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

originally posted by: dawnstar
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.

Good questions. These men's groups have a hidden agenda, one that they probably will never own.

Close to 80 percent of children under the age of 12 were placed in their mothers' custody in cases where a court order existed. Almost 7 percent were placed in their fathers' custody, and for 13 percent of children, a shared custody arrangement was established. (Canadian stats)

According to DivorcePeers.com the majority of child custody cases are not decided by the courts. In 51% of the cases, both parents agreed that mom be the custodial parent. In 29% of the cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement. Only 11% of custody cases were decided during mediation with as few as 5% being decided after court order custody evaluations.

Have a look at one review of this men's group...'silencing women' (in more ways than one).

psmag.com...

originally posted by: Annee

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet woman still have a role to play in reproduction no matter how much they want to deny it or rise above it.

a reply to: InTheLight

so, then...
the men are griping after they find out that hey, child support hurts??
all of a sudden hey, they should have custody, wth??
what they want is for us to go back to the time when they were the king of their own castle I think.

originally posted by: Gothmog

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.

I started him down this path on a previous page with links and quotes. I think the issue here is one of mindset more than ignorance, although they could be considered one and the same in some cases. We have now both shown him women have been quite involved in war through the ages, although he is right that men are more prone to make and carry out war than women typically.

He seems to be worried about reproduction and continuity of the species, but China has many more men than women, and I don't see them going extinct any time soon. In the reverse, Australia has many more women than men. They aren't likely to dry up any time soon either.

a reply to: dawnstar

Without government intervention and existence things would be much different that they are today.

I wonder where we got our systems of child support and such? It sounds very communist to me.

A strong woman who chooses to leave a man without just cause should have no rights over children or be collecting money.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

so, then...
the men are griping after they find out that hey, child support hurts??
all of a sudden hey, they should have custody, wth??
what they want is for us to go back to the time when they were the king of their own castle I think.

That may well be the case, but men pursuing full or partial custody has not increased over the last decade, so what does that tell us?

But, strangely, this men's group bringing up the lack of gender equality for the draft is actually moving some women's equality agenda forward. I am just not sure what this men's group's real intentions are, if you read the review article I posted above, I am skeptical.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Gothmog

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.

I started him down this path on a previous page with links and quotes. I think the issue here is one of mindset more than ignorance, although they could be considered one and the same in some cases. We have now both shown him women have been quite involved in war through the ages, although he is right that men are more prone to make and carry out war than women typically.

He seems to be worried about reproduction and continuity of the species, but China has many more men than women, and I don't see them going extinct any time soon. In the reverse, Australia has many more women than men. They aren't likely to dry up any time soon either.

Well, open borders would solve that problem, if needed in the future.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: Annee

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yet woman still have a role to play in reproduction no matter how much they want to deny it or rise above it.

There will always be both women and men who would choose to take care of the Homestead.

There are men who choose to stay home - - take care of the house - - take care of the kids - - and send the woman off to "whatever".

Today we have the technology of surrogate "Baby Makers". A woman can have another woman carry her child.

Technology wins!

ALSO - - - women now have the choice to never reproduce.

Your Neanderthal thinking - - has nothing to do with biology.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Gothmog

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.

I started him down this path on a previous page with links and quotes. I think the issue here is one of mindset more than ignorance, although they could be considered one and the same in some cases. We have now both shown him women have been quite involved in war through the ages, although he is right that men are more prone to make and carry out war than women typically.

He seems to be worried about reproduction and continuity of the species, but China has many more men than women, and I don't see them going extinct any time soon. In the reverse, Australia has many more women than men. They aren't likely to dry up any time soon either.

Well, open borders would solve that problem, if needed in the future.

Open borders and multiculturalism have been championed by many in recent years. Both seem to be very utopian ideas on the surface, but they become less than glamorous when one begins to look deeper at the inherent problems and stress they put on hosting countries. I have no doubt that at some point in the future open borders will become somewhat the norm, but neither will work without an international government with one set of laws for the whole of our civilization.

ETA: I would also add that from China's perspective, open borders is not an acceptable option for balancing the ratio of men to women.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

A strong woman who chooses to leave a man without just cause should have no rights over children or be collecting money.

historically speaking, it was more common for the man to pack up and leave the family than the women to leave the man...
weather you consider our current child support system as communistic or not doesn't matter..
since we started out with men just leaving the family high and dry at the mercy of gov't programs or charity.
at least the father had a role in creating the kid.. it seems a tad bit more communistic/sociallistic to allow the father to walk away and lay the burden of his responsibilities onto the society, doesn't it?
there are two things that led to our current system...
first was necessity, someone has to take care of the kids.
the second was society's unwillingness to accept any meaningful equality between the husband and wife, hence they thought it better to throw bones to those who wanted the ERA and other legislation just shifting her dependency onto the gov't programs than to expect businesses to provide fair wages, fathers to pay child support, ect. it wasn't till they realized the actual financial cost of those programs, saw it growing more and more that they decided to enforce those child support rules and work to make it easier for mothers to be self sufficient.

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist
a reply to: dug88

Not including women in the draft wasn't about women's ability to serve in the military. Women have been serving for a long time in various capacity.

The selective services not including women had a different point. During major wars it is unwise to send all our women off to die. In too many ways to count they are invaluable assets to our society. Frankly, more so than men.

Don't feed steak to a starving dog when scraps will do the trick.

Nope. We're all the same with interchangeable parts.

a reply to: Annee

No that tech. would have to be able to become widespread in order to offset a serious loss of women in a draft.

The laws we have in regard to war are such so that we can win and flourish as a nation. Feelings and equality takes a back seat to those goals of the state. The state would do some crazy things in the name of survival.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

history also shows us that you really can force a women to breed. you can't take away all knowledge of birth control, and ban abortions entirely, but well..
the abortions go underground and an amazing number of babies end up being pulled out of the rivers it seems.

a reply to: dawnstar

Any man who abandons his family for no good reason should be responsible for their well being. The laws on such should promote the families staying together. They currently do not.

The current system we have was adopted by us from a communist regime so yes my feelings on that are inconsequential to the truth.

Marriage is a contract not being held up in most cases.

originally posted by: NthOther
Women do not belong in combat. Healthy, strong women are required to replenish a nation's population after a devastating war.

Hence, f# Baby Boomers.

Well, if your women die in combat too... you've pretty much lost the war at that point.

Who do the boys go back to? The girls are all dead too.

Nothing is of course black and white, but there is an inconvenient truth to this.

It's a bit like if everyone demanded to become bakers. There would be a ton of cakes, but a whole lot of other things would suffer.

Unless we develop countertop baby-incubators (like a bread machine), we men sure ain't going to have any buns in the oven any time soon.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

you know why god supposedly allowed divorce to begin with? it really wasn't anything the women were doing, it was because of the "hardness of men's heart"..
even back then with a society built so perfectly to keep women in her place, a need for divorce was there!!!

absolute power corrupts absolutely...
there are better ways to keep families together than to work to restrict or coerce the women to remain in the marriage..
like, oh I don't know...
how about taking some of the financial stress off of the familes!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

so, then...
the men are griping after they find out that hey, child support hurts??
all of a sudden hey, they should have custody, wth??
what they want is for us to go back to the time when they were the king of their own castle I think.

Errr no...most men want a fair shake, if they did nothing wrong and she wants out it shouldn't wreck him financially for the rest of his life, and if he wants to stay a part of the kids lives he shouldn't be totally at her mercy. (1 claim of domestic violence, just a claim no proof and his life can be derailed further)

As it stands, the guys I saw in the military that came home from deployment to find another man in their bed with the wife had 1 option to not end up destitute. Look at the judge, say she can have it all just leave me my car and my uniforms and then start over, that's not a fair and just system.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: InTheLight

so, then...
the men are griping after they find out that hey, child support hurts??
all of a sudden hey, they should have custody, wth??
what they want is for us to go back to the time when they were the king of their own castle I think.

Errr no...most men want a fair shake, if they did nothing wrong and she wants out it shouldn't wreck him financially for the rest of his life, and if he wants to stay a part of the kids lives he shouldn't be totally at her mercy. (1 claim of domestic violence, just a claim no proof and his life can be derailed further)

As it stands, the guys I saw in the military that came home from deployment to find another man in their bed with the wife had 1 option to not end up destitute. Look at the judge, say she can have it all just leave me my car and my uniforms and then start over, that's not a fair and just system.

Look at the judge, yes, let's have a look. If she is taking custody of the children (most likely if you have to be deployed somewhere) then would you prefer to have her and the children destitute and yourself better off?

www.military.com...

a reply to: InTheLight

the judge is gonna consider who has been more predominate when it comes to the actual caring for the kids, who's been the one helping them with their homework, who does the school call when they get sick at school, who makes sure they are fed, bathed and put to bed at night, ect..
and he's gonna look at who is earning the most money.
and since the one who is caring for the kids and keeping the home running is probably also losing time at work, having to bail on work when those kids do get sick, ect... well, usually they aren't gonna be the ones earning more money!
so, ya, it's more likely that the mom will get the kids because well, she's caring for the kids and this has caused her to lose earning potential.
while I agree, it's unfair, it seems to be unfair to both the mom and the dad. but, the unfairness in the divorce court is the result of an unfairness that hasn't been addressed before the divorce court became an issue.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

you know why god supposedly allowed divorce to begin with? it really wasn't anything the women were doing, it was because of the "hardness of men's heart"..
even back then with a society built so perfectly to keep women in her place, a need for divorce was there!!!

absolute power corrupts absolutely...
there are better ways to keep families together than to work to restrict or coerce the women to remain in the marriage..
like, oh I don't know...
how about taking some of the financial stress off of the families!!

From what i gathered in the book it was eve who cheated and caused GOD to curse us all.

I agree that we could take stress off families and i would want to see policies that keep families together rather than make it financially beneficial to be divorced.

Currently if a woman is married and has a child if she chooses to get a divorce then she is ENTITLED to get money from the ex....house,food and medical care from the state.

A man would have to make at least 20$ an hour to start to come close to matching those benefits geared toward divorce.