Posted on 06/24/2016 3:58:59 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Yesterday, the Senate voted to extend the draft to women who turn 18 during or after 2018. Obama has promised to veto such a bill, but there is probably enough support in congress to override a veto...
I opposed allowing women to serve in combat positions. I hold the monstrously retrograde opinion that women are different from men. ... I find myself at a loss to explain why, to those who don't find this truth obvious. It's like explaining why buttered toast smells good, or why bottomless holes are terrifying. What can I say?
I have many female friends who have served honorably in the military,...But requiring women to serve is an entirely different proposition. Women in the military already face a host of problems, which they can overcome with tremendous effort. Imagine increasing their numbers exponentially, and then imagine that most of these women do not want to serve.
[huge snip]
A good many of my friends have crankily observed that this is exactly what women do want. And some women do. ...
But many more women have been struggling to persuade the world that men and women both have rights and responsibilities, and should both be treated with respect . . . but that these rights and responsibilities aren't always the same for all men and for all women.
Men are better suited for combat. Biologically, psychologically, and emotionally, you will find countless more men than women who endure and even thrive in combat roles, and in military roles in general. Anyone who says otherwise is willfully blind. Men and women are not interchangeable. You can squeeze society hard enough to make them pretend that it is true, but it will always be women and children who suffer; and when women and children suffer, the whole world bleeds.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
I am not speaking of revenge. I am speaking of the rule of law.
The long-held complaint by some women in the armed forces was that because they could not be in combat arms, they could not easily fill roles that led to promotion, and eventually to leadership (commonly over combat arms soldiers). That was where the military push came from - but it was a weak push.
Liberals decided that they could use the concept of “fairness” to enforce entry of women into combat arms. But, they do not want to extend that forced entry to the draft registration, despite their removing the single most important reason why women do not already have to register. To allow women in, but not require them to register, essentially makes all of the men who do have to register second-class citizens. In the name of “equality” we have made men less equal.
I believe that men should be the protectors, as well. However, I do not believe they should be the protectors at the cost of equal standing before the law.
If we shield our society from the natural consequences of the foolishness promulgated by the left, we doom our society to falsely believe that there is no harm done by leftists.
Revenge - even against NOW - is an idiotic reason for promoting the same equality in the draft registration law as is now enforced in the combat arms entry rules, in my (sometimes) humble opinion.
But the rule of law, in that same opinion, is of a different stature than mere revenge.
Did you even read my post? I made it clear I wasn’t accusing you of using revenge as a tool to force women to sign up for selective service. In fact, I wrote the opposite.
And I was agreeing with you that revenge is a bad motive.
The rest of the post was really to present some context for others.
Sorry - I sometimes get a bit wordy. Mea culpa.
Women won’t go through with this—that’s the point.
When faced with the actual consequences of their actions/beliefs women will back down.
But, as long as we continue to white-knight and protect women from the consequences of feminist beliefs, feminism will continue to screw up the world.
What has to be established in the culture and in law, is that legitimate distinctions do not constitute adverse or invidious discrimination.
It is proper in some situations to make distinctions between:
and every one of these distinctions is being strongly challenged, and in some cases being made illegal because of this bogus "discrimination? charge.
Well-considered discrimination on the basis of relevant difference is not only "allowable," it is a requirement of justice.
I think disndat deserves a more reasoned response.
No, I don’t.
If Miss Marmelstein doesn’t like the idea of following the idea first proposed by Gen. Curtis Lemay-”Bomb them until the rubble bounces”, that is fine with me.
Way back when I was given a full ride four year college scholarship based on my academic performance. When school started I was early to a class one morning and two debs walked in. They started trashing another student saying how he dressed in rags, etc., and shouldn’t be allowed in school because he obviously didn’t meet the standards.
I had talked with this young man before. He was so proud because his family had scrimped and saved and he was the first one in that family to ever go to college and he didn’t want to let them down. But he only had enough money for the one semester.
I related this to these two girls and by the time I was done telling them my thoughts both were in tears.
I hadn’t yet filled out the necessary paperwork to receive my funding so after that class I went over to the appropriate office and talked to the woman in charge. In short I gave that young man my scholarship. The woman had tears in her eyes. She told me no one had ever done something like that that she knew of. They all just took the money and ran.
Anyways I have another great idea. Transgender “men” want special treatment? Have a special draft. Put them in the Army. Make special units of them. It solves the problem of women in combat and these people will be able to really fight like men.
Have a nice day.
No, he’s a moron and I don’t respond to pressure from you. You are not the owner and you are not a mod.
I was requesting your further comment because I thought you could make a good one. You have one listener here.
How can the draft do such if no one is being drafted? The draft ended in 1973 but in 1979, President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, brought back draft registration. While women should not have to serve, I disagree that registering and serving is a bad thing, and in fact i think every able bodied male should have to train for 1 year (as in some countries*) - unless exempt due to conditions as allowed today - and be taught true American history as part of that, versus the Howard Zinn version popular today. I think it would have done me good, but the draft number for this then lost soul was too high in the lottery.
However, with a military that sanctions sodomy and transgenderism and political correctness then you have an army at war with God.
The draft has always disrupted the lives of young men, sometimes in disastrous and horrifying ways. The draft has always snatched people out of their lives and wreaked havoc on plans and desires. The draft is a terrible thing, which historically disproportionately affects poor, uneducated, minority citizens.
"The draft has always disrupted the lives of young men?" Rather, typical college education has corrupted the lives of many young men, sometimes in disastrous and horrifying ways. But which still does not justify abolishing higher ed.
Among others:
*Israel drafts both men and women. All Israeli citizens are conscripted at age 18, with the following exceptions:
Armenia has compulsory military service for two years for males from 18 to 27 years old.
Austria has mandatory military service for all able bodied male citizens up to 35 years of age.
Males in Brazil are required to serve 12 months of military service upon their 18th birthday.
Denmark has mandatory service for all able men. Normal service is four months, and is normally served by men in the age of eighteen to twenty-seven
Finland has mandatory military service for men of a minimum duration of five and half months (165 days); depending on the assigned position:
As of 2009, Greece (Hellenic Republic) has mandatory military service of nine months for men in the Army and 12 months for the Navy and Air Force.
South Korea has mandatory military service of 21 (army, auxiliary police), 23(navy) and 24 (air force, special civil service) months. There are no alternatives for conscientious objectors[70] except imprisonment.
Norway has mandatory military service of nineteen months for men and women between the ages of 19 (18 in war time) and 44 (55 in case of officers and NCOs).
permanent residents of at least 18 years of age were obliged by law to serve 20 months of compulsory national service in the Singapore Armed Forces, the Singapore Police Force, or the Singapore Civil Defence Force to defend and protect the country as a sacred, honorable national duty above one's self. Upon completion of the mandatory active full-time NS, they will later also have reservist in-camp training cycles of up to 40 days annually over a 10-years period upon deployment to operationally-ready reservist units
Military service for Swiss men is obligatory according to the Federal Constitution, and includes 18 or 21 weeks of basic training (depending on troop category) as well as annual 3-week-refresher courses
The Republic of China has had mandatory military service for all males since 1949. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Countries_with_mandatory_military_service
Some?
What percentage?
How many total?
You didn't know of her MO?
Disagree with ANYTHING and you are on the list.
Good morning, Elsie.
Greetings, my dear!
Not much going on these days; so I’ll get more of the downed trees out of my yard - at least the ones near the house.
Where are you? In the WV flood?
Kinda.
Traveling to Utah a week ago Wednesday; ran into nasty storm in IL.
It then went thru IN, tearing up my trees.
It then went on into WV.
So you’re in IN.
Do you get tornadoes?
We don’t (much) here in Upper East Tennessee, though there was a little-ish one last year right on the southern border of Washington County, where I am. Still, the mountains tend to cause enough turbulence to break up the vortex before it gets big, and that’s -— as I understand it -— what saves us.
Oh yeah!
We get ‘em!
What took our trees were straight line winds.
There is a mile of open field north of our property and that allows the win d to hit us full blast when it is headed south.
All the trees down were within 50 feet of the county road.
hardly any damage past that as MY trees slowed the wind before it got to the house and barn.
We just got a downpour yesterday, to soften up our clay. That makes today a great day to pull weeds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.