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

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
I guess while we are at it we could also draft children and put them in non combat roles.



Surely none of you want to discriminate against children.

Not draft legal work aged teenagers per se, but hey if they want to volunteer to serve their country for a few hours after school, why not?

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.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Irishhaf

considering that this was one of the primary concerns raised over the passage of the ERA Amendment, I guess it means it's time to bring the ERA back into the discussion more than it has been and get it passed....
ya know before the conservatives manage to pass laws and amendments granting those few cells in the women's body more rights than the women has??
remember guys, equal means equal, which means...
equal in the family court system!

I think most people think the ERA has already been passed.

It hasn't.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
I guess while we are at it we could also draft children and put them in non combat roles.



Surely none of you want to discriminate against children.

Not draft legal work aged teenagers per se, but hey if they want to volunteer to serve their country for a few hours after school, why not?

They are minors and not needed in a war at this point. If we were to allow such then we would have to reevaluate the age of consent. Sure some kids have their stuff together but in the majority they do not know from day to day what they believe or what they want to do with their developing lives.

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".

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.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
I guess while we are at it we could also draft children and put them in non combat roles.



Surely none of you want to discriminate against children.

Not draft legal work aged teenagers per se, but hey if they want to volunteer to serve their country for a few hours after school, why not?

They are minors and not needed in a war at this point. If we were to allow such then we would have to reevaluate the age of consent. Sure some kids have their stuff together but in the majority they do not know from day to day what they believe or what they want to do with their developing lives.

I was thinking that, when and if ever needed, teenagers could volunteer and contribute in any ways that are deemed appropriate. I started working at 14 years of age, after lying about my age (had to be 16 years) because I wanted to work (Summers, after school, weekends).

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Yes actually, many instances.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

And if those women want to do something other than be forced to stay home and have babies, then what?

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.

a reply to: TexasTruth

Better equipped why? Boys aren’t any more disciplined. They aren’t any more rational (not that rational people go into combat anyways, that’s why recruit people too young and stupid to understand that), they aren’t innately better shots, or smarter, or better under pressure, or better at taking orders.

Men do have an advantage in hand to hand combat, but that isn’t really relevant.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
I guess while we are at it we could also draft children and put them in non combat roles.



Surely none of you want to discriminate against children.

Not draft legal work aged teenagers per se, but hey if they want to volunteer to serve their country for a few hours after school, why not?

They are minors and not needed in a war at this point. If we were to allow such then we would have to reevaluate the age of consent. Sure some kids have their stuff together but in the majority they do not know from day to day what they believe or what they want to do with their developing lives.

I was thinking that, when and if ever needed, teenagers could volunteer and contribute in any ways that are deemed appropriate. I started working at 14 years of age, after lying about my age (had to be 16 years) because I wanted to work.

I also started work young at 11. Also in the past i am pretty sure that many done just that during the wars. However it should not be any part of selective service and only come after an emergency order by potus during some sort of national emergency.

That is my view on kids in war but kids in the job market place i feel they should be able to work as much as they want but not be overly forced to do so. Sure a parent should have the right to introduce children to work but there has to be oversite and children should never become forced on a regular basis to work.

a reply to: UncleTomahawk.

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

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: TexasTruth

Better equipped why? Boys aren’t any more disciplined. They aren’t any more rational (not that rational people go into combat anyways, that’s why recruit people too young and stupid to understand that), they aren’t innately better shots, or smarter, or better under pressure, or better at taking orders.

Men do have an advantage in hand to hand combat, but that isn’t really relevant.

Men having an advantage, absolutely not relevant during an air battle.

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.

And the oppression is still continuing today as evidenced by the treatment of women in the Israeli military.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
Only a seriously weakened and mentally unfit country would send a large portion of women off to war.

Our largest mobilization ever was WW2. We lost 416,800 soldiers and had a population of 138.4 million. That’s a loss of 0.3%. If half of that were women we would have lost 0.15% of the nations women. That’s an insignificant number.

originally posted by: dug88
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.

I'd like to see someone post a Constitutional citation that prevents Congress making a law based on gender...It certainly can't be an equal rights issue if women aren't clamoring for the right to be drafted into the military...Got to be a liberal judge...

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.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Yes actually, many instances.

Such instances are a minority and my point here is clear that woman should not be part of a draft except a last resort that would likely be too late for the country anyhow.

Gender stereotypes are vanishing, but they won't completely gone.

We are, after al, ONE. Human Beings.

Our society defines these roles because this is what naturally happens as a result of.

As time changes, society revises those frameworks in response.

In this day and age, Woman are in a much better position to gain as much as a male.