Posted on 06/07/2021 8:41:40 AM PDT by ScubaDiver
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal requirement that only men register for the draft when they become legal adults, declining to revisit an earlier decision that upheld the policy on Selective Service.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
OTOH, liberals should have to live by the rules they set for others. If women are 'equal' in every other aspect, then they should have the same skin in the game. This is the other side of the equality coin that MUST be in play.
They can still enlist so the prostitution rings on the carriers aren’t ending any time soon.
“Mixed feelings about this. As a career officer, I’m glad this is the outcome because drafting women is about the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.
OTOH, liberals should have to live by the rules they set for others. If women are ‘equal’ in every other aspect, then they should have the same skin in the game. This is the other side of the equality coin that MUST be in play.”
Bears repeating.
I wonder if requiring males *and* females to register for possible duty in some capacity in a “national emergency”.
Conservative women should not have to live by the rules set by liberals.
ugly dykes hit hardest
I worked with a lot of women during deployment whose husbands were deployed at the same time. They all -the women-got out afterward. Single women, and single mothers have a different Mind set and support system. They have to think like guys and leave their kids in good hands. The kids are then without their mothers any way you look at it. Men can stay with kids while wife is deployed and that works too. I’ve seen it
When I was given a choice to go to a good training but with it sign up for 20 years of reserve duty I opted out. Got a lot of crap for it too. When hub was deployed it was bad enough for the kids. Women need a choice. What they do with it is their deal in a free country.
When I was young and stupid being deployed was fine. When kids are at home they need their mother. It’s debatable which parent they need but if I were to do research and biblical study, theological study, sociological research anthropology study, my hypothesis would be kids need their mothers - especially when their dads are deployed.
It’s about kids. Women are of high value in the military it is not that. And playing around with fighting senseless leftists over equality is fun and games until some kid is at the mercy of living with a neighbor who doesn’t care about them when his parents are away in combat
That’s all
“.... should have the same skin in the game....”
in a way I agree with your thoughts re equality. However, I have always had serious reservations with married women in the military. One is simply logistics while in the field and in close quarters combat. The other concerns the family. I really believe the family is the basic unit of a good society. It is the building block for future generations. When married women are separated from their families then that family unit suffers and is broken. Of course, broken families are a dime a dozen throughout our country these days, and I suspect we will pay a price in the long run.
I would say this...before the 1990s to now ‘war-deploy-out’ period...there wasn’t a significant issue with short-term exercises, or 60-day deployments. As the 1990s arrived...the whole game changed, and the system has sat there for 30 years...in a crappy state where you can’t fix the mess or resolve....you just learn to live with it.
When I retired out in 1999...one of the senior NCOs brought out a listing of all the operations I had participated in since 1990. Must have been near 25 operations I’d deployed to or functioned at home-station in support of.
I have to be away for three days coming up. Finding friends Who will be there for my kids is challenging. Schedules have to match and that’s with people who actually love my kids. Family can’t be counted on for that. That’s three days. My standards are normal. My kids have to be with people who love them. They have to be available, they’re not obligated to me. It is a very tall order. In a two parent family, a guys can pick up and deploy without worrying about making arrangements with people who are not obligated to take care of his kids.
Not only there. I saw a young enlisted women at a NG summer camp pull into the POV parking lot in her huge motor home. She had a stream of officers visiting for the entire two weeks.
“OTOH, liberals should have to live by the rules they set for others. If women are ‘equal’ in every other aspect, then they should have the same skin in the game. This is the other side of the equality coin that MUST be in play.”
The only thing in play is the liberal attempt to twist the U.S. military into something that can not win a war.
That is something we should avoid.
Women are NOT equal to men. We are complimentary, not redundant. This is a good non-decision.
Perhaps this argument raised in one of the amicus filings in opposition to a finding for the petitioner scared the liberal justices enough to take a pass:
"fail to acknowledge the physiological differences between males and females that bear upon the question of whether men and women are similarly situated with regard to filling the combat casualty replacement stream during a national mobilization ... "Imagine taking judicial notice of that tautology!
For the last decade or so, there have been political forces that want to tear up/ignore this social order and foist upon man something new, something worse that ignores what nature created. Today, men can be women and women can be men and 'families' can be whatever someone wants, a woman and a woman, or woman and two men. Whatever. "It's all good." This, of course, is self-destructive gibberish.
The sooner people wakeup and realize that this is setting mankind on a collision course with destruction, the better off we'll be. If daughters, wives and mothers getting conscripted for infantry service hastens the awakening the country desperately needs, I'm all for....
...as stupid as drafting women is.
Children need their father too.
Eliminate no-fault divorce and alimony and child support.
Marriage is the only legal contract which is unilaterally revocable — without notice and against the will of the other party — where the party who had no say in the matter, has to pay damages to the one welching on the contract.
Hint: just reverse the sexes and picture that men can back out of marriage at any time for no notice, but the woman has to keep providing sex on demand to the guy or risk losing professional licenses or even prison. Yeah, that’s fair.
Oh, yeah. Imagine a man can lawfully force a woman to bear a child and all costs of raising the child, even after the man has headed for the hills. But it’s even worse for men, because men can be forced to pay child support for children that are not biologically theirs, which are the EXPLICIT result of adultery on the woman’s part. Even if she divorces him.
American women are spoiled beyond human comprehension.
I agree. I am similarly conflicted. I am so against the concept of drafting women that I am nearly unable to even consider it.
I will preface this post with the caveat that this is not a denigration of women. This is as statement of fact. There are plenty of dedicated and capable women who serve this country, but the fact is, an average female cannot physically compete with the average male, and combat staffing is done on the assumptions of average capability, average organizational needs, and average logistical needs. Females only exacerbate issues with capability, morale, organization, and logistics, there is absolutely nothing that including more females in the equation adds. That is a fact, not an opinion.
I see this draft question as a lever to full combat integration of women, which would be a bloody, costly, nation-damaging mistake.
To verify this, you need only look at the entities that are pushing for this drafting of females.
The US Navy has already gone full bore in bringing females into combat roles (due to the inherent nature of a combat vessel) and that fight is completely lost there, so we will see the ramifications of any naval combat immediately, never mind the peacetime morale and qualification ramifications as evidenced in the USS Fitzgerald collision.
I cannot even, under the conditions of requiring the Leftists to live by the rules they set for others, to have to abide by this since it is exactly what they want.
They want to destroy the military as a fighting force and turn it into an equal opportunity government employee job endeavor, and giving women combat billets in peacetime is going to give the Leftists all they want in getting unqualified females into billets they could not get without the command of combat units.
And of course, this promotion will be sure to proceed until a minimum of 50-50 combat billets are occupied by women (achieved at the cost of artificially suppressing the advancement of more highly qualified males)
But...in a defeatist mindset that I have acquired in this respect, I see the battle as already lost. And when the butcher’s bill comes due in a war with an enemy who has both the capability and determination to oppose us on a real battlefield that includes fighting holes filled with people being overrun by opponents whose ranks haven’t been filled by a less physically capable sex due to ideological reason, we are going to lose, and badly.
And the people who sacrificed those in those slaughtered in the overrun fighting holes (the lives of men who had no choice but to accept the degradation of capability and well meaning women who wanted to fight) will be long gone. Until this happens, we will see articles published by the Leftist media that tout how much better our military capabilities are since we fully allowed females into combat billets and how wrong the naysayers are.
But when a 140 pound female is forced to grapple with a 180 lb male when a Hollywood production crew isn’t orchestrating the combat, the female is going to lose. When we have to fire 155 mm artillery that depends on individual soldiers who have to frog-march that 100 lb. ordinance 50 yards because the nice little automated carriers are combat damaged and broken, and your outgoing fire volume in support of troops in peril drops by 30-50% because only 50-70% of females can carry one 155mm round that distance only...once, then troops will die.
And that isn’t Hollywood anymore. Those are real men who will be sacrificed for ideological goals which are attainable only at that cost.
Congress can rewrite the law.
The SCOTUS doesn’t want to touch this issue. They must know they would have to rule in favor of abolishing the male only draft on legal terms, and don’t want to go there.
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.