Draft America's Daughter's Act
#11
(05-17-2016, 01:36 AM)Share Love Wrote: I'm just getting so tired of the sarcasm and the attitude that even the women here are time bombs just waiting to explode and transform into overthrowers of the patriarchy.

I'm done posting on these types of threads.

I didn't go quite as far to say THAT. What I did say though is that feminists are firing the bullets and you guys seem to just stand to the side but no biggie. Sooner or later the feminists will win as is suggested by this legislation and maybe once all is in ruins society can be rebuilt with the wisdom that being silent doesn't work when an atrocity is being committed. Didn't work for Europe in WWII and won't work for women today!
Reply
#12
"Actually, I help guys see the light that modern woman is a bomb with a loose wire on the detonator."

That's a pretty sweeping statement. I mean, the women here are also living in the modern age.

Anyway, I'm done now.
Reply
#13
(05-17-2016, 01:49 AM)Share Love Wrote: "Actually, I help guys see the light that modern woman is a bomb with a loose wire on the detonator."

That's a pretty sweeping statement. I mean, the women here are also living in the modern age.

Anyway, I'm done now.

Another post and you still offer nothing to suggest I am wrong...... I mean reallly, what is your solution to the current crisis? Continue the men pay, women enjoy routine? I can understand how you benefit from that but whatever....carry on
Reply
#14
I would be in favor of this measure, if only because it would dramatically undermine the military readiness and esprit de corps of one of the foremost perpetrators of evil in the world today. The American military is very good at what it does, and it has been employed as a wrecking-ball against nations like Iraq, where over a million civilians died as a result of an illegal war of aggression, in order to advance the narrow interests of a clique of profiteers and ideologues, many with decidedly foreign loyalties.

Anything that would cause a sensible, red-blooded country boy to think twice before enlisting to fight and die for Robert Kagan and Henry Kissinger should be received warmly by people of good will.

In the same vein, I support affirmative action in the U.S. military, with the intended goal of placing fighting men under the least-respected, least-competent commanders chosen principally for reasons of identity politics, while sidelining more competent heterosexual white men. Strict quotas, exceeding the representation in the general population, should be set aside for women and minorities (including sexual minorities) at service academies and Officer Candidate Schools.
Reply
#15
Why am I getting involved in this, I don't know... ah, yeah, boredom at work.

If women are drafted into the American army, does that mean there will be army beauty pageants like other places?  ???  They could be propped up on pedestals there too.  For instance, women marched in the Victory Day parade last week and they took the headlines: Beauty and Strength!  :P  O.K. O.K. joking aside...

I guess it comes down to the saying ‘you have to pay to play.’  Women reap benefits without having to devote themselves to the same extent men do.  Further, there is the general assumption that that such roles fall upon men and women are characteristically not considered due to their gender.  Women do not devote or expected to devote the same kinds of contributions as men but want/expect the same benefits/rewards… or more.  At the same time, many women are interested in devoting their resources/time to their own goals rather than elevating the men and boys that are expected to hold down responsibilities.  When it is looked upon from this perspective, there is an institutional bias against (straight) men.  It’s not a question of women being capable or incapable as the same skills as men, or women and men being different, just simply men are expected to perform the dangerous, hard work so the benefit of both genders.  Men are central to all these roles but do not receive adequate acknowledgement, praise or protections themselves.  (How about a holiday?  I love Defender of the Fatherland Day aka Man Day.... men get love and chocolates and gifts.) 

I’m not American and even if I was drafted, I’d fail miserably in basic training… not because of gender because I’m chronically ill.  :eyeroll:  I am a decent shot though so maybe there would be a job for me. (Ha ha ha ha)  But I accept that I have to pay to play or do something in support of men.
Reply
#16
I see nothing wrong with helping the men and supporting them, but I still cling to the idea that women have very different physical abilities.  Now are there exceptions to those rules?  Sure there are women who are stronger and more physically able to compete with men.  But is that the norm?  Nope.  Imagine a group of men going to war with a bunch of 5'3" tall women incapable of lifting their packs.  Is that a problem? Yes.  Of course those women will slow down the group as a whole and make them a less efficient unit.  Shouldn't that factor into such a decision making process?  I would certainly hope so. 

But I don't think this conversation has anything to do with the practicalities of women in service.  I think you all are more concerned with equality under the law.  The bill, I believe, started in protest of allowing women in combat roles.  Strange how pear shaped that one went.  I think there are lies attached to the term equality.  We are not all equally physically capable of going to war.  That's truth.  Men are stronger, more capable of the physical demands of war.  Does this demean them? It shouldn't any more than it should demean a woman to be incapable of those same things.  God made us complementary not identical.  If anything, it should make women grateful for the strength and protection that good men provide.  But then again, I'm not talking about feminist lunacy.  I'm talking about real women valuing the men in their lives. 
Reply
#17
Combat roles are open to women in a number of countries, including Israel's IDF and India. The Soviet Union was well-known for its use of female fighter pilots as well as all-female sniper units. Right now, brave women are serving in the front lines in Kurdish militias, fighting the Islamic State.

Modern warfare mitigates the physical weakness of women to some extent, and even children can be armed and mobilized into an effective fighting force, as some countries have unfortunately learned the hard way. Whereas in the past a child's physical weakness was a serious vulnerability against a man in hand-to-hand combat, a child with an old Soviet AK is a fearsome match for anyone. A child of ten has all the requisite strength and dexterity to fire assault weapons, to strip and reassemble them, and to carry them on the battlefield. Children hold some distinct advantages over adult soldiers; most school-age children have 20/20 eyesight, for example, and they lack fully-developed value systems, so they can be easily conditioned into fearless killing and unquestioning obedience. Children are small and agile, and they were used to good effect by the Soviet Red Army for reconnaissance during World War II. They are also much less likely to desert or to demand pay as a condition for service, which makes them especially suited for irregular warfare.

But women (like children) will never be able to match the physical strength and resilience of men, so it will either be necessary to lower standards overall for combat soldiers, or, better yet, to grant women categorical exemptions from the standards demanded of men. One area where men are decidedly more fragile and delicate than women is the ego, so fast-tracking unqualified women into selective units, such as the Green Berets, would do much to erode their pride and confidence in leadership.
Reply
#18
(05-16-2016, 08:21 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: Here it comes ladies! Ten hut!  :P

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/elaine-don...-daughters

And 61% of men support it.....so do 38% of women. Ironic almost as many Democrats as Republicans are against it. They agree on something for a change, but too late!

http://www.ijreview.com/2016/02/534446-m...the-draft/

Remember, N.O.W. funded the last 1981 case to get women included in the draft! Maybe now ya'll will finally start protesting outside their HQ like ya'll should have been doing all along. Oh well, see you in battle!  :)

You don't get it, DS.  Traditional women homeschooling 8 kids don't have time to go protest outside some NOW HQ somewhere, nor do they have the money to travel to some NOW HQ or the Washington Mall. Soros and the like don't fund traditional women, don't pay them to protest as they fund the [ETA: typically single and childless] progs, paying for them to travel all over the country to, for ex., protest Trump.

IOW, traditional women are as helpless as traditional men are in all these things; no one cares about us or listens to us. Feminists don't listen to traditional women any more than they listen to men, and it's a major kick to the head to be treated badly by traditionalist men because of what feminists do -- women we don't relate to, don't support, whose ideas we find hideous, etc.

Even if traditional women had the time and money to go around the U.S. protesting instead of raising and educating their kids, the media don't cover traditional movements the same way they cover progressive ones (i.e, there'd be either zero coverage or disparaging coverage). And what traditional women are DOING is raising huge numbers of boys and girls to not be feminist and woman-pedestalizing, etc., in addition to protesting feminism on the internet. If that sort of 24/7 labor isn't enough, then -- well, too bad. It's all trad women have got.

Further (this isn't just to you but to others in this thread wishing for things that, in essence, bring on the ruin):  it's a Catholic principle that one can't do evil to bring about some good. The desire to stick it to all women, even including traditional women, so that feminists get it good and hard, is an evil.  Your wishing our daughters die in Israel's wars just because our sons are expected to -- something we hate and lament to the depths -- is an evil. The desire to have America defenseless because a handful of AIPAC-worshiping neo-cons and their Evangelical supporters have wreaked havoc on the world is an evil.

I understand your anger at feminism. I feel (and think) the same way. But the way you're going about expressing yourself isn't serving your purpose -- our purpose. You're alienating the only women allies you have.
Reply
#19
Wow Vox, you said it! 

Cyriacus, you are quite right: promoting women who don't belong in such elite units is stupid.  The difference is that, while you would prefer a weak American military, I would prefer a strong one.  I see just as many failures in recent history.  I will even admit that just war and modern war seem to be utterly at odds.  The difference is that when and if someone comes to attack, I am unwilling to see thousands, if not millions,  of civilians die because our military is filled with inept soldiers permitted to wear what was once an honorable uniform because of PC BS.  Someone has to keep us safe and I would prefer it be good men I can trust.  I think we need selflessness, honor, and courage.  These aren't words I use lightly and any man I know who embodies these virtues has my absolute respect.  Then again, I believe in courtesy and self-sacrificial love.  Maybe I'm an idealist but I can't stand looking at an utterly corrupt world and not striving for something better. 
Reply
#20
(05-17-2016, 07:19 AM)Cyriacus Wrote: I would be in favor of this measure, if only because it would dramatically undermine the military readiness and esprit de corps of one of the foremost perpetrators of evil in the world today. The American military is very good at what it does, and it has been employed as a wrecking-ball against nations like Iraq, where over a million civilians died as a result of an illegal war of aggression, in order to advance the narrow interests of a clique of profiteers and ideologues, many with decidedly foreign loyalties.

Anything that would cause a sensible, red-blooded country boy to think twice before enlisting to fight and die for Robert Kagan and Henry Kissinger should be received warmly by people of good will.

In the same vein, I support affirmative action in the U.S. military, with the intended goal of placing fighting men under the least-respected, least-competent commanders chosen principally for reasons of identity politics, while sidelining more competent heterosexual white men. Strict quotas, exceeding the representation in the general population, should be set aside for women and minorities (including sexual minorities) at service academies and Officer Candidate Schools.

All militaries have been used for evil at some point. Personally, I'd rather have a strong and well led military (I'm referring to the civilian leadership here specifically) dedicated to actual national defense instead of someone else's interest, be it corporate or another nation.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)