evidence for this whatsoever. When I ask for evidence,they make valid claims about disparities in statistics and then use those claims as proof of marginalization. Example: Blacks are incarcerated disproportionately more than whites; therefore, blacks are marginalized. Statistical disparity is not a good measure of marginalization.

After they make these claims, they refuse to identify disparities that disagree with their world view. Here is a list of a few examples of why men may be marginalized:
1) Women are graduating at a higher rate than men from college
2) Way more men are in prison than women
3) Men typically get less custody of children than women
4) Men have more workplace deaths than women
5) Male athletes get paid proportionally less than women when you compare ticket sales (generally)

I guess my question to you is this--why do you assume women are a marginalized group while men aren't? I can understand the argument that neither group is marginalized. I can understand the argument that both groups are marginalized. I just can't understand how women can be viewed as marginalized in the US while men are not.


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 24, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Unjust? Who told you it was? Apparently the majority agrees that it's okay, and the majority rules, so when the majority say it's okay they say it's okay. (Doesn't mean it's* right* though.)


He's right. It's supposed to be innate. Everyone knows if anyone has to die, it should always be men first.


----------



## tooknie (Feb 24, 2019)

tatripp said:


> Because women are a liability on the battlefield. Also, as long as there are able-bodied men, it is unjust to draft women.


What evidence do you have that women are a liability on the battlefield? If you have none of substance then I call you out for being a misogynistic arsehole, Insulting to all brave women that currently fight in the armed forces.


----------



## tatripp (Feb 24, 2019)

tooknie said:


> What evidence do you have that women are a liability on the battlefield? If you have none of substance then I call you out for being a misogynistic arsehole, Insulting to all brave women that currently fight in the armed forces.



I was speaking generally. There are some women who could be effective, but they should sign up voluntarily, not have the standards lowered, and there should be safeguards in place to make sure that their presence doesn't negatively affect any team dynamics.
Women are great to have in a police force because they can do things that men can't. There are probably many examples of this in the military too, but women should have a very minimal role in combat situations.
You can call me out for being a misogynistic ahole if you want. I choose to wish you a nice day and hope you consider my argument.


----------



## tooknie (Feb 24, 2019)

tatripp said:


> I was speaking generally.


Therein lies the problem. Speaking "generally" without evidence is evidence of prejudice, and in this case sexism.



tatripp said:


> You can call me out for being a misogynistic ahole if you want. I choose to wish you a nice day and hope you consider my argument.



Oh no, I would still not wish ill for you if you are a misogynistic arsehole, its just disappointing to see it in this day and age. So I also wish you a good evening  

But if you find that EVIDENCE that proves that women are a liability on the battlefield, feel free to share.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2019)

I don't expect we'll see a draft in our lifetime.  As politically charged as the country is today, a draft would likely spark civil unrest, if not civil war.

That said, it makes complete sense to have the widest draft pool available, because a draft is a last resort should the country be running low on military manpower.  Civilian women are no more or less qualified to be called to service than civilian men are.


----------



## tatripp (Feb 24, 2019)

tooknie said:


> Therein lies the problem. Speaking "generally" without evidence is evidence of prejudice, and in this case sexism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here is a link from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...han-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f90d909ffd85


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2019)

tatripp said:


> Here is a link from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...han-men/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f90d909ffd85


The thing is that we're talking about civilians here, and last resorts.  If push comes to shove, there are just as many obese guys out there that can't run twenty feet as there are women too weak to lift a rifle.  There are plenty of unqualified individuals in the civilian world regardless of gender.


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 24, 2019)

Next stop, Willoughby! Willoughby!


----------



## ken28 (Feb 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The men's rights movement is largely misogynistic and usually supports inequality skewed in favor of men. Since men aren't a marginalized group, the movement typically doesn't address any real issues.


and how is the same not true for feminism? I never heard one of the mainstream feminism scream about the woman right situation in the near east.


----------



## Glyptofane (Feb 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That said, it makes complete sense to have the widest draft pool available, because a draft is a last resort should the country be running low on military manpower.  Civilian women are no more or less qualified to be called to service than civilian men are.


What do you mean? They are more likely to blow the enemies dick than they are to blow his brains out. You're naive.


----------



## Fugelmir (Feb 24, 2019)

Women are vastly inferior to men.  It's very dangerous to have the equality mindset.


----------



## ken28 (Feb 24, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> Women are vastly inferior to men.  It's very dangerous to have the equality mindset.


not acording to feminism. men and woman are the 100% same.
also i think vaslty inferior is the wrong term through.
both gender have ups and downs.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> What do you mean? They are more likely to blow the enemies dick than they are to blow his brains out. You're naive.


Well then.  It doesn't get much more sexist or narrow-minded than that.  Sounds like someone is a little bit insecure about their masculinity.


----------



## b17bomber (Feb 24, 2019)

"wtf I hate equality now" - Women everywhere


----------



## Chary (Feb 24, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> Women are vastly inferior to men.


Congratulations, my friend! You’ve won an award! Please come here and accept your trophy for “Most Sexist Thread Comment”!

Ahem. I hope you meant that for the draft topic, and not just in general, lol.

Anyway, I don’t see this really affecting anything. If we’re drafting women to fight for our country, we’ve got a heck of a lot else to be worrying about at that point.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 24, 2019)

Sexist feminists got rekt.

Though, this is a blow to real women, who understand the advantages and disadvantages of men and women and live their lives to the best of their abilities, and any blow to real women is a victory to feminists.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 24, 2019)

At this point of time, I don't think drafting should be a thing for anyone.


----------



## Fugelmir (Feb 24, 2019)

Chary said:


> Congratulations, my friend! You’ve won an award! Please come here and accept your trophy for “Most Bigoted Thread Comment”!
> 
> Ahem. I hope you meant that for the draft topic, and not just in general, lol.
> 
> Anyway, I don’t see this really affecting anything. If we’re drafting women to fight for our country, we’ve got a heck of a lot else to be worrying about at that point.



In the context of war, specifically.  But in general terms, too.  I have a mother and sister I love very much so I'm not trying to come off as a misogynist but even with technological innovation to bridge the gap, female performance never quite measures up.

This drafting decision is absolute proof of this.


----------



## Vahnyyz (Feb 24, 2019)

and here I thought all canadians wore pink hats! lol I'm surprised


----------



## kuwanger (Feb 24, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> This is not the kind of equal right women are looking for



In the nicest way possible, for any woman asking for equal rights who isn't for this:  fuck you!



Taleweaver said:


> It's not like soldiers WANT to be in a war zone, and the politicians who start wars are never in the front lines.



As often as this is stated, in less modern times frequently the politicians were also the generals leading their troops into battle.  You know, back in the day when war was "honorable" and "face to face" and all that bullshit.  Really, if people back then really believed that, they'd arm wrestle or some just as stupid standard for deciding victory.  The fact that machine guns and bombs mean you can obliterate the lives of faceless thousands really cuts down on the whole romanticism of war.  It also really cuts down on wanting to be at the "front" of any war.



tatripp said:


> I think that this stunt they are pulling is misogynistic or at the very least is just intended to point out hypocrisies in feminism.



I'd say in reverse, this proves the misandry against men as being little more than human fodder to be used by the State as disposable meat bags.

Meanwhile, for the most part guns (especially vehicle mounted machine guns) have totally undercut the arguments against using women in war.  You think women can't aim and press a button?  You think they aren't strong enough to load things?  Honestly, about every step in modern warfare is pushing as much of the physical burden on machines precisely because machines can run 24/7 (in theory) but no human can while doing superhuman things.  I see no reason to not push hard for women to be in the same boat as men.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 24, 2019)

next thing you know the'll forced the disabled into the mix trust me guys i couldn't even get through boot camp if they even threatened to kill me if i didn't


----------



## GhostLatte (Feb 24, 2019)

Feminists wanted equal rights. Don't see nothing wrong with women being forced into the draft.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 24, 2019)

Only tangentially related, but made me laugh


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Feb 24, 2019)

Whoa, my people, I'm pretty drunk right now--after reading this and critically thinking about your statements, I say:
Let's take it down a notch
Everybody, be cool (Samuel L. Jackson face next to a wallet)

Okay, there are some good points, but it'll come down to the simple fact a woman who would be combat-ready would probably deal with a menstrual-related issue at some point in their career--*there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.*

Maybe the advancement of HRT (yada yada) needs to be a calculated factor for females who wish to serve (made known on the day of drafting) on the front lines versus taking the much needed and still highly touted positions of chef and nurse.

TL;DR:
In fifty years, war won't be a problem.
In a few years, war might be a problem.
-H1B1Esquire


----------



## Anoux (Feb 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I'm noticing there isn't an argument against this ruling that can't also be used as an argument against the draft in general.
> 
> 
> The men's rights movement is largely misogynistic and usually supports inequality skewed in favor of men. Since men aren't a marginalized group, the movement typically doesn't address any real issues.


I mean, you're blatantly wrong there - and we can just look at things like the court system and their bias against men and fathers, the DRAFT itself before this lawsuit, the fact that rape laws themselves (especially in places like the UK) are defined against men and the fact that if the police are called for domestic violence that a woman is perpetrating, the man is frequently the one arrested and plenty more. Oh, or the fact that the gender gap in prison sentencing for the same crime is vastly higher than the racial gap, the gap in work place deaths, the disparity in both acceptance into and graduation from schools, the fact that the way young men and women act the man is diagnosed with a problem (or punished) for existing (fiddling with things is what young men do, it doesn't mean they have adhd because they don't act like typical women in the classroom). Oh, also laws against genital mutilation. 

Would it be marginalization to force blacks into a war that whites voted for but don't have to serve in? If yes, then that is the same case as before this lawsuit. 

I've never seen anything from within the men's rights movement that is "largely misogynistic" or "supporting inequality skewed in favor of men" the best I've seen is a cherry picking or taking statements wholly out of context. (or people wrongfully conflating pickup artists with the men's rights moment)

What this comes down to is either everyone is draft-able, thus getting the right to vote, government aid, etc or we abolish the draft and the rights/benefits stay. 




tatripp said:


> Because women are a liability on the battlefield. Also, as long as there are able-bodied men, it is unjust to draft women.


Liability, maybe I've seen studies about how it causes performance degradation in squads, but last I saw there was more research needed for unisex female squads. Unjust, nope - not as long as there are rights that come with the responsibility of fighting for your country against your will that are given for free to another group. Your augment, when given a "subtle" shift, would be very racist - and one premise and conclusion I also disagree with. Much like how I disagree with the notion that everyone knows that men should always die first.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 24, 2019)

People need to realize the reason why they made this decision was because of precedent.  Women have been serving in combat roles for like two decades now, and somehow our military hasn't collapsed yet.  The military doesn't have the luxury of turning away people who want to serve, as recruitment rates have been continuously declining for some time now.


----------



## Natural (Feb 24, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Thoughts? Okay, it shouldn't be like that, but if it happens everyone will deal it with it, 'done. (IMO a better question is if this is right.)



Why should it not be like that? Men had to sign the draft for the right to vote so why shouldn't women?


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 25, 2019)

It's a de-railer to bring this up, but it's still relevant to the conversation here. What's a "woman?" What a "man?" We've entered a twilight zone where one can choose to be one or the other, so under such circumstances does any of this even matter? Any man can be a woman, so "feminism" is pointless. Any woman can be a man, so "toxic masculinity" is a moot point. Every person should be required to register for the draft, all competitive activities should be open to all participants, there should be no girls' schools, boys' schools, nor any scholarships awarded based on being either a male or female, etc. A 100% clean slate, winner-takes-all world. What could go wrong?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/24/terry-miller-andraya-yearwood-transgender-sprinter/


----------



## Xzi (Feb 25, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> It's a de-railer to bring this up, but it's still relevant to the conversation here. What's a "woman?" What a "man?"


It is a de-railer, but it's also not relevant to this conversation.



Hanafuda said:


> Any man can be a woman, so "feminism" is pointless. Any woman can be a man, so "toxic masculinity" is a moot point.


More get-out-of-thinking-free fallacies.  As if transgendered individuals don't also receive targeted discrimination.  That has nothing to do whatsoever with feminism or toxic masculinity, you're just lumping everything you dislike together.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 25, 2019)

We haven’t used the Draft in a long time, since we now have an all voluntary army. It’s more of a last resort thing when a Country is fighting for their life in a big war and run out of voluntary soidiers.

Likely if Women are forced to register they won’t actually have to serve their draft duties like many males today that are on the draft.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> I'll probably get some heat for this  but bear with me for a second.
> 
> Here's the thing : if feminism is really about equal rights, then it is a great day for feminism. And if it isn't... Then it's not really worth pursuing.
> 
> ...


A draft could be a lot of things. It could be actually seeing combat, or support roles like medic, or working drones like you said.

Then theres those artificial bionic suits and legs being developed now by he military. New tech besides drones.

Likely, If the female draft happens, I have a feeling they will probably put women in non combat support roles, which will push men that are in these roles out of them and instead put them in actual combat, when actual human to human combat happens.


----------



## zfreeman (Feb 25, 2019)

*What Happens If You Don’t Register for Selective Service*

If you are required to register and you don’t, you will not be eligible for federal student aid, federal job training, or a federal job. You may be prosecuted and face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or jail time of up to five years. If you’re an immigrant to the U.S., you will not be eligible for citizenship.

If you never registered and are being denied federal student aid, job training, a federal job, or citizenship, you may be able to qualify if you didn't _intentionally _avoid registering. If you can show through a “preponderance of evidence” that your failure to register with Selective Service was not knowing or willful, your benefit may not be denied.


source: https://www.usa.gov/selective-service


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 25, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> Only the ones who organize to commit to the destruction of their own race.


Just going to clarify for everyone, this is a dog whistle from a known neo-Nazi member.

As for the topic, men's rights groups are just shit and unnecessary and this lawsuit further cements that notion. Instead of doing something good, like fighting to completely remove the draft, they instead decide to throw women under the bus.


----------



## brickmii82 (Feb 25, 2019)

Interesting. I suppose the discrepancy I'd find in this, is that women are generally less biologically/mentally geared towards aggression and violence than men. So forcing a random woman into a combat scenario seems like a dubious venture. That's not to say that *all* women *aren't *geared for it, however I'm inclined to believe that's the exception and not the rule. That's also true for men as well, as there are those that will never be able to absorb mental training and preparations for a physical confrontation, let alone a combat environment.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 25, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Just going to clarify for everyone, this is a dog whistle from a known neo-Nazi member.
> 
> As for the topic, men's rights groups are just shit and unnecessary and this lawsuit further cements that notion. Instead of doing something good, like fighting to completely remove the draft, they instead decide to throw women under the bus.


The lawsuit was that it is unconstitutional to draft males but not women. So this gives them a choice to either remove the draft altogether for males or draft women along with males. Likely it seems congress doesn’t want to get rid of the draft.

So the original lawsuit could be used as a way to remove draft all together. Perhaps if many women protest being drafted, they may have to remove the draft for males as a result for the sake of fairness.


----------



## CORE (Feb 25, 2019)

So now you can have Equal Cannon Fodder on the Battlefield. Congratulations


----------



## granville (Feb 25, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> Women are vastly inferior to men.  It's very dangerous to have the equality mindset.


Found the incel/mgtow lol!


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Feb 25, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Just going to clarify for everyone, this is a dog whistle from a known neo-Nazi member.
> 
> As for the topic, men's rights groups are just shit and unnecessary and this lawsuit further cements that notion. Instead of doing something good, like fighting to completely remove the draft, they instead decide to throw women under the bus.


... And this new wave of women's rights advocates are saints right? Don't take sides. It's hypocritical.


----------



## Viri (Feb 25, 2019)

Great, now can we pass a law that requires the people who vote for BS wars, now have to fight alongside the soldiers on the front lines, for the wars they voted for?


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The lawsuit was that it is unconstitutional to draft males but not women. So this gives them a choice to either remove the draft altogether for males or draft women along with males. Likely it seems congress doesn’t want to get rid of the draft.
> 
> So the original lawsuit could be used as a way to remove draft all together. Perhaps if many women protest being drafted, they may have to remove the draft for males as a result for the sake of fairness.


The thing is, this lawsuit is just an example of narrowminded and short-term thinking. Trying to set up a lawsuit against the government is an attempt to get instant results, which of course there's going to be no way to remove the draft with instant results. They could have set up rallies, spread information showing that the draft is no longer necessary, etc. they could have taken time to spread awareness and made this more about removing an unnecessary system instead of trying to gain instant results. 


Memoir said:


> ... And this new wave of women's rights advocates are saints right? Don't take sides. It's hypocritical.


Expect these Men's Rights groups aren't actually doing anything helpful for men. They could invest time, money, resources, and awareness for research into men's mental health. This is an issue that isn't taken seriously and could be linked to why young men have such a high rate of suicide. There are countless real issues involving men that they could actually be dealing with instead of throwing women under the bus at any given opportunity.


----------



## Fugelmir (Feb 25, 2019)

granville said:


> Found the incel/mgtow lol!



I have a girlfriend :o.  But she's Japanese and knows her place


----------



## SG854 (Feb 25, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> The thing is, this lawsuit is just an example of narrowminded and short-term thinking. Trying to set up a lawsuit against the government is an attempt to get instant results, which of course there's going to be no way to remove the draft with instant results. They could have set up rallies, spread information showing that the draft is no longer necessary, etc. they could have taken time to spread awareness and made this more about removing an unnecessary system instead of trying to gain instant results.
> 
> Expect these Men's Rights groups aren't actually doing anything helpful for men. They could invest time, money, resources, and awareness for research into men's mental health. This is an issue that isn't taken seriously and could be linked to why young men have such a high rate of suicide. There are countless real issues involving men that they could actually be dealing with instead of throwing women under the bus at any given opportunity.


They have protested the draft for decades. It’s why we even have a voluntary army in the first place.

The question is, is it feasible to remove the draft or is it necessary in a desperate time of need of soldiers, since not all wars are unavoidable. Some are, but when an enemy attacks you have no  choice but to fight.

A good example is WW2. There were European countries that had a chance to stop Nazi Germany from growing in power, and actually had a chance of defeating them when they were weaker. But they preached that war is a choice and we don’t need to fight. Eventually Germany got stronger and they declared war on the pacifist countries, so they were forced into war any way, and by then war was not a choice.


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They have protested the draft for decades. It’s why we even have a voluntary army in the first place.
> 
> The question is, is it feasible to remove the draft or is it necessary in a desperate time of need of soldiers, since not all wars are unavoidable. Some are, but when an enemy attacks you have no  choice but to fight.
> 
> A good example is WW2. There were European countries that had a chance to stop Nazi Germany from growing in power, and actually had a chance of defeating them when they were weaker. But they preached that war is a choice and we don’t need to fight. Eventually Germany got stronger and they declared war on the pacifist countries, so they were forced into war any way, and by then war was not a choice.


I actually can't find much about these groups protesting the draft, which is a real concern onto itself. It's actually that real concern that they could be working to fix as well. We have the internet now, we have Youtube, other groups have been using these platforms and getting results.
I going to be honest with you, if we didn't use the draft after 9/11, then I think you answered your question. We didn't need the draft when we were actually attacked and when we went to war with multiple countries because people were more than willing to sign up for the war. If/when we get attacked, people are going to sign up, there's no reason to force them to sign up when we already have history showing that the willing will sign up after an attack.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 25, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I actually can't find much about these groups protesting the draft, which is a real concern onto itself. It's actually that real concern that they could be working to fix as well. We have the internet now, we have Youtube, other groups have been using these platforms and getting results.
> I going to be honest with you, if we didn't use the draft after 9/11, then I think you answered your question. We didn't need the draft when we were actually attacked and when we went to war with multiple countries because people were more than willing to sign up for the war. If/when we get attacked, people are going to sign up, there's no reason to force them to sign up when we already have history showing that the willing will sign up after an attack.


If your talking about men’s groups theres a diversity of opinions in them. There’s some that want the draft and there’s some that don’t. But remember some of the ones that want the draft are wanting it because they feel it’s a necessity, not because they are war crazy.

The draft is seen as a last resort when none that sign up for war are left.

If it’s a necessity then how do we solve the dilema of women. There are feminist  also that have criticized the draft as sexist, and may want it removed, but then what if we don’t remove it,  then what do we do with women? Is it fair or constitutional for a Woman to not have the draft but men do?

I personally don’t like wars and the draft like many people, just like I don’t like serial killers and rapists and wish they were gone. But they exist and we need a way to deal with them.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It is a de-railer, but it's also not relevant to this conversation.



Sure it is. If women aren't also subject to the draft (i.e. how it has always been before) , then if a draft happens, how long before some dude refuses and says he's a woman? I give it less than 24 hrs. Actually, I'm surprised someone hasn't already simply refused to register at turning 18, claiming identity as a female.


Anyway, to keep it on topic, let's just say the question is ... should a young man currently be allowed to get out of registering for the draft by claiming identity as a female? Obviously, if women are allowed to register too, then that 'loophole,' if you will, would disappear. I see that as a positive all around.


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> If your talking about men’s groups theres a diversity of opinions in them. There’s some that want the draft and there’s some that don’t. But remember some of the ones that want the draft are wanting it because they feel it’s a necessity, not because they are war crazy.
> 
> The draft is seen as a last resort when none that sign up for war are left.
> 
> ...


You are right about diversity within men's rights groups, I honestly can't find much when it comes to cohesive ideas formed by men's rights groups.

I still pose the question, should the draft even exist anymore? If it's truly necessary, why didn't we use it after 9/11? Why didn't we use it during the Iraq war? Simple answer, because people actually wanted to sign up for these wars and did sign up. Calling the draft "sexist" or demanding women into the draft are easy methods of avoiding the problem. Issues like this require actual work to fix, require actual public awareness and require being loud. Rolling over and saying, "Well, we aren't going to remove it, so why try?" is a problem.

Plus I am going to bring up the issue of Trump's transgender military ban. Shouldn't these groups be fighting against that ban? If they want to make this about equality, then they need to actually *MAKE* this about equality, otherwise, the system is still unequal.


----------



## granville (Feb 25, 2019)

There IS some diversity of opinion about certain issues in MRA groups, including the draft. I've seen some argue for, and others against it.

There actually do exist legitimate mens issues that are worth bringing up. The problem is that in actual practice there aren't any legitimate mens rights groups out there. MRA communities are all filled with the most vile kinds of people imaginable. Old school sexists, mgtows (embittered ex boyfriends/husbands) and incels generally being the core demographic. There's little desire from these groups to actually help men in a constructive way, it's largely just a circlejerk of sexists who just want to find ways to torment women.

Now to be fair (though it isn't even close to being an even comparison) there are obviously also toxic feminist groups out there who similarly hate men. They deserve to be treated with the same contempt as their MRA counterparts. But unlike MRA groups, it's actually quite easy to find many feminist groups that aren't embarrassing pools of filth. Most are receptive and supportive of men and their issues.



Fugelmir said:


> I have a girlfriend :o.  But she's Japanese and knows her place


There's only one "place" a girlfriend of yours would ever be- your imagination.


----------



## Fugelmir (Feb 25, 2019)

granville said:


> There exist legitimate mens issues that are worth bringing up. The problem is that in actual practice there aren't any good mens rights groups out there. Pretty much all you'll find are the vilest kinds of people imaginable. Old school sexists, mgtows (embittered ex boyfriends/husbands) and incels generally being the core demographic.
> 
> Looking at the general comments in their communities, they aren't even particularly interested in finding legitimate constructive ways to help improve the lives of men. Instead, the general desire is instead to return women back to being "property" of men. Many will admit this isn't likely to happen (though some still hope), so they settle instead to trying to find ways to "punish" women for achieving equality to men.
> 
> ...



It's not a crazy claim.  I dunno why you'd think it impossible.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 25, 2019)

granville said:


> There IS some diversity of opinion about certain issues in MRA groups, including the draft. I've seen some argue for, and others against it.
> 
> There actually do exist legitimate mens issues that are worth bringing up. The problem is that in actual practice there aren't any legitimate mens rights groups out there. MRA communities are all filled with the most vile kinds of people imaginable. Old school sexists, mgtows (embittered ex boyfriends/husbands) and incels generally being the core demographic. There's little desire from these groups to actually help men in a constructive way, it's largely just a circlejerk of sexists who just want to find ways to torment women.
> 
> ...


How do you know all this? Wasnt there some sort of tv special a few years back where a feminist with these same misconceptions pretended to be a dude to join one of these groups to expose it for everything you just stated, and then completely changed her mind? Stating that these groups were constructive, dealt with real male issues, and even became friends with several members.


----------



## grossaffe (Feb 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The men's rights movement is largely misogynistic and usually supports inequality skewed in favor of men. Since men aren't a marginalized group, the movement typically doesn't address any real issues.


Can you back this up?



Glyptofane said:


> What do you mean? They are more likely to blow the enemies dick than they are to blow his brains out. You're naive.





Fugelmir said:


> Women are vastly inferior to men.  It's very dangerous to have the equality mindset.


Well I know who's opinions I do not need to see anymore.



WeedZ said:


> How do you know all this? Wasnt there some sort of tv special a few years back where a feminist with these same misconceptions pretended to be a dude to join one of these groups to expose it for everything you just stated, and then completely changed her mind? Stating that these groups were constructive, dealt with real male issues, and even became friends with several members.


There was a documentary called The Red Pill that was shot by a feminist who decided to go into the world of Men's Rights Activists.  She went into it expecting misogyny and the like, instead she came out of it with a whole new respect and empathy for them and also questioning her own identity as a feminist.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 25, 2019)

The draft should be replaced with incentives to serve.


----------



## grossaffe (Feb 25, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> The draft should be replaced with incentives to serve.


For the record, there are incentives to serve, and there hasn't actually been a draft since the early seventies.  Men just have to register for the draft in case they decide they need a draft.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 25, 2019)

Natural said:


> Why should it not be like that? Men had to sign the draft for the right to vote so why shouldn't women?


Because women have drawbacks, guys do not. (What drawbacks? Just think about it.)


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 25, 2019)

Glyptofane said:


> He's right. It's supposed to be innate. Everyone knows if anyone has to die, it should always be men first.


He is, sadly some people can't seem to see that.


----------



## Captain_N (Feb 25, 2019)

Well women want equal rights. They can fight just like men can. A gun knows no sex or any of the 96 dumb made up genders there are...


----------



## granville (Feb 25, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> How do you know all this? Wasnt there some sort of tv special a few years back where a feminist with these same misconceptions pretended to be a dude to join one of these groups to expose it for everything you just stated, and then completely changed her mind? Stating that these groups were constructive, dealt with real male issues, and even became friends with several members.


The movie is called The Red Pill. It was named after one of the most popular MRA communities online (a subreddit). Which is ironic because I doubt Cassie Jay actually visited TheRedPill subreddit herself. If she had, she likely wouldn't have had such a sympathetic opinion of MRAs.

The vast majority of MRAs (as they exist today) are not actually interested in legitimate men's issues. Actually visit their communities yourself and take a look at how they behave and what they believe when not on camera pretending to act like normal people. In reality, 99% of the MRA popular are just angry men complaining about how women are all a bunch of worthless brainless spoiled whores who deserve to be treated like children. Any hint of being respect towards women will get you called beta, cuck, autistic etc etc. And there's also a fair share of anti-semitism and racism frequently sprinkled in.

My guess is that the MRAs Cassie Jay interviewed saw an opportunity to put on a nice guy facade and trick her into giving them attention. They probably figured she wouldn't bother looking far into how they actually behave online when her back is turned, and that many viewers wouldn't bother checking either. Again I hate to encourage people to go to these sites, but it's important to know how MRAs actually behave and that it's not remotely accurate to the people Cassie Jay interviewed.

Incidentally, MRA feedback to Cassie Jay's movie was extremely hostile. Going through the threads about the movie on several popular MRA sites (including TheRedPill subreddit), most are shitting all over the movie and calling Cassie Jay a greedy selfish attention whore (and "AWALT" as they call it)...


----------



## Xzi (Feb 25, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Sure it is. If women aren't also subject to the draft (i.e. how it has always been before) , then if a draft happens, how long before some dude refuses and says he's a woman? I give it less than 24 hrs. Actually, I'm surprised someone hasn't already simply refused to register at turning 18, claiming identity as a female.


You worry about the silliest things.  Nobody is going to re-think the gender they identify as just to avoid a draft that will likely never happen.

Besides, dodging the draft is easy.  Just claim bone spurs like Donald Trump, or shit yourself in front of the recruiter like Ted Nugent.


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 25, 2019)

granville said:


> The movie is called The Red Pill. It was named after one of the most popular MRA communities online (a subreddit). Which is ironic because I doubt Cassie Jay actually visited TheRedPill subreddit herself. If she had, she likely wouldn't have had such a sympathetic opinion of MRAs.
> 
> The vast majority of MRAs (as they exist today) are not actually interested in legitimate men's issues. Actually visit their communities yourself and take a look at how they behave and what they believe when not on camera pretending to act like normal people. In reality, 99% of the MRA popular are just angry men complaining about how women are all a bunch of worthless brainless spoiled whores who deserve to be treated like children. Any hint of being respect towards women will get you called beta, cuck, autistic etc etc. And there's also a fair share of anti-semitism and racism frequently sprinkled in.
> 
> ...


That's not actually what I was talking about. There was another situation like this red pill one where the women dressed and acted like a man, attended their meetings, went to their outings, etc. They didn't know she was a women and they didn't know they had been infiltrated. But still, how do you know? As cassie Jay said, from the bit I looked up a little bit ago, her only experience with these groups is what she saw online. I assume that's the case with you.


----------



## J-Machine (Feb 25, 2019)

war is amazingly efficient right now. being a lady wont matter in a world where child soldiers can kick yer arse.


----------



## spectral (Feb 25, 2019)

While I disagree with the entire concept of a military draft other than in the direst of need to defend a homeland directly, this makes sense with how things are atm. It's been pointed out that these aren't the "rights" women want. Well too bad, if you want equality you take the good with the bad. Otherwise you aren't looking for equal rights, you're looking for privilege.


----------



## granville (Feb 25, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> That's not actually what I was talking about. There was another situation like this red pill one where the women dressed and acted like a man, attended their meetings, went to their outings, etc. They didn't know she was a women and they didn't know they had been infiltrated. But still, how do you know? As cassie Jay said, from the bit I looked up a little bit ago, her only experience with these groups is what she saw online. I assume that's the case with you.


I wish I only saw this crap online. It would be very easy to ignore. Unfortunately I grew up with several MRA cousins.

One was more of the classic sexist variety. He's pretty old and had a sort of "arranged marriage" with my cousin. He kept her on a tight leash and wouldn't let her work, vote etc under threat of being beaten (which often happened, he was a raging alcoholic especially in his youth). She hated him all her life, but she was conditioned by her traditionalist parents to put up with it. She wasn't particularly well educated even as a child, her parents steered her into the direction of becoming a drone-like housewife for a rich husband. Her husband was indeed reasonably wealthy and was able to even exert power and control over his adult female children and grandchildren as well.

Another cousin is more of an incel, he lives in his parent's basement and has always been very bitter and nasty towards women. Probably jealousy, I don't think he's ever been in any sort of relationship. Though he constantly makes lewd and sexist (or racist) remarks thinking it will impress girls. Granted there ARE pick up artists who have the good looks and can push the right buttons to trick certain women into falling for them, but he doesn't have such "qualities" and just gets treated as an obnoxious dolt. He once got into an argument with my mom over women voting, resulting in him smashing her in the face with some rotten fruit. He has smacked her on other occasions (without any reasonable provocation) along with physically and verbally assaulting other women who used to work at his mother's family business.

He also has a brother with a somewhat similar attitude, but the brother actually managed to get a woman to marry him. Seemed to softened him up slightly on the sexism compared to his brother, though definitely not entirely. He was better looking and had the sense to keep the insults restrained while pursuing her. She only started getting a taste of his behavior after they were married and had some kids.

I've known other people like this as well. You run into a lot of them especially when you live in the deep south (Tennessee and now Florida). But these three were the ones i've been most closely familiar with, having grown up with them. Wish I didn't, it's extremely unpleasant.


----------



## trogoldito (Feb 25, 2019)

I've been arguing for this to happen for years.  If women want equal rights then they should be treated equally in all respects.  Drafting included.  Gotta take the good with the bad.


----------



## kumikochan (Feb 25, 2019)

They undergo the same training as men did and women on the battlefield are not a liability. If it weren't for the resistance during World war 2 in France wich consisted of a lot of women, my grand grandmother included who was a smuggler, Nazi Germany wouldn't have been pushed out of France. Or the Kurdish women fighting ISIS and doing more then any other army against ISIS and freeing cities constantly. I really don't see the


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 25, 2019)

Fates-Blade-900 said:


> Because women have drawbacks, guys do not. (What drawbacks? Just think about it.)


Periods are a junk argument when you consider the fact that women are already in the military


----------



## erikas (Feb 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> In your opinion, how are people committing to the destruction of their own race?


I quoted one of your posts but i am replying to all of them. You sir, are a moron. So far up your own egalitarian/feminist ass that you openly deny reality and are gleaming with pride about it. Women are not good combatants, they also under perform men in every single field without exception. They have IQ 10 points lower on average, they are smaller in size and physically weaker and this is obvious by just looking at the real world. Stop reading feminist propaganda and look out the window for once.


----------



## kumikochan (Feb 25, 2019)

erikas said:


> I quoted one of your posts but i am replying to all of them. You sir, are a moron. So far up your own egalitarian/feminist ass that you openly deny reality and are gleaming with pride about it. Women are not good combatants, they also under perform men in every single field without exception. They have IQ 10 points lower on average, they are smaller in size and physically weaker and this is obvious by just looking at the real world. Stop reading feminist propaganda and look out the window for once.


so according to you Lyudmila Pavlivchenko is less of a soldier than most male soldiers and that while she is considered on of the best snipers the world had ever seen ? Israel is known to have strong soldiers and 50 percent of them are female so in that regard their army shouldn't be strong at all but they're considered one of the strongest in the world


----------



## erikas (Feb 25, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> so according to you Lyudmila Pavlivchenko is less of a soldier than most male soldiers and that while she is considered on of the best snipers the world had ever seen ? Israel is known to have strong soldiers and 50 percent of them are female so in that regard their army shouldn't be strong at all but they're considered one of the strongest in the world


Are we talking about groups or individuals? Pick one. I'm speaking generally and you can't use anecdotal evicende to refute what i said. Sure you can find a few women exceptionally good at combat, so what? Generally they still suck.


----------



## kumikochan (Feb 25, 2019)

erikas said:


> Are we talking about groups or individuals? Pick one. I'm speaking generally and you can't use anecdotal evicende to refute what i said. Sure you can find a few women exceptionally good at combat, so what? Generally they still suck.


how is 50 percent of the entire army of israel being female anecdotal evidence and them considered to have one of the strongest armies in the world ? That's not a few women but actually a lot of women


----------



## spectral (Feb 25, 2019)

erikas said:


> Are we talking about groups or individuals? Pick one. I'm speaking generally and you can't use anecdotal evicende to refute what i said. Sure you can find a few women exceptionally good at combat, so what? Generally they still suck.



Anecdotal evidence is better than the no evidence for your argument. You just repeatedly claiming they aren't good in combat doesn't make it true.


----------



## erikas (Feb 25, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> how is 50 percent of the entire army of israel being female anecdotal evidence and them considered to have one of the strongest armies in the world ? That's not a few women but actually a lot of women


In the current year the strength is largely determined by the funding and the weaponry and Israel has one of the highest funded military in the world. And i don't know much more about Israel army, but care to tell me what roles do women play in the army? Are they infantry combatants?


----------



## kumikochan (Feb 25, 2019)

erikas said:


> In the current year the strength is largely determined by the funding and the weaponry and Israel has one of the highest funded military in the world. And i don't know much more about Israel army, but care to tell me what roles do women play in the army? Are they infantry combatants?


yeah they are


----------



## erikas (Feb 25, 2019)

spectral said:


> Anecdotal evidence is better than the no evidence for your argument. You just repeatedly claiming they aren't good in combat doesn't make it true.


Women are SMALLER and WEAKER. If you want studies, hold on.


----------



## kumikochan (Feb 25, 2019)

erikas said:


> Women are SMALLER and WEAKER. If you want studies, hold on.


shooting a gun doesn't have anything to do with who is smaller or weaker but who is the better shot. Being smaller and leaner also makes it so that you can crawl faster and more agile through small spaces.


----------



## erikas (Feb 25, 2019)

spectral said:


> Anecdotal evidence is better than the no evidence for your argument. You just repeatedly claiming they aren't good in combat doesn't make it true.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/19/problems-women-combat-cant-be-mitigated-report/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kumikochan said:


> shooting a gun doesn't have anything to do with who is smaller or weaker but who is the better shot. Being smaller and leaner also makes it so that you can crawl faster and more agile through small spaces.


Women get panic attacks under stress.


----------



## linuxares (Feb 25, 2019)

Is the US still drafting people? Or how does it work now days? (Sorry my knowledge of the US conscriptions are limited and I didn't get any smarter of the Wikipedia article.)


----------



## spectral (Feb 25, 2019)

erikas said:


> Women are SMALLER and WEAKER. If you want studies, hold on.


Both of which are not necessarily disadvantages. Brute strength has very little to do with modern soldiering. There are scenario's where a smaller person is an advantage also. Basically you're simply grasping for excuses for your sexism.


----------



## erikas (Feb 25, 2019)

spectral said:


> Both of which are not necessarily disadvantages. Brute strength has very little to do with modern soldiering. There are scenario's where a smaller person is an advantage also. Basically you're simply grasping for excuses for your sexism.


Do you realize how far you're bending over backwards to ignore reality? Men and women are different and women are not suited for combat. Guns or no guns. There are scenarios? are these scenarios so common they make up 50% or all war operations or are they rare enough to be told as stories? And i will repeat my point that women panic under stress, and that's because stress produces testosterone in men and adrenaline in women. This is biological. Women are just not good for combat.


----------



## spectral (Feb 25, 2019)

erikas said:


> Do you realize how far you're bending over backwards to ignore reality? Men and women are different and women are not suited for combat. Guns or no guns. There are scenarios? are these scenarios so common they make up 50% or all war operations or are they rare enough to be told as stories? And i will repeat my point that women panic under stress, and that's because stress produces testosterone in men and adrenaline in women. This is biological. Women are just not good for combat.


Sure, you go on believing that if it makes you feel better.


----------



## shadoom (Feb 25, 2019)

Finally women can die for their country as well
YASSS QUEEN


----------



## notimp (Feb 25, 2019)

kumikochan said:


> shooting a gun doesn't have anything to do with who is smaller or weaker but who is the better shot. Being smaller and leaner also makes it so that you can crawl faster and more agile through small spaces.


I hope the war designers have built in lots of parcour spots in their next mission opportunities then.

Sorry, but this is equal opportunity officially having become a joke.

If people are unable to see that "being forced to be drafted to wars" isn't a "chance", then feminism has gone too far.

So now you are publicly striving to have the right also to be killed faster, or get a mental disability, as the poor male smucks with their useless decoration on their chests.

Did you also see Forest Gump and thought to yourselves, I want Tom Hanks to be a women instead?

Or are you more into Shia LaBeouf experiencing fun adventures around the world - calling in macha-airstrikes - never getting hurt, but more from the female perspective?

This is the closest to an actually insane standpoint I've seen people to argue for in here.

Here is who gets drafted to wars these days. Not the sons and daughters off affluent or important people. Not future presidents with bonespurs.

Now its a great achievement to also also have a quota of women amongst them?

Are you mental?

But equal opportunity...!

Please answer my question fist, did you miss the but of the joke here?


----------



## kumikochan (Feb 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> I hope the war designers have built in lots of parcour spots in their next mission opportunities then.
> 
> Sorry, but this is equal opportunity officially having become a joke.
> 
> ...


Sorry not gonna respond to someone who calls me mental because i think women should have the same rights as a man in the army. I'm not a feminist at all and i do hate feminists since men also have their problems that get ignored by the main stream but i do agree with equality and that means men and women should be all treated the same. An example would be army courses and everybody would be treated the same '' if more women fail that test than men, then so be it ! But the ones who do succeed should be treated the same !''. You basically calling me mental and placing men above women makes you a sexist yes and feminists who place women above men are also sexists. That's just how it is so in that regard ur no better off than a feminist. If you're okay with being a sexist then so be it but i don't want anything to do with that. Def not gonna argue with feminists and sexists because that's a pointless discussion with no end and them having a narcistic approach to that discussion '' i'm always right and won't change my mind ''


----------



## notimp (Feb 25, 2019)

You just did. You responded by virtue signaling for also wanting to have an opportunity to get adventuretime in a war (or be killed faster than you would staying at home, I dont know). Because you think this would be fun. Or just. Or equaly a womens right as well.

Here is the joke. None of that is an opportunity. Male or female.

You watched too much propaganda, thinking in narrow concepts.

I'm still talking to you.

Sorry that I used harsh words, but do I have to explain to you that "being drafted to a war" is not to be seen as a great opportunity, before you stop promoting a "women should have the chance as well" standpoint?

Hey - wake up.

When does feminism go too far? This. This. All of it.

Its literally insanity. Wanting for people to be exposed to harm for an equal opportunity concept. F*ck this.


----------



## notimp (Feb 25, 2019)

This whole thing has one positive outcome at most.

As soon as the next war gets declared, all of a sudden, you'll have feminists protesting it on the street as well. Because suddenly they are personally affected.

Likely outcome - people will call a war not by its name anymore, the same way its handled for the past three decades.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Feb 25, 2019)

Going to a foreign country to fight someone else's war and in that process, you might even come back 'incomplete' or in pieces, see friends go crazy or die and for what.. "humanitarian aid"? Not worth it. Leave the people of those countries to settle it themselves.

There are even times govts create "enemy" groups just to invad-- I mean, give the country humanitarian assistance.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> When does feminism go too far? This. This. All of it.


Did you not even bother to read the title?  It wasn't feminists pushing for this, it was a men's rights group.



notimp said:


> As soon as the next war gets declared, all of a sudden, you'll have feminists protesting it on the street as well. Because suddenly they are personally affected.


What the fuck are you talking about?  Feminism has never been known as a typically pro-war philosophy.  Plus there's almost no chance of the draft coming back, even if we declare another three wars in the next three years.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Feb 25, 2019)

Sounds good to me. Women are always talking about equality, well equality goes both ways. And it's not like they are any less capable of shooting a gun than a man.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 25, 2019)

Volunteer professional armies is probably going to be the best way until we get decent robots or all become some kind of nano particle/AI swarm. As such conscription is a tricky sell for me.

If you are going to have a draft though then with modern mechanised industry, and with a mixed military already, I don't see why it should not to both sexes.

I will note the split between combat roles and non combat roles. 

As far as women in combat. There would be two potential downsides
1) General strength, endurance and such. Men statistically having considerably greater stature, more muscle mass, different bone structure possibly leading to different types of injuries (having to squirt babies out tending to favour different hip/leg styles)...
Ignoring the bone structure thing I am sure there are some women out there that can make the grade (and I will want identical ones here for combat roles). Statistically that is a far lower number though, and modern military concerns are largely all about the statistics.

For combat roles then, despite what others have been saying in this thread, muscle is important -- the weights of things people are carrying these days (the higher end body armour is not light https://www.military.com/daily-news...mor-may-be-too-heavy-combat-report-finds.html , and gear wise they always want people to take more -- a fully loaded L85A3 is some 5KG and most countries don't differ too much here for combat rifles, ruck loads vary somewhat but some 30KG (60LBS or so) is average with it shooting up to 90 or 100LBS for other various roles, ideally which any unit member should be able to fulfil if theirs downed -- knock out you squad's automatic weapon carrier... and there is a reason they call it a force multiplier). It has diminishing returns after a point but stats still come back

Similarly 46.7 kg is the completed weight for a HE shell for the new M777 artillery ( http://www.military-today.com/artillery/m777.htm ), while it comes as pieces that adds up quickly enough and it is not like they are so many that you end up with a bunch of nice 5kg weights to build up a stack. Do you want to tell the people expecting supporting artillery fire that you got a little bit tired and had to reduce the rate?

Still in all work type things I am all about make the grade and you can play.

2) The "protect your women" thing bred into people for millennia at this point. Unit cohesion is very important and things which could upset that are tricky (discipline, morale, repetitive training beyond basic). Will such things lead to unnecessary risks taken or less aggression than might be needed? Would it be easier to take your already statistically small fraction of women out rather than have to beat such ingrained behaviours out of your people (especially if that takes time you could do on other training, or on deployment, or..., and if it has to be renewed as well... well then).

Other psychology could be a factor but it is not like they care about PTSD after the fact, and otherwise seem to have cracked the getting people to kill thing (though I still have my issues with the bayonet training thing that did the rounds a few months back -- some said it was harsh, I am not so sure), so I will ignore that for now.
There is also the possibility for pregnancy thing but I will assume everybody is professional and avoids such problems.

Non combat roles is also not without its concerns -- while a supply unit would ideally not have to have contact with the enemy... an army marches on its stomach and everybody knows that so cut supply lines where you can, possibly even as a priority at times. How many women are going to be able to drag 120KG out of a burning vehicle? Does this further reduce roles available? Mortar fire hits your supply depot and are you similarly going to be as able to drag people to medics, save stuff, drag things around so they don't get consumed?

One then asks are there some kind of extra role that women could fulfil that men might struggle to, or struggle to find as many to do, or just find them better spent elsewhere (front line combat and peacekeeping/quasi police actions are hard roles to switch between, despite having some similar skills between them -- clearing a hostile town and you see a curtain twitch but brush it off... standing in a "friendly" city and see a curtain twitch...). None appear immediately obvious here, at least not without downsides.


----------



## kuwanger (Feb 25, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I still pose the question, should the draft even exist anymore? If it's truly necessary, why didn't we use it after 9/11? Why didn't we use it during the Iraq war? Simple answer, because people actually wanted to sign up for these wars and did sign up.



I'd throw in that both Iraq and Afghanistan are/were desert/mountain fighting.  Basically, it's some of the best area for deploying drones, having heavy vehicle based movement, etc.  When was the worst fighting against a draft?  Vietnam.  Why?  Because jungle + rivers + monsoons == horrible conditions for air support and movement of troops, leading to horrible losses which necessitated a draft to keep troop numbers up.  So, yea, unless we perfect jungle warfare or simply refuse to ever go into an area where that's a reality, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of another draft in the future.

@FAST6191 - As far as your arguments

1) A lot of men can't simply lift 100 lbs or lug around 60+ lbs constantly.  The real point is, some women can.  In a pure numbers game, that means you want those women as troops--not lowering standards to let more men in.

2) AFAIK, there's a very strong "protect your [adopted family]" mentality in warfare.  So, I don't see it being that big of a deal.  The pregnancy thing can mostly be dealt with with contraceptives--specifically something like a hormonal IUD.  The real risk, I'd argue, might be jealousy as part of group cohesion regardless of whether sex is occurring.

Anyways, the point is you draft as many able bodied people as you can, which inherently means rejecting many for failing to meet standards.  You assign people based on their capabilities.  If that in the long-term translates into making lighter equipment to better facilitate more people as capable, that's a good thing for the military.  Meanwhile, a lot of women will be in the same boat as other conscientious objectors.  That's equality.


----------



## Darth Meteos (Feb 25, 2019)

this is good
if we're going to have something as bad as a draft, let everyone be a part of it
maybe then people will be motivated to make it go away


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 25, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> I'd throw in that both Iraq and Afghanistan are/were desert/mountain fighting.  Basically, it's some of the best area for deploying drones, having heavy vehicle based movement, etc.  When was the worst fighting against a draft?  Vietnam.  Why?  Because jungle + rivers + monsoons == horrible conditions for air support and movement of troops, leading to horrible losses which necessitated a draft to keep troop numbers up.  So, yea, unless we perfect jungle warfare or simply refuse to ever go into an area where that's a reality, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of another draft in the future.


I brought up 9/11 in response to the notion that a draft is to be used in case our country is attacked. We were attacked, yet we didn't use the draft, despite 9/11 being a perfectly "valid" reason to want to make our army as big as possible as we fuck everything up. I brought up Iraq due to the fact that a draft could have been used during that time to get more people in Iraq and also continue sending our troops elsewhere. There are reasons that a draft could have been used in both of these wars but yet weren't used.
Although, bringing drones actually brings up another reason why we don't need the draft. Our military forces are becoming more advanced and requiring fewer troops on the battlefield. We are using drones, we are using remote-controlled weapons, we really don't need a system like the draft anymore with these advances. The draft was made when we were just a small country of ragtag misfits, when we needed troops a moment's notice and it didn't matter how well trained they were. That's simply not the case anymore and keeping this system around just for the sake of keeping it around makes less sense as time goes on. Adding women to the draft does add some sense of "equality," but it doesn't change the fact that we should just abolish draft instead because it's just not needed anymore.


----------



## kevin corms (Feb 25, 2019)

Humans have actually evolved to be used to men dying, I think this will go roughly at least at first.


----------



## kuwanger (Feb 25, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> brought up 9/11 in response to the notion that a draft is to be used in case our country is attacked. We were attacked, yet we didn't use the draft, despite 9/11 being a perfectly "valid" reason to want to make our army as big as possible as we fuck everything up. I brought up Iraq due to the fact that a draft could have been used during that time to get more people in Iraq and also continue sending our troops elsewhere. There are reasons that a draft could have been used in both of these wars but yet weren't used.



"During the Vietnam War the Administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson decided upon a draft to enhance active duty troop strength rather than calling on large numbers of the National Guard and Reserves.[177] As a result, membership in a reserve component, including the Army National Guard, became a way to avoid combat service in an unpopular war.[178][179] Amid accusations of favoritism in enlistment and "easy" service when compared to duty in Vietnam, the reputation of the Army National Guard declined even as enlistments increased.[180]" -- History of the US Army National Guard (Vietnam)

"The role of the National Guard expanded following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As part of the Global War on Terrorism, National Guard units and individual National Guard members performed sustained active duty during Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, both as part of scheduled mobilizations and as individual volunteers.[210][211][212] As of 2013, the Army National Guard represents 40% of the US Army's total combat capability.[213]" -- History of the US Army National Guard (21st century)

I'd say that would have a lot to do with it.



Lilith Valentine said:


> Although, bringing drones actually brings up another reason why we don't need the draft. Our military forces are becoming more advanced and requiring fewer troops on the battlefield. We are using drones, we are using remote-controlled weapons, we really don't need a system like the draft anymore with these advances.



Can drones actually hold up well in jungles and monsoons?  Nothing I've heard about the drones used makes me think for a second they'd be at all good in such an environment.  I mean, I entirely agree with your evaluation about the move towards trying to require fewer troops.  We've also pushed heavily on body armor, which would be absolutely terrible in said jungles/monsoons.  So, I really hold my judgment on that being a frontier the military can really succeed in.


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 25, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> "During the Vietnam War the Administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson decided upon a draft to enhance active duty troop strength rather than calling on large numbers of the National Guard and Reserves.[177] As a result, membership in a reserve component, including the Army National Guard, became a way to avoid combat service in an unpopular war.[178][179] Amid accusations of favoritism in enlistment and "easy" service when compared to duty in Vietnam, the reputation of the Army National Guard declined even as enlistments increased.[180]" -- History of the US Army National Guard (Vietnam)
> 
> "The role of the National Guard expanded following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As part of the Global War on Terrorism, National Guard units and individual National Guard members performed sustained active duty during Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, both as part of scheduled mobilizations and as individual volunteers.[210][211][212] As of 2013, the Army National Guard represents 40% of the US Army's total combat capability.[213]" -- History of the US Army National Guard (21st century)
> 
> ...


Fair, very fair. 
Of course, drones wouldn't hold up in those environments, at the same time I don't really see that as an argument in favor of the draft. Things have changed since Vietnam, this including our military budget, weapons, and literally everything. I didn't bring up Vietnam due to the fact that it actually made sense to need that kind manpower back then, before the advancements that we have today. Drones may not be able to get through the jungle, but it they sure can just fly over the bases and fuck them up that way. We have far better technology today that has completely changed how we conduct warfare nowadays that it's actually unfair to compare it to even 40 years ago.


----------



## kuwanger (Feb 25, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Of course, drones wouldn't hold up in those environments, at the same time I don't really see that as an argument in favor of the draft. Things have changed since Vietnam, this including our military budget, weapons, and literally everything.



My point is less "argument in favor of the draft" and more one of argument that we don't know if we'll need a draft.  Like you say, a lot of things have changed.  Perhaps in totally they'll be enough to never need a draft again.  I honestly don't know.



Lilith Valentine said:


> Drones may not be able to get through the jungle, but it they sure can just fly over the bases and fuck them up that way.



Uh, yea.  Again, AFAIK, they tried that during Vietnam.  However, many enemy soldiers made their temporary bases below the foliage.  It's the main reason so much Agent Orange was used.  Beyond the long-term collateral damage, it just wasn't remotely effective enough.  I do believe that drones could be built to work in such conditions, but it does seem a pretty massive challenge,


----------



## DeadlyFoez (Feb 25, 2019)

Feminism and this women's equal rights movement, for the most part, is complete bullshit. Women claim that they want equal rights, which they should have and deserve, but the only want the equal rights for the good stuff and not the bad stuff. I have never heard a woman fight for her right to be a trashwoman, and that is a 99.999% man job. Instead, these feminists are not going after equality, they are going after an advantage over men. Sadly, women have it MUCH better than men.
Women get lesser sentences when being convicted of crimes, they get custody of the children ~85% of the time in a divorce, they get maternity leave, and are rarely expected to have to deal with the truly disgusting shit that is generally considered as a man's job.

Forcing women to have to sign up for the draft is equality. Hiring women to clean out septic systems, be trashwomen, and doing all those other nasty jobs is equality. If women want equality so much then they must take the good with the bad, not pick and choose. Any woman that is fighting for equality but then says that women shouldn't have to register for the draft or do those shit jobs is just being a hypocrite.

As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Whats truly funny is that, as I said, no woman is bitching that being a trash collector is a 99.999% mans job, but if a bunch of men start making $300,000 a year doing it, then all of a sudden women will speak up and want a piece of that pie. They only want equality when it gives them more, but they don't want equality when they have to take the crap as well.


----------



## The Catboy (Feb 25, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> My point is less "argument in favor of the draft" and more one of argument that we don't know if we'll need a draft.  Like you say, a lot of things have changed.  Perhaps in totally they'll be enough to never need a draft again.  I honestly don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, yea.  Again, AFAIK, they tried that during Vietnam.  However, many enemy soldiers made their temporary bases below the foliage.  It's the main reason so much Agent Orange was used.  Beyond the long-term collateral damage, it just wasn't remotely effective enough.  I do believe that drones could be built to work in such conditions, but it does seem a pretty massive challenge,


I mean, you aren't wrong that we don't know if we will ever need the draft again. At the same time, it seems like we more than likely won't be using it any time soon. The ways we conduct war has changed and it seems we are becoming more focused on having as little troops on the battlefield as possible. Drones and other remote-controlled weapons have been used and improving over the years just for that purpose alone, fewer troops. As well attempting to move away from mistakes like Agent Orange.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 25, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> @FAST6191 - As far as your arguments
> 
> 1) A lot of men can't simply lift 100 lbs or lug around 60+ lbs constantly.  The real point is, some women can.  In a pure numbers game, that means you want those women as troops--not lowering standards to let more men in.
> 
> ...



If 1) is fulfilled and 2) is not going to get in the way then sure. Certainly if it gets so bad a draft was declared (I don't especially see it happening but I am sure there were those in the previous times that also failed to see it).

Similarly if we are going stats I know it was referenced earlier but https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...units-faster-than-mixed-units?t=1551111112168 and https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...study-on-gender-integration-published-in-full for the follow up. While there are some debates over the framing of the thing the stats still say much for me.


As far as Vietnam goes then relevant at this point


Also to add on to things the national guard (these days the home of the only "reserve" combat elements for the army at least) was fairly heavily deployed during Gulf II so that it is not such a get out as it once might have been. https://www.military.com/national-guard-birthday/national-guard-service-in-the-war-on-terror.html and some are still out there https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...yments-to-afghanistan-iraq-kuwait-and-europe/


----------



## SG854 (Feb 25, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I mean, you aren't wrong that we don't know if we will ever need the draft again. At the same time, it seems like we more than likely won't be using it any time soon. The ways we conduct war has changed and it seems we are becoming more focused on having as little troops on the battlefield as possible. Drones and other remote-controlled weapons have been used and improving over the years just for that purpose alone, fewer troops. As well attempting to move away from mistakes like Agent Orange.


Pretty much what the argument for a Draft is. We don’t know if we’ll ever need it again. But it’s there for “just in case” reasons that we need an extra pool of people.

War has changed. But what is a more safer option? Having no draft and a big war breaks out, and no people you can draw from? Or having a draft and you do have people you can bring?

I always believed even if something doesn’t happen and is likely never to happen, you never know and the future can sometimes be unpredictable and not give you what you expect, it’s always the more responsible thing to play it safe then sorry.


----------



## Fates-Blade-900 (Feb 25, 2019)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Periods are a junk argument when you consider the fact that women are already in the military


That's not the only thing though, hand size, feet size, and muscles matter too, of course I can't say this *couldn't *happen just that this shouldn't.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 26, 2019)

linuxares said:


> Is the US still drafting people? Or how does it work now days? (Sorry my knowledge of the US conscriptions are limited and I didn't get any smarter of the Wikipedia article.)


We still have the draft but we haven’t used it in a while.

You can be denied services though if you don’t register for it. This is the biggest argument for discrimination against males since women don’t have to go through this to be elegible. 

It’s essentially you have to give up your body when in need. My body not my choice, essential the male version of the argument.

A copy and paste of an earlier comment made by @zfreeman in this thread.



> *What Happens If You Don’t Register for Selective Service*
> 
> If you are required to register and you don’t, you will not be eligible for federal student aid, federal job training, or a federal job. You may be prosecuted and face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or jail time of up to five years. If you’re an immigrant to the U.S., you will not be eligible for citizenship.
> 
> ...


----------



## supermist (Feb 26, 2019)

Isn't this whole thing just symbolic? A draft would be political suicide for whichever party enacted one. That's how Nixon won after all.

For the record I'm OK with women being drafted too.


----------



## kevin corms (Feb 26, 2019)

supermist said:


> Isn't this whole thing just symbolic? A draft would be political suicide for whichever party enacted one. That's how Nixon won after all.
> 
> For the record I'm OK with women being drafted too.


Lots of crazy things have been happening on the democrat side lately, its almost invisible to most people since we have the Trump show.


----------



## ShadowOne333 (Feb 26, 2019)

Well, feminists always complain that they don't have equal rights.
Let's fix that, shall we? :^}


----------



## supermist (Feb 26, 2019)

So... are there actually women up in arms over this? Because it really just seems like its the incel/mgtow types who are.


----------



## grossaffe (Feb 27, 2019)

supermist said:


> So... are there actually women up in arms over this? Because it really just seems like its the incel/mgtow types who are.


They _will_ be up in arms if there's a draft, if you know what I mean.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 27, 2019)

supermist said:


> So... are there actually women up in arms over this? Because it really just seems like its the incel/mgtow types who are.


When there’s no draft no. When there’s a draft yes.


----------

