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

www.usatoday.com...

A federal judge in Texas has declared that an all-male military draft is unconstitutional, ruling that "the time has passed" for a debate on whether women belong in the military.

The decision deals the biggest legal blow to the Selective Service System since the Supreme Court upheld the draft registration process in 1981. In Rostker v. Goldberg, the court ruled that a male-only draft was "fully justified" because women were ineligible for combat roles.

But U.S. District Judge Gray Miller ruled late Friday that while historical restrictions on women serving in combat "may have justified past discrimination," men and women are now equally able to fight. In 2015, the Pentagon lifted all restrictions for women in military service.

The case was brought by the National Coalition For Men, a men's rights group, and two men who argued an all-male draft was unfair.

Miller said Congress has never fully examined whether men are physically better able to serve than women. In fact, he noted in a footnote, "the average woman could conceivably be better suited physically for some of today's combat positions than the average man, depending on which skills the position required. Combat roles no longer uniformly require sheer size or muscle."

Quoting the Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage, Miller ruled that restrictions based on gender "must substantially serve an important governmental interest today."

But the ruling came in the form of a declaratory judgment and not an injunction, meaning the court didn't specifically order the government how to change Selective Service to make it constitutional.

A federal judge ruled male only selective service was unconstitutional in a case brought forward by a men's rights group. It was just an injuction with no instructions on how to change anything so It looks like nothing will really change at the moment. But, i'm guessing this opens the door to it being changed.

Personally, i'm against a draft except in the case of emergency or all out war. I'm honestly not really sure how I feel about this. Just thought i'd post a thread as I didn't see one.

a reply to: dug88

As a woman Vet, two observations...

First, if we all want to be equal then we should all be equal. Draft for everyone if we ever (God forbid) have to, signing up for selective service should be for every citizen of the US that hits 18 years of age.

Second, women have been in combat roles the last 40 years or so at least.. we're just not allowed to talk about it.

So let's get this ball rolling.

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.

I don't like this at all. But here's the truth; many well-meaning feminists had a goal to have women recognized for their important roles in combat over the years, especially in modern warfare. They wanted women to have more active roles in the military and looked for ways to expand their roles to great success.

My commander in Afghanistan was one of the best leaders I'd ever encountered. Certainly the best our flight company was likely to ever get. I flew several combat missions with her and each time she was a bold, competent, and thoughtful mission commander.

When infantry roles were opened up to women, the last hurdle to full integration was removed. We now have women trying out for SOF units. There are MANY questions as to whether these integrations were on the level. Especially when it came to how female soldiers are treated in RASP.

First women to pass Ranger School were given extra training and lowered benchmarks after General vowed 'at least one of them will pass', report claims

Ranger schools fails most MEN. It is not an easy task. What we have done here is set an unfair standard for women to meet while the actual rigors of their training demands so much more and are only applied to the men. This push for integration before we had unbiased data to work with is going to put a lot of women in danger in the training school let alone the battlefield.

This ruling is a natural consequence of the conditions created. Now we have to deal with the consequences.

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.

a reply to: projectvxn

This push for integration before we had unbiased data to work with is going to put a lot of women in danger in the training school let alone the battlefield

SoOo...

Men are not in danger then in training, much less the battle field?

I do agree with you that this is the inevitable result of the feminist movement gone wild.

However.

We can talk all day long about bone density, mass and lifting ability... yes, women and men are different and I personally am quite happy with that.

But what if I'm quicker and shoot better and can adapt to a situation much easier?

Isn't all about how much you can lift.

Just a thought and now I have to shut up.

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.

So women should stay in the kitchen between breedings and make sammiches.

Thanks for your opinion.

The selective service not including women had nothing at all to do with being able to spawn.

It was a cultural difference which is gone now.

Russia did it, Russia are more advanced in women fighting than the backwards western cultures
They had to I guess
I am sure there are plenty of roles women would be better at than men, but at a front line position.


www.historynet.com...

originally posted by: Lumenari

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.

The selective service not including women had nothing at all to do with being able to spawn.

It was a cultural difference which is gone now.

Obviously it's not gone or a dead issue considering it still doesn't, nor ever will, sit well with a majority of American males and females.

This whole, 'this is what everyone wants' assumption is BS.

It's fair to say that females are really 'dying to be like men', or at the very least sacrificing their lives to be 'equal'.

It's that big of a deal apparently.

These volunteers aren't heroines, they're martyrs, don't get it twisted.

If we need to see ripped up and destroyed female bodies on the frontlines to motivate our men to fight/push harder out of anger and heartbreak, obviously we are doing it all wrong.

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: Lumenari

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.

The selective service not including women had nothing at all to do with being able to spawn.

It was a cultural difference which is gone now.

Obviously it's not gone or a dead issue considering it's still doesn't, nor ever will, sit well with a majority of American males and females.

This whole, 'this is what everyone wants' assumption is BS.

It's fair to say that females are really 'dying to be like men', or at the very least sacrificing their lives to be 'equal'.

It's that big of a deal apparently.

These volunteers aren't heroines, they're martyrs, don't get it twisted.

If we need to see ripped up and destroyed female bodies on the frontlines to motivate our men to fight/push harder out of anger and heartbreak, obviously we are doing it all wrong.

You of course missed the whole damn point.

First off, if the feminist movement wanted the sexes to be equal, then we should be.. unless one is just as equal but with qualifiers?

Secondly, women have been on the battlefield since time began.

So your quaint Western myopic viewpoint of "ripped up and destroyed females on the battlefield" is just stupid.

I'm Cherokee... some of our best warriors have been women.

Think men have the game cornered on being able to kill?

Without the toys, we've done it better... since forever.

And this paragraph?

If we need to see ripped up and destroyed female bodies on the frontlines to motivate our men to fight/push harder out of anger and heartbreak, obviously we are doing it all wrong.

So now men have the market cornered on anger and heartbreak too?

You really are clueless about women, I guess.

Anger and heartbreak we use as fuel.

As far as them not being heroines, that's just your misogyny rearing it's ugly head.

[SNIP]

I'm all for women being included in the draft/ selective service.

I understand the argument of needing to repopulate after a war.
Unless there was a major cultural shift the majority of our rebuilt society after war is result of a nuclear family, not some playboy and war widows.

a reply to: Lumenari

Instead of rehashing the history of the 'female warrior', maybe you should be researching the reasons women were eventually excluded from direct combat, and yet coerced to leave their family roles to seek 'fulfillment and freedom' in the workplace (oxymoron). Whereas the government could only tax a family unit once, now they could tax it twice.

I'd be resentful too.

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.

a reply to: dug88

Premise 1: All cases of allocating someone's time, money or resources without their consent are cases of slavery.
Premise 2: Selective service is a case of allocating someone's time, money or resources without their consent.
Conclusion: Therefore selective service is slavery.

I'm not for women getting drafted any more than I am men. I don't think anyone should be drafted. I am against slavery in any form.

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.

There are many advantages here. For starters, it doubles our effective fighting pool, this in turn either lets us put more people on the battlefield, or be more selective in choosing who to draft if the need arises. Also, if your repopulation point had any merit what so ever, it sounds to me like that's a good reason to try and avoid military action.

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.

a reply to: Lumenari

Hi ho, hi ho, it’s off to war we go

It’s silly, women are not equal,to men and it’s shameful that they want to be
We are different and that’s not a bad thing

Women are weaker generally, not good if you have to carry someone, carry heavy stuff, generally lack a males stamina
And in case you haven’t noticed, some men are mean and brutal,and nasty and you would have to deal with them on your own side, some men just won’t like women in the same role and will bully women

www.telegraph.co.uk...
And some women are smart enough to know that combat roles are not a good idea
As a general rule at least

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.

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.

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.

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.