Pentagon opens up combat roles for women.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Gorfias:

If there is ONLY individual responsibility for crimes, all crimes (and Jean Val Jean should have done lots of time for stealing a loaf of bread) why, I ask rhetorically? Because. No person is an island. Individual crimes must be met with forms of justice, etc. But you appear to be writing that it is ignorant to NOT accept that society has a role to play in reducing crime. It too often, has a role in creating the environment that causes crime (unless you think unemployment never causes someone to steal?) I am sorry if I am wrong and you do not see that.

Theres a limit. Im sorry but there is. We should do our best to reduce crimes by improving society. Education/unemployment ect. But when we start fixing solutions with "Its your fault for being near a person who might rape you (any man at all)" thats fucking rediculous. Society should meet people half way. Not the whole way. We shouldnt cater our entire society to rapists and murderers.

"I also am concerned that he is placed in the situation that would not exist if the woman was not there in the first place."

This statement makes me think things that i cannot type because i will be banned. Suffice to say i vomited blood and brimstone. Im sorry but thats... abhorrent, loathsome, odious, detestable and abominable. This fails to properly state how i quite feel about the implications of this sentence.

A solution for sexual harassment in the work place is not to ban women from the work place. You dont do this in offices. You dont do this in business. You dont do this in the army. Its that simple. Its a totally ridiculous idea and not even worth mentioning.

"Im concerned murderers are placed in situations where victims are close by, its not entirely a murderers fault if a victim is nearby, this wouldnt happen if victims just stayed at home and out of the way of murderers. Especially weak victims. I think weak victims need to try to stay away from murderers by avoiding contact with anyone".

Solutions for preventing crimes should undermine the rights of the victim by denying them access or rights to be anywhere their attacker decides they are not allowed to be. You are still handing over control of the victim to the attacker by letting them dictate where and what they are allowed to do. I wont disagree the perp probably felt abuse from the failing system and that such a system should be rectified. None of that can be placed on the victim.

Blablahb:
The babyboom was caused by people whose family planning was postponed by the war coming home and the economic and societal situations starting to look up while it looked bad during the war.

Britain's baby boom started in 1946.

imo Human beings breed more when their survival is under threat. i think that's possibly a perfectly natural thing for our species to do. i also understand some people like to think we don't work like that.

people round here have name for thinking like that... possibly "bullshit"...i can't remember. don't really care anymore either.

we're all perfectly rational blank slate sexless drones with no inherent drives, yadda, yadda, yadda.
i give up before you start.

btw i never once suggested polygamy...although the phrase "a girl in every port" does spring to mind.

and one could realistically argue the United States of America has never actually been in a "total war" itself because it was never fully mobilized nor did it ever really come under attack. possibly the war of independence. maybe.

if you disagree so be it.

BiscuitTrouser:

Solutions for preventing crimes should [not?] undermine the rights of the victim by denying them access or rights to be anywhere their attacker decides they are not allowed to be. You are still handing over control of the victim to the attacker by letting them dictate where and what they are allowed to do. I wont disagree the perp probably felt abuse from the failing system and that such a system should be rectified. None of that can be placed on the victim.

Had ERA passed, it would be stupid, but yes, it would be a right for women to be in combat (and registering for the draft an obligation). Combat gender roles was among the primary reasons it failed. We still decide if it is a good idea or not who goes into combat and sex matters a lot.

There are a number of reasons women shouldn't be in combat. The idea that it is just cruel to put young men in this situation is only one of them.

Not to worry though. Your side won big in 2012 and I think it like a tipping point. My side is screwed. You'll get your way. I think our missions will be largely uneffected by this. The amount of human suffering this causes will be substantial but we'll live with it. It's nothing to be happy about. My wife and daughter certainly weren't when I told them.

I'm also angry that this wasn't a huge issue in 2012. I have to wonder what would happen if a Romney campaign had said, "Republican war against women? We're not the ones trying to put them in combat." But that was never front and center of his campaign because ultimately, the Republican party is run by elites that want this as well. I'm registering Libertarian.

Gorfias:

Had ERA passed, it would be stupid, but yes, it would be a right for women to be in combat (and registering for the draft an obligation). Combat gender roles was among the primary reasons it failed. We still decide if it is a good idea or not who goes into combat and sex matters a lot.

There are a number of reasons women shouldn't be in combat. The idea that it is just cruel to put young men in this situation is only one of them.

Not to worry though. Your side won big in 2012 and I think it like a tipping point. My side is screwed. You'll get your way. I think our missions will be largely uneffected by this. The amount of human suffering this causes will be substantial but we'll live with it. It's nothing to be happy about. My wife and daughter certainly weren't when I told them.

I'm also angry that this wasn't a huge issue in 2012. I have to wonder what would happen if a Romney campaign had said, "Republican war against women? We're not the ones trying to put them in combat." But that was never front and center of his campaign because ultimately, the Republican party is run by elites that want this as well. I'm registering Libertarian.

Im not sure i can convince you. This is why we have different sides and im DAMN happy our side won. I just think all of this is just totally wrong and offencive. And disgusting.

"The idea that it is just cruel to put young men in this situation is only one of them."

Eugh. Just eugh. Is it cruel to put young men working at starbucks in a situation where they work with women? Its not cruel to make men and women work together. Its society. It is NOT some heavy burden on the backs of this "poor poor widdle men" to work with a fucking woman nor does the phrase "Well he was just BOUND to be a rapist, he WAS working with WOMEN after all". Shes just a person. It doesnt "Desensitize" men to the needs of women by asking them to work with and treat them like regular people. Id argue that to become a rapist or to abuse someone a man needs to be pretty damn de-sensitized in the first place.

"We're not the ones trying to put them in combat"

Cool cus neither are we. We are the ones trying to give them the choice to be in combat if they so choose and can martial the physical ability to do so.

"The amount of human suffering this causes will be substantial but we'll live with it. It's nothing to be happy about"

I fail to see how that could possibly be true. Women will CHOOSE to fight if they want to, aware of the risks, and will be free to leave if they so choose to. I honestly just dont give a fuck if a single man thinks thats "Too cruel" to be made to work with women in his unit. That man is a sexist asshole.

These arguments are all total bullshit, trying to justify not allowing women to even TRY to perform the same roles as men on the basis that "Its too hard on the men". I dont buy into that line of thinking. There will be little suffering imo and you have offered little in the way of substance to show that such suffering will occur and even if it does that its a good case to BAN women from trying. Surely if its so terrible you can just tell women and none will apply. If they apply anyway they take personal responsibility for themselves. War does cause suffering. Fighting is hard. If women WANT to do that i dont see any reason why not.

Its something to be extremely happy about IMO this is a great victory for women to decide their own fate rather than have it closed off to them. At the end of the day women who agree with you can just... NOT apply and their life changes nada. Women who agree with ME can and WILL apply and will be happy about having that freedom. Cant see a downside there. I think this was inevitable in a better society. Men need to learn to work with women, and SEGREGATING them in a workplace doesnt cause "More understanding of womens needs". Thats totally absurd. Surely talking to, working with and befriending women at work gives you a better understanding of "Womens needs" than NOT seeing them.

Gorfias:
I'm also angry that this wasn't a huge issue in 2012. I have to wonder what would happen if a Romney campaign had said, "Republican war against women? We're not the ones trying to put them in combat." But that was never front and center of his campaign because ultimately, the Republican party is run by elites that want this as well. I'm registering Libertarian.

I imagine the Romney campaign would have been gently reminded that the Draft still doesn't extend to women, we still have an all "volunteer" military, and there's no way to force women onto the front lines that don't actually want to be there.

They also would have been reminded that women are already dying in combat, despite ostensibly being placed only in support roles.

cobra_ky:

I imagine the Romney campaign would have been gently reminded that the Draft still doesn't extend to women, we still have an all "volunteer" military, and there's no way to force women onto the front lines that don't actually want to be there.
They also would have been reminded that women are already dying in combat, despite ostensibly being placed only in support roles.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/draftreg.htm

Conservatives have been complaining about women getting ever more into combat thinking that it was leading to full combat roles. It was.

BiscuitTrouser:

Its something to be extremely happy about IMO this is a great victory for women to decide their own fate rather than have it closed off to them. At the end of the day women who agree with you can just... NOT apply and their life changes nada. Women who agree with ME can and WILL apply and will be happy about having that freedom. Cant see a downside there. I think this was inevitable in a better society. Men need to learn to work with women, and SEGREGATING them in a workplace doesnt cause "More understanding of womens needs". Thats totally absurd. Surely talking to, working with and befriending women at work gives you a better understanding of "Womens needs" than NOT seeing them.

To look into the abyss is to be seen by the abyss. Today's right becomes tomorrow's obligation. Women like Mona Charen have said that they think women already do enough for this society without adding combat obligations. My wife and daughter would agree.

Gorfias:

BiscuitTrouser:

Solutions for preventing crimes should [not?] undermine the rights of the victim by denying them access or rights to be anywhere their attacker decides they are not allowed to be. You are still handing over control of the victim to the attacker by letting them dictate where and what they are allowed to do. I wont disagree the perp probably felt abuse from the failing system and that such a system should be rectified. None of that can be placed on the victim.

Had ERA passed, it would be stupid, but yes, it would be a right for women to be in combat (and registering for the draft an obligation). Combat gender roles was among the primary reasons it failed. We still decide if it is a good idea or not who goes into combat and sex matters a lot.

There are a number of reasons women shouldn't be in combat. The idea that it is just cruel to put young men in this situation is only one of them.

Not to worry though. Your side won big in 2012 and I think it like a tipping point. My side is screwed. You'll get your way. I think our missions will be largely uneffected by this. The amount of human suffering this causes will be substantial but we'll live with it. It's nothing to be happy about. My wife and daughter certainly weren't when I told them.

I'm also angry that this wasn't a huge issue in 2012. I have to wonder what would happen if a Romney campaign had said, "Republican war against women? We're not the ones trying to put them in combat." But that was never front and center of his campaign because ultimately, the Republican party is run by elites that want this as well. I'm registering Libertarian.

Gorf, I ask the same question I've asked others on this issue.

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?!

We sell service in the military as the highest honor someone can perform for their country. We make soldiers out to be the best, the brightest, the toughest, the most morally strong among us. Civilians get teased all the time with "Think you can make it with us? Think you can actually hang with US?! Think you're strong/smart/of sound character enough to hang with US?!!" We culturally let people use the "I fought for my country" as a trump card in conversations for cripe's sake!

Excuse us, Gorf, for finally wanting to buy what you've been sales pitching for generations now!!

Gorfias:
Women like Mona Charen have said that they think women already do enough for this society without adding combat obligations. My wife and daughter would agree.

But apparently they weren't up to the lofty task of combat duty, a duty held far higher in esteem and reverence than any "woman's" job.

Just stop it, Gorf. The hippocrisy of holding up combat troops as the noblest, most honorable and toughest people alive and then daring to ask "Why would women want THIS?!" makes me sick with rage.

Gorfias:
To look into the abyss is to be seen by the abyss. Today's right becomes tomorrow's obligation. Women like Mona Charen have said that they think women already do enough for this society without adding combat obligations. My wife and daughter would agree.

Dafuq?

Ok, fine, obviously we have to stop giving people's rights, because it's a slippery slope to rights being taken away.

Well if they get captured..... I am pretty sure it's not going to end well. Hopefully our military gives all patrol units enough air cover so that 50 or 100 Fighters don't end out engaging a vastly outnumber U.s Patrol unit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape

Gorfias:
Had ERA passed, it would be stupid

Oh come on, that debate has been here before. It turned out there was not a single sensible argument against ERA, and the conservatives had stopped it because it would impede the republican War on Women.

Gergar12:
Well if they get captured..... I am pretty sure it's not going to end well. Hopefully our military gives all patrol units enough air cover so that 50 or 100 Fighters don't end out engaging a vastly outnumber U.s Patrol unit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_rape

This has been adressed before; it is not a legitimate concern.

GunsmithKitten:
The hypocrisy of holding up combat troops as the noblest, most honorable

Wait! I thought that was moms! Rats. I can't be one of them.

thaluikhain:

Dafuq?

One thing I hope people learn from this and I have written it before: choices have a way of becoming obligations. Women in my life think they have enough obligations already, thank you.

But I'll give you an example: My own mom thought feminism meant "choice". A choice to be a stay at home mom or a working woman or someone "having it all". In reality, economics and government are steering women out of the home and kids into institutions. Probably posted "life of Julia" a million times. Message me or do a search for that term if you haven't already seen it. It's out there.

What feminist was it that said something about having to lie to women, otherwise they'd never support feminism?

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Had ERA passed, it would be stupid

Oh come on, that debate has been here before. It turned out there was not a single sensible argument against ERA

LOL. A major argument against it was that it might lead to women in combat and at least women having to register for the draft like males. Now where on Earth did we get that idea? Among others, Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Edit: Another fun one: "the unthinkable becomes the inevitable." Don't recall who said that either, but if the elite want it, and they want women fighting wars for their wealth and security, it will happen. And it will. I just got to deal with it.

Gorfias:
One thing I hope people learn from this and I have written it before: choices have a way of becoming obligations. Women in my life think they have enough obligations already, thank you.

But I'll give you an example: My own mom thought feminism meant "choice". A choice to be a stay at home mom or a working woman or someone "having it all". In reality, economics and government are steering women out of the home and kids into institutions. Probably posted "life of Julia" a million times. Message me or do a search for that term if you haven't already seen it. It's out there.

Again, "Dafuq". That is total, absolute bullshit. Giving people choices does not take away their rights. It does not get any more simple than that.

Yeah, you know the odd woman that doesn't want to serve in the military and doesn't care that they cant, good for you.

But let's pretend you are serious on this, what choices should we take away from you, so you don't have to worry about being obliged to do them?

Should we take away your right to have sex, so you're not obliged to be raped?
Should we take away your right to vote, so you're not obliged to support tyrants?
Should we take away your right to spend money, so you're not obliged to, which would be theft?

Somehow I don't see you supporting your rights being taken away in the name of preserving your rights.

Gorfias:

Wait! I thought that was moms!

You thought wrong. VERY wrong.

If nothing else, how many "the few, the proud, the brood mares." comapred to "The Few. The Proud. The Marines" commercials are there out there?

Gorfias:
but if the elite want it, and they want women fighting wars for their wealth and security, it will happen. And it will. I just got to deal with it.

Yea, boo hoo. Now women will get to shoot for that same reverence we give combat soldiers, and MRA's will not be able to say "Yea, well, men do all the fighting!" to our faces anymore to shut down arguments.

GunsmithKitten:
Gorf, I ask the same question I've asked others on this issue.

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?!

We sell service in the military as the highest honor someone can perform for their country. We make soldiers out to be the best, the brightest, the toughest, the most morally strong among us. Civilians get teased all the time with "Think you can make it with us? Think you can actually hang with US?! Think you're strong/smart/of sound character enough to hang with US?!!" We culturally let people use the "I fought for my country" as a trump card in conversations for cripe's sake!

Excuse us, Gorf, for finally wanting to buy what you've been sales pitching for generations now!!

For real. I was told by a coworker once that I'm "not a veteran" because I didn't fight in combat while in the military. And he said that with a completely straight face, because that's what he actually thought. I guess female veterans are pretty hard to come by.

Gorfias:
LOL. A major argument against it was that it might lead to women in combat and at least women having to register for the draft like males. Now where on Earth did we get that idea? Among others, Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

No, conservatives who wanted to reserve the chance to discriminate against women, because they believe women are inferior, made a big fuss about ERA not including draft for women, and tried to include an amendment, which was defeated in a vote that pretty much reflected ERA's advocates + sane people vs the bigots.

You see, the vast majority of people will reason that you don't need to achieve absolute and total equality before you can start combating discrimination (now there's a combat role in which women see plenty of action in the conservative US) and how that notion is self-defeating because it would keep you from fixing any problem.

TheIronRuler:
Bad news. Not what you think-
Poor gals already have it bad as it is, now some will be stuck in nowhere with a group of guys on patrol. Sexual harassment and rape will go through the roof.
I'm not personally against women in fighting roles, but the prospects are frightening.

And how is it different from the current situation? currently most combat units in the US armed forces will have several women permanently attached to them, now the DoD wants to make them members of the same combat units they already defacto serve in.
The sexual harassment issue is a dumb reason for why not to integrate women in combat roles, there's an entire combat battalion in the IDF which is co-ed and guess what? and its record of sexual harassment cases is not only below the IDF average it's none-existent...

the clockmaker:
We will also see recruits and trainees pushed through because their instructors don't want to seem sexist

That's a bit unfair on the instructors.

Everyone I've known who's done a stint as an instructor in the ADF hates that this sort of crap already happens but despite the official policies of treating all recruits and trainees equally they know that if they do that they'll be called into the office of either the boss NCO or the CO for a face ripping over being too hard on the women or too soft on the blokes... because that's exactly what's happened to most of them at some point. Not to mention that more than a few of them also went on to mention that there were also heavy implications that were basically saying "if you don't pass a certain number/ratio of female recruits/trainees, it will negatively impact your next performance review".

Maybe some instructors don't want to be seen as sexist but for the ones I've known over the past 20+ years, they've been given the choice of following this unofficial policy or having their career shat on from a great height.

Then again, it's apparently offensive to tell a recruit they 'shoot like an Iraqi'... old mate of mine who's served as a weapons instructor with the training cadres in Iraq and Afghanistan (just 2 of the 'exotic' locations he's taught locals how to kill their fellow man) got pulled up for telling a recruit that.

RhombusHatesYou:

the clockmaker:
We will also see recruits and trainees pushed through because their instructors don't want to seem sexist

That's a bit unfair on the instructors.

Everyone I've known who's done a stint as an instructor in the ADF hates that this sort of crap already happens but despite the official policies of treating all recruits and trainees equally they know that if they do that they'll be called into the office of either the boss NCO or the CO for a face ripping over being too hard on the women or too soft on the blokes... because that's exactly what's happened to most of them at some point. Not to mention that more than a few of them also went on to mention that there were also heavy implications that were basically saying "if you don't pass a certain number/ratio of female recruits/trainees, it will negatively impact your next performance review".

Maybe some instructors don't want to be seen as sexist but for the ones I've known over the past 20+ years, they've been given the choice of following this unofficial policy or having their career shat on from a great height.

Then again, it's apparently offensive to tell a recruit they 'shoot like an Iraqi'... old mate of mine who's served as a weapons instructor with the training cadres in Iraq and Afghanistan (just 2 of the 'exotic' locations he's taught locals how to kill their fellow man) got pulled up for telling a recruit that.

Fair enough, I suppose that I can only see the situation from down on my end.

Ravinoff:
I'm not approving of this until the draft is extended to women as well. Currently, all males age 18 or over in the US have to register with the Selective Service, but of course women don't.

this....... This means nothing until the forced draft apply to women as well. Men can't work unless they apply for the draft. Yet women still get more benefits from the USA government in all areas of life. Being a male of a minority group in the USA have it even worst!

Ravinoff:
I'm not approving of this until the draft is extended to women as well. Currently, all males age 18 or over in the US have to register with the Selective Service, but of course women don't.

this....... This means nothing until the forced draft apply to women as well. Men can't work unless they apply for the draft. Yet women still get more benefits from the USA government in all areas of life. Being a male of a minority group in the USA have it even worst!

thaluikhain:

Should we take away your right to have sex, so you're not obliged to be raped?
Should we take away your right to vote, so you're not obliged to support tyrants?
Should we take away your right to spend money, so you're not obliged to, which would be theft?

Combat is not a right. It is something the USA allows/obliges some people do if they fit a profile of what works best. But, in answer to your questions:
1) Regarding rape, the relevant right isn't to have sex but to give or withhold consent.
2) If your right to vote is removed, you live in a tyranny already. But if you can vote you may, in fact, have to support tyrant.
3) You have a right to spend your own money. Without that, you've already been robbed.

But, expect an obligation for women have to register for the draft, just like men, to be discovered by the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsberg sometime in the near future.

GunsmithKitten:

Now women will get to shoot for that same reverence we give combat soldiers, and MRA's will not be able to say "Yea, well, men do all the fighting!" to our faces anymore to shut down arguments.

Uh huh. I hope you find this win tasty. I worry it will be bitter for vast majority of people.

Blablahb:

You see, the vast majority of people will reason that you don't need to achieve absolute and total equality before you can start combating discrimination

Yeah! And it's not like we're going to have women in combat or anything... oh, wait.

EDIT: Just looked at gallup on this: 7/10 Americans support women in combat. It may be a bad idea imposed to make people like GunsmithKitten feel better, but I do have to accept when I'm in a minority on a matter. This is going to happen. I have to hope that at least registration for the draft never extends to women. I want to do my part to keep this a "choice" and not an obligation.

TheIronRuler:
Bad news. Not what you think-
Poor gals already have it bad as it is, now some will be stuck in nowhere with a group of guys on patrol. Sexual harassment and rape will go through the roof.
I'm not personally against women in fighting roles, but the prospects are frightening.

No matter what happens, women are victims. Ever notice that?

I think this applies:

Hillary Clinton:
Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have every known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.

Apparently, even dying doesn't grant men an equal victim status to women that don't die.

Grandcrusader:

Ravinoff:
I'm not approving of this until the draft is extended to women as well. Currently, all males age 18 or over in the US have to register with the Selective Service, but of course women don't.

this....... This means nothing until the forced draft apply to women as well. Men can't work unless they apply for the draft. Yet women still get more benefits from the USA government in all areas of life. Being a male of a minority group in the USA have it even worst!

Even if the draft did extend to women, hardly any would see combat because of the requirements. And it would cause issues during a large on going war that would require said draft. Someone has to hold down the fort, for lack of a better term and unfortunately, men are able to impregnate women and go, while a woman has to kind of carry it for 8-9 months.

OT: Again, the basic ramble about keeping standards where they are regardless if only one woman makes it in. Also, on the topic of seeing a woman get hurt traumatizing their male counterparts...well, I imagine seeing your friend/brother/partner get blown to bits, regardless of gender is pretty damn traumatizing already.

There seem to be about 3 threads like this going right now, so im gonna say what i said in the other one. I hope its not the same one or ill look stupid.

Reminds me of that bit in lotr when eowyn says she and the hobbits have as much right to go to war as any of the others, and shes right.

Gorfias:

Yeah! And it's not like we're going to have women in combat or anything... oh, wait.

EDIT: Just looked at gallup on this: 7/10 Americans support women in combat. It may be a bad idea imposed to make people like GunsmithKitten feel better, but I do have to accept when I'm in a minority on a matter. This is going to happen. I have to hope that at least registration for the draft never extends to women. I want to do my part to keep this a "choice" and not an obligation.

Thinking it is a bad idea is an unintelligent opinion. This isn't the same as affirmative action; women are now simply allowed to take the same tests as men. Women are in reality physically weaker than men on average but there are those who are just as capable or more so. In the end the number of women in front-line combat roles will probably still be less than 10%. What you are saying about the draft is irrelevant for the same reason.

GunsmithKitten:

Gorfias:
Women like Mona Charen have said that they think women already do enough for this society without adding combat obligations. My wife and daughter would agree.

But apparently they weren't up to the lofty task of combat duty, a duty held far higher in esteem and reverence than any "woman's" job.

Just stop it, Gorf. The hippocrisy of holding up combat troops as the noblest, most honorable and toughest people alive and then daring to ask "Why would women want THIS?!" makes me sick with rage.

And men cant be day care employees or babysitters or flight attendants or nurses or girl scout leaders without drawing looks of extreme hatred and mistrust.

hgswsym

Friendly Lich:

GunsmithKitten:

Gorfias:
Women like Mona Charen have said that they think women already do enough for this society without adding combat obligations. My wife and daughter would agree.

But apparently they weren't up to the lofty task of combat duty, a duty held far higher in esteem and reverence than any "woman's" job.

Just stop it, Gorf. The hippocrisy of holding up combat troops as the noblest, most honorable and toughest people alive and then daring to ask "Why would women want THIS?!" makes me sick with rage.

And men cant be day care employees or babysitters or flight attendants or nurses or girl scout leaders without drawing looks of extreme hatred and mistrust.

None of those professions getting nearly as much cultural lauding and respect as combat personnel.

Gorfias:

Uh huh. I hope you find this win tasty. I worry it will be bitter for vast majority of people.

Anytime there's a potential to eliminate one of those notions, it goes down deliciously. Repeat, one less thing to be thrown in my face is always a victory.

Gorfias:

thaluikhain:

Should we take away your right to have sex, so you're not obliged to be raped?
Should we take away your right to vote, so you're not obliged to support tyrants?
Should we take away your right to spend money, so you're not obliged to, which would be theft?

Combat is not a right. It is something the USA allows/obliges some people do if they fit a profile of what works best. But, in answer to your questions:
1) Regarding rape, the relevant right isn't to have sex but to give or withhold consent.
2) If your right to vote is removed, you live in a tyranny already. But if you can vote you may, in fact, have to support tyrant.
3) You have a right to spend your own money. Without that, you've already been robbed.

But, expect an obligation for women have to register for the draft, just like men, to be discovered by the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsberg sometime in the near future.

The Supreme Court would require a specific case in order to rule on that, which in turn would require an actual draft to have occurred. So unless you have reason to believe there's a going to be a draft in the foreseeable future, i don't see the Supreme Court paying any attention to draft law anytime soon.

I like how people argue against women having to sign up for a draft despite pushing for them to be allowed into combat roles.

You want equality? Then you get equality. It's not a la carte where you get to pick and choose to get all the rights/benefits but leave the obligations and responsibilities to the other party.

the clockmaker:
Fair enough, I suppose that I can only see the situation from down on my end.

Mate, you're at the shitty end of the stick dealing with the fallout of this crap every day, doesn't really matter why it happens when you're the bunny stuck picking up the slack for people who can't do their bloody job.

Of course you're right on just who the ArchCunts are who push these policies - politicians and Dept of Defence bureaucrats... for the ADF it's the price they have to pay so they can have things like new ships, fighters, MBTs, rifles and so bloody on.

Still... I guess at least our air force has combat aircraft (points and laughs at NZ).

cobra_ky:

The Supreme Court would require a specific case in order to rule on that, which in turn would require an actual draft to have occurred. So unless you have reason to believe there's a going to be a draft in the foreseeable future, i don't see the Supreme Court paying any attention to draft law anytime soon.

Why? What SJC case required that women be in combat roles at all? EDIT: I ask rhetorically. See below. If a man refuses to register, even in non-draft peace time, there are sanctions. It would be easy to find one disgruntled person to file suit about registration. And there are plenty of people in power that want women registering. I'm not confident that the selective service law will stay as it is.

Kopikatsu:
I like how people argue against women having to sign up for a draft despite pushing for them to be allowed into combat roles.

You want equality? Then you get equality. It's not a la carte where you get to pick and choose to get all the rights/benefits but leave the obligations and responsibilities to the other party.

This puts me in a quandary. Your point is logical and my knee jerk reaction is to join you in this. But I'll never forget the horrified look on my wife and daughter's face when I mentioned that women were allowed in combat roles at all in the first place.

I feel I have to stick up for them regardless of the i logic of doing so.

Notsomuch:

Thinking it is a bad idea is an unintelligent opinion. This isn't the same as affirmative action; women are now simply allowed to take the same tests as men. Women are in reality physically weaker than men on average but there are those who are just as capable or more so. In the end the number of women in front-line combat roles will probably still be less than 10%. What you are saying about the draft is irrelevant for the same reason.

What you are writing does not jibe at all with my understanding of the radical egalitarian mindset of people like Ruth Bader Ginsberg (though, she is hardly unique, just vocal enough to make a good example).

http://www.conservapedia.com/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

And people with this mindset are very powerful.

I'll write I am grateful to a point:

1) ERA was defeated because people do not want courts making some of the most important decisions regarding sex for them. They'll decide themselves.
2) To date, a majority want women in combat roles but, from what I'm even reading in this thread, want choice, not obligations. I think it fair to think a majority (including me on this one) do not want women to have to register for the draft.

There is no ERA, without court imposition a majority want something and it is happening for good or ill and they oppose something else and so far, it is NOT being imposed.

That's something I guess. ITMT:

"The Supreme Court has ruled that because the Selective Service Act is aimed at creating a list of men who could be drafted for combat, American women aren't required to register upon turning 18 as all males are.

If combat jobs open to women, Congress would have to decide what to do about that law."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20130124_13_A9_ULNSat274453

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here