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: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

but what if the women choose not to be your baby factories??
seriously..
it sounds what you are saying is that their childbearing role is cause to block them from the same opportunities and experiences the men have.
lol... you could use this we need them to repopulate the country after the war excuse to protect them from the draft, but well, what if they choose not be repopulate afterwards? they don't seem to want to reproduce enough to even maintain the current population as it is and you seem to think they will just go into overdrive to grow the population.



No you are misreading the situation. This is about them getting caught up in selective service and being forced to fight along side men. Women have the right to serve along side men and many do a damn fine job.

Sadly in a serious situation i could see the state forcing women to reproduce.


If serving one's country involved reproducing then they only need to make it a non-combat position and pay those that are willing. You could not imagine the backlash if women were to be forced into breeding.




posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow




Instead of rehashing the history of the 'female warrior', maybe you should be researching the reasons women were eventually excluded from direct combat

You didn't think that one out too well , did ya ?
Ask yourself this:
In which countries are women excluded from combat ?
Hint . Women in the military
Then , go back and delete that part.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: UncleTomahawk.

It has been a minority throughout history, mostly because for the majority of human history women have been oppressed.



If you call fulfilling their role as babymakers then that is on you. Such has been necessary to bring humanity to the point of existence we have now.

That seems like an argument that should be taken up with evolution or your creator.

Men have also been oppressed.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: UncleTomahawk.

It has been a minority throughout history, mostly because for the majority of human history women have been oppressed.



If you call fulfilling their role as babymakers then that is on you. Such has been necessary to bring humanity to the point of existence we have now.

That seems like an argument that should be taken up with evolution or your creator.

Men have also been oppressed.


No, women have been lawfully excluded from serving in all roles in the military by men making the rules.
edit on 02CST10America/Chicago020101028 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
You are not wrong. As far as i know we all still do it the same way neanderthals did. Yes the woman are the backbone of the country and are the only viable means to carry out reproduction on a large scale to combat losses of men during war.


I’ve got just the fix for you then. From the ages of 14 to 17 we use them as breeders, then at 18 after they’ve pumped out a couple kids to replace war losses, we can send them to the battlefield. Much more efficient that way right?



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
You are not wrong. As far as i know we all still do it the same way neanderthals did. Yes the woman are the backbone of the country and are the only viable means to carry out reproduction on a large scale to combat losses of men during war.


I’ve got just the fix for you then. From the ages of 14 to 17 we use them as breeders, then at 18 after they’ve pumped out a couple kids to replace war losses, we can send them to the battlefield. Much more efficient that way right?


But who will raise the children? The old folks? No thanks, been there, done that.
edit on 02CST10America/Chicago022101028 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

edit on 02CST10America/Chicago022101028 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk


I am saying that it is a biological fact that that men are stronger in the majority

Who the HADES needs strength when one has an AR , SAW , RPG , etc. ?
There are many , many kinds of "strength" . You are only going off of one type.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

And until recent history women having things like voting rights also wasn’t common. For decades after women’s sufferage it was still common for a woman to vote according to her husbands wishes, a practice that still happens among older women.

Just because it wasn’t common doesnt mean it was bad. Women have been oppressed the world over for a long time, and that is changing for now. Get used to it.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

but what if the women choose not to be your baby factories??
seriously..
it sounds what you are saying is that their childbearing role is cause to block them from the same opportunities and experiences the men have.
lol... you could use this we need them to repopulate the country after the war excuse to protect them from the draft, but well, what if they choose not be repopulate afterwards? they don't seem to want to reproduce enough to even maintain the current population as it is and you seem to think they will just go into overdrive to grow the population.



No you are misreading the situation. This is about them getting caught up in selective service and being forced to fight along side men. Women have the right to serve along side men and many do a damn fine job.

Sadly in a serious situation i could see the state forcing women to reproduce.


If serving one's country involved reproducing then they only need to make it a non-combat position and pay those that are willing. You could not imagine the backlash if women were to be forced into breeding.


I agree with you but such has happened in the past and as people have pointed out woman and men have been oppressed in all kinds of ways of which reproduction forced upon woman has been a large role and in the event of a large loss of men there could become a need to force reproduction by the state but i could see them just doubling down on the current method employed in the usa that supports reproduction and that is tax breaks.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
You are not wrong. As far as i know we all still do it the same way neanderthals did. Yes the woman are the backbone of the country and are the only viable means to carry out reproduction on a large scale to combat losses of men during war.


I’ve got just the fix for you then. From the ages of 14 to 17 we use them as breeders, then at 18 after they’ve pumped out a couple kids to replace war losses, we can send them to the battlefield. Much more efficient that way right?


But who will raise the children? The old folks? No thanks, been there, done that.


The state? Train them to be soldiers from birth. That way they’ll be more effective. Your arguments are based on the premise of a never ending war machine after all.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

the thing is, viet nam taught us that it isn't really a great idea to draft men into a war zone and now the military rejects the idea of drafting people. they'd rather have drones and AI out there than men or women who are unfit or unwilling to be there.
this suit was brought up by a men's group... which makes me really question...
it seems that they could have used basically the same arguments for equality to go after the child support system and try to bring some equality to that but instead they brought up this? and at least one person has used it to take a stab at the feminists, like see what you've done, aren't you horrified now? and just in time to lay the groundwork because well, the discussions around the ERA have been heating up again. if it had been passed in the 70's or before, instead of us building up this giant monster of social programs that give aide mostly to women and children (because, well we all know that those women are too weak and unable to hold their own) and probably would have been laying the groundwork much earlier to change the system so that the women could hold their own and we would have a much more equal system now.




Sadly in a serious situation i could see the state forcing women to reproduce.


and they have just about the whole of history showing them how to force this on women!



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Are there historical instances of women going to battle in large numbers and effectively changing the outcome of wars or sieges?

Sure there have always been a small percent of female warriors that have fought but in the past men have always done most of the fighting for many reasons and not just because by average men are stronger.

Just because hollywood can portray women as being a serious fighting force or the aclu fighting for equal rights does not make us all equal.

Dang , you need a set of history classes in the worst way.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Other countries offer incentives to have more children, such as starter packages, longer maternal and paternal leaves, tax breaks, etc.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

It’s basically a way to increase pressure to formally eliminate the draft. This doubles the number of people directly impacted by it.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

the thing is, viet nam taught us that it isn't really a great idea to draft men into a war zone and now the military rejects the idea of drafting people. they'd rather have drones and AI out there than men or women who are unfit or unwilling to be there.
this suit was brought up by a men's group... which makes me really question...
it seems that they could have used basically the same arguments for equality to go after the child support system and try to bring some equality to that but instead they brought up this? and at least one person has used it to take a stab at the feminists, like see what you've done, aren't you horrified now? and just in time to lay the groundwork because well, the discussions around the ERA have been heating up again. if it had been passed in the 70's or before, instead of us building up this giant monster of social programs that give aide mostly to women and children (because, well we all know that those women are too weak and unable to hold their own) and probably would have been laying the groundwork much earlier to change the system so that the women could hold their own and we would have a much more equal system now.




Sadly in a serious situation i could see the state forcing women to reproduce.


and they have just about the whole of history showing them how to force this on women!



It is also another failure for those people in those men's group to recognize that women account for 90% (UK stats) 86% (U.S. stats) of single parents with dependent children and most are economically challenged, with less than 38% (UK stats, I would imagine the U.S. percentage would be in that ballpark) of all single parent households receiving child maintenance. Just saying, how can you fight against that?
edit on 02CST10America/Chicago048101028 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Are there historical instances of women going to battle in large numbers and effectively changing the outcome of wars or sieges?

Sure there have always been a small percent of female warriors that have fought but in the past men have always done most of the fighting for many reasons and not just because by average men are stronger.

Just because hollywood can portray women as being a serious fighting force or the aclu fighting for equal rights does not make us all equal.

Dang , you need a set of history classes in the worst way.


For what? I am aware of much history and none of it includes women as the majority role as warriors. As i said there have been some instances but overall the men have waged war.




posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Are there historical instances of women going to battle in large numbers and effectively changing the outcome of wars or sieges?

Sure there have always been a small percent of female warriors that have fought but in the past men have always done most of the fighting for many reasons and not just because by average men are stronger.

Just because hollywood can portray women as being a serious fighting force or the aclu fighting for equal rights does not make us all equal.

Dang , you need a set of history classes in the worst way.


For what? I am aware of much history and none of it includes women as the majority role as warriors. As i said there have been some instances but overall the men have waged war.



And there are reasons for that.

online.norwich.edu...



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

but, why aren't there more single parent families with a male at the head? why aren't more men given custody? could it be that instead of embracing that equality on the personal level, in the home, in the workplace, we've forced women into the position they are in? economically disadvantaged and struggling with an unequal workload on the home front which only causes her to be more disadvanted in the workplace. so of course, if the marriage ends up in divorce court, the man ends up paying out the arse while the women remains in her dependent state, only now, relying more on the gov't programs because far too often in the past, the men got off easy often times without paying much of anything.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Are there historical instances of women going to battle in large numbers and effectively changing the outcome of wars or sieges?

Sure there have always been a small percent of female warriors that have fought but in the past men have always done most of the fighting for many reasons and not just because by average men are stronger.

Just because hollywood can portray women as being a serious fighting force or the aclu fighting for equal rights does not make us all equal.

Dang , you need a set of history classes in the worst way.


For what? I am aware of much history and none of it includes women as the majority role as warriors. As i said there have been some instances but overall the men have waged war.


Here is your history lessons , part 1

Women in the military

Now that I have started you down the path in denying your own ignorance , you shall have to continue the journey for yourself
It is my PC gaming time

Denying Ignorance
Why ?
In this case I am just giving a start.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: Klassified

Thanks for the info. Sounds like such is a minority throughout history.

Not as much as you might think. This is a topic I have spent some time on. In Europe especially, there is a long history of capable women warriors, but not only in Europe. Do the research, you might be surprised. Nevertheless, the one difference I have seen is the reason women fight as opposed to the reason men fight. Women are slower to war and conflict, but once they're in, they're in all the way.


I am not claiming that America does not have some baddass woman. I am saying that it is a biological fact that that men are stronger in the majority and that the female role of reproduction before, during and after wars is just as important as fighting a war for a country.


That sounds Neanderthal.

Women - - still the "Baby Makers".



You are not wrong. As far as i know we all still do it the same way neanderthals did. Yes the woman are the backbone of the country and are the only viable means to carry out reproduction on a large scale to combat losses of men during war.


I'm a 72 year old woman.

I've experienced enough gender inequality in my life to have the right to call - - looking at women as "Baby Makers" - - Neanderthal thinking.

Men are the root cause of Feminism. Men "macho" war mongers - - go to war - - leave woman at home to fend for herself - - woman has to do both "Male/Female Roles" - - woman has to become independent - - then man comes home and wants to take that independence away from her - - and shove her back into the role HE deems appropriate.

Just NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
edit on 25-2-2019 by Annee because: SPELLING



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join