It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

With women in combat roles, a federal court rules male-only draft unconstitutional

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Regardless of the training, the drilling, the muscle memory, etc... this simple clip represents the simple basic instinct of a male to protect a female regardless of everything else...

I guess youtube linking is broken...

Here's the link...
Dashcam & Bodycam Footage of Police Shootout With Gang Member

Did you all notice how the officer holstered his firearm without ensuring that the criminal was completely out of the fight?
The female officer had to tell him multiple times to secure the shooter before attending to her.

I don't blame either officer, it's a life or death situation and instincts take over.

The instincts to protect a female is and forever will be wired into the male genome.

This is a potential disruption in roles whose sole purpose is combat and not of support.


There was nothing male to female in that video. It was co-worker to co-worker.
I disagree completely with your bias.


This is officer to officer reaction during life and death...

www.youtube.com...Pull-over thriller: Man shot at Pennsylvania police officers, badly injuring one

Two male officers involved in a shooting... watch their reaction. Yes the suspect got away.

However, neither male officer took precedence of ending the threat over the wellbeing of their partner.

I can prove this point, time and time, and time, and time again.

Sorry... but you're full of #.




posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: EternalSolace
The instincts to protect a female is and forever will be wired into the male genome.


That is complete and utter BS. People who think that, or worse... do it are weak enough mentally that they should never be put into those roles. If you see gender rather than people, you do not have what it takes to be in combat, or in my opinion even be a functional member of society because it means you inherently treat people differently based on sex.


You're #ing stupid at best. If I were a cop (as a male), give me a female partner over man any time. Because they're wired to more likely find out who wronged their partner, over a male partner any day.

You cannot fight genetic programming.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 01:41 AM
link   
On the topic of legislative sexual discrimination. There is another similar situation, in which women are subjugated out of, but men have to go through it.

Male Genital Mutilation, or as some people call it "Circumcision" is not protected equally for men, as FGM(Female Genital Mutilation/Female Circumcision) is protected for women.
Infant males can have parts of their genitals cut off for non-medical reasons.
Infant females? Protected from that, under the FGM law.

If we're trying to make men and women equal everywhere, this question is more concerning than the draft.
(Not drafting for a war right now. Hospitals across the country are cutting off pieces of baby penises, literally right now.)
I seriously ask the question: In the US, we condone cutting off pieces of baby dicks. If you want, you could become a doctor that performs them, and not only can you gleefully cut baby dicks all day, you can get PAID to do it!
Pharmaceutical and medical companies build devices explicitly to mutilate baby males penises. If a company was manufacturing devices, explicitly made to mutilate baby female genitals, that company would be burned to the ground and America would take a # in the ashes.

So, America protects baby girls from genital mutilation, but baby boys are # out of luck because the FGM laws don't apply to MGM.

Now, before anyone would bring religion into this argument. Let it be known that the FGM law, explicitly protects female babies/minors from "female circumcisions" for all non-medical medical reasons. (Religion included)

So, even if some religions support, dictate, or by cultural tradition, circumcision of female minors, they are STILL protected against those religious reasons.

I'm not saying the Judaic community has to stop circumcising completely, but there is NO good reason why it can't wait until the baby male is old enough to make an informed consensus on the decision.

You aren't born with a religion. Cutting part of your newborn baby's dick off, does not force them to BE part of the parent's religion.

"It helps prevent HPV/HIV/etc..."
Even if that is the case, it would only be a problem when the male was going to become sexually active. No reason to do it, as a newborn, fresh in the hospital, BABY.

As a society, we also accept that individuals may choose to change their gender or sexual orientations fluidly.

What if the baby male, was going to decide to transition to be a female when they are older?
Well... In normal sex change operations, they use parts of a male's penis and testicles to create sensory erogenous analogues to female genitalia. If a baby boy was circumcised, there would be no foreskin/labial or clitoral hood equivalent structure to work with.

In circumcising a baby "male" in that situation, you have actually permanently mutilated a female's genitals. Thus, this particular baby "male" should be protected by the Federal FGM laws. These male genital structures are direct analogues of female genital structures. Those tissues are explicitly protected.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Ok. You have magically equated two different videos with different humans to equate to what you want to believe?
All you have proven is that people react differently because of their personality.
Let's prove the point.
I look forward to what you have to show.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Archivalist

Foreskin removal is not the same as removing the part of the female
Significantly different body parts
I don’t think you can equate them to be fair



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I created a thread a few weeks ago calling for the feminist opinion regarding the draft.

Prepare for this new announcement to be vehemently rejected by feminists and “progressives” as a symptom of the evil patriarchy subordinating women to its will.

This particular topic in regards to gender equality has been side stepped by all of the talking heads as far as I can see.

Waiting with baited breath for the rebuttal from the thought leaders.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: dug88

For those that want to avoid the draft, get pregnant!

Kind regards,

bally



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: dug88


a male-only draft was "fully justified" because women were ineligible for combat roles.


now i already fundamentally opose that " thinking "

even in a regieme where females are" barred from combat posts " there are a lot of military jobs that are non-combat - that - if staffed by females - frees males for combat roles

yes - there are arguments against having a massive majoroty of females in the support forces - but none impact the actual " argument " cited



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 04:10 AM
link   
if a woman wants to go and killed and die in wars in which the elites have started in their own interest and not that of the people so that their masters can have their blood sacrifice then by all means they should. Obviously, they are as dumb as the men who do the same.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
Fair is fair, girls, I thought we were equal to the boys, hmm?

Start drafting the bitchiest, loudest feminists first. They need a reality check better than anyone.


I'm sure there are stupid people out there who are unaware of the real stuff happening when at war. But, what would that 'reality check' teach them?

Can you expand on that?
edit on 25-2-2019 by BoneSay because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 06:16 AM
link   
If you claim to have any belief in the concept of equality this was a logical step.

Also it should be hysterical watching the feminists/progressives twist themselves into a pretzel trying to condemn this ruling, even though it is largely symbolic and is not going to force the change, its just federal recognition of an issue.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 06:24 AM
link   
I doubt the draft will ever be used again. The economics of our society now makes for plenty of volunteers.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Can anyone in good conscience send/allow women in to combat knowing full well what the likes of ISIS does to them?

I can't.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
People who think my statement is nonsense are completely ignorant of genetics, or are sociopaths. Take your pick... Because I can prove you wrong time, and time, and time again.


1. It's funny that you think genetics are supposed to produce 1950's gender roles.
2. Even if something is genetic, people still have different traits. People with the traits you describe, do not make for better soldiers. They are inferior, and should only be used when there are no other options.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
You cannot fight genetic programming.



If you're right, then you're presenting a very good argument for forced genetic manipulation to remove undesirable traits.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: dug88


lolz

Watch. The 4th wave of "feminism" will be pro-misogyny.





posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
I doubt the draft will ever be used again. The economics of our society now makes for plenty of volunteers.


If we ever reduce the price of college and make access to healthcare realistic, the military will lose the two biggest reasons people join it.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Can anyone in good conscience send/allow women in to combat knowing full well what the likes of ISIS does to them?

I can't.



And they do the same thing to men. What's your point? Are you saying you agree with radical Islam, and that their women are so beautiful, and that they love them so much, that the only sensible thing to do is to lock them up so that no one else can ever lay eyes on them?



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   
NO just NO!!
I have a 17 year old daughter and imagining her and her friends going to the front lines is the most absurd thing I could imagine EVER happening on a battlefield.
I have told my daughter she can be and do whatever she wants in life and meant it with all my heart. Until now I guess.
#1 she would never pick to do this
#2 my daughter and her friends would either have the men trying to woo them, or be laughing at their sillyness
#3 just imagine the typical high school cheerleaders holding secrets as a POW
#4 imagine the panic as these love intrests (Lets be honest, I’m a dad, trust me, it would happen) get caught, injured, or maimed.
I could go on and on.....

It would have to be like in The Hunger Games where you could volunteer for somebody.
I knew they were conditioning us for something in that movie.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I have no problem with this, in support roles and certain high tech roles such as pilots, Naval officers, tank commanders, etc women can perform just as well or better than their male counterparts.
As far as the more physical front line roles like infantry, special ops? Fine, as long as unit standards are not lowered to accommodate gender equity quotas. If you can handle it more power to you, if you can't you wash out
period.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join