Sarah Weaver in the National Review says that it's "profoundly shameful to send our mothers and daughters to war" but says nothing about how that has been the case of fathers and sons.

GltyUntlPrvnInncnt · 2021-12-04T19:30:09+00:00

Most male issues come down to gynocentrism and male disposability.

JohnGawel · 2021-12-04T17:11:52+00:00

u/onomatopoeiawording made great comment on it:

Ultimately, female conscription remains a dream only of those in the ivory towers.

No, stopping it and insisting on conscription remaining male only remains a dream of those that want to defend female social privilege and that are obsessed with spiting men and trying to get them to consider themselves second class citizens with only responsibilities and no rights.

Or at least, it should. But at the moment, an amendment to the defense-policy bill which would require women to register for the draft is being debated in the Senate. To combat it, Republicans shouldn’t be afraid to make a moral argument against female conscription. Not only is public opinion on their side, but nature itself is as well. And no capitulation to “equity” or “fairness” will make our failure to do so any less shameful.

The author speaks from the position of someone that never had to be conscripted into war nor did her female relatives. She thinks there should be a moral argument against female conscription but doesn't mention the immorality of compelling men to be conscripted to fight to their death. Her appeals to nature are shallow since she earlier admits that women are now free to pursue roles outside of what is considered "natural".

Ms. Weaver wants to have her cake and eat it too. There is no moral argument for pushing for male only conscription while exempting women from any form of conscription (yes, this argument even extends to not even wanting women to have to sign up for selective service like men are forced to under penalty of prison and diminished career opportunities). What is shameful is that she is dressing up her pleas to continue a form of female social privilege as a moral imperative and considers equal protections and rights under the law as immoral and a "capitulation" to treating men as equals.

Other Republicans, such as Senator Mitt Romney (R., Utah), have offered arguments against female conscription. The Wall Street Journal explains that Romney is struggling to reconcile what he views as a conflict between his belief in “the equality of women,” and his desire to not“put women in harm’s way.” The RNC’s 2016 platform opposed female conscription, but only because it would sacrifice military preparedness“on the altar of political correctness.” This is a fine argument as far as it goes, but isn’t there something more egregious about female conscription than this?

And yet there is nothing egregious to Ms. Weaver about male conscription.

Some Republicans — such as Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota and Iowa’s Joni Ernst— even support the measure to include women in the draft, citing concerns over maintaining “gender equality” and so-called “fair opportunity.” Back in 2016, it was two Republicans who first introduced a bill requiring women to register for the draft.

Good for them, at least they believe in equality under the law and not special privileges.

Yet other Republicans have taken a different approach to arguing against drafting women. For instance, Representative Mary Miller (R., Ill.) opposed the draft as “immoral,” and Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) called it“part of the Democrats’ ongoing social agenda” and even introduced an amendment to the bill in question that would prohibit women from being required to register for the draft.

Josh Hawley is trying to make a human's rights issue tied to the culture wars when he says this. He politicizing something that never should have been politicized and trying to claim it's equal rights and protections under the law that are "woke" and therefore undesirable. That doesn't show respect or proper leadership for his constituents but blatant pandering to one sex.

Republicans against the measure also tend to cite the greater physical strength men naturally have over women. Requiring females to register for the draft, they argue, would be unfair to women and jeopardize our national security.

And yet men that don't have the physical strength were sent to their deaths anyway when nations were desperate to conscript men into the meat grinder of war. Was there ever any real consideration for there lack of physical strength in this regard? No. It's only used as an argument to protect women.

A lot of combat also involves force multipliers like guns and is not simply based on raw physical strength.

Ms. Weaver doesn't explain how requiring women to sign up for selective service would jeopardize national security.

On this, they’re certainly correct. This is an argument that can and should be made. But as it lacks a necessary moral component, it is insufficient. Many Republicans are loath to admit that, beyond the fact that women lack the physical strength necessary for combat, it is profoundly shameful to send our mothers and daughters to war.

And yet you conveniently omit that by saying this, you believe there is nothing shameful about sending fathers and sons to war.

Such an argument would, of course, require us to assert some measure of traditional, natural gender roles, something the mainline GOP is increasingly unwilling to do. This past May, while (rightly) criticizing the extended lock down of schools across the country, the official GOP Twitter account bemoaned that “Biden is proving to be a detriment to getting mothers back to work” because “many are staying home to take care of their children.”Many within the GOP appear to buy the mainstream feminist argument that equality means “equity,” and that if women are choosing a more traditional role at home, this is evidence of discrimination. Too many Republicans seem unwilling to assert the significance of a nation where women can choose a more traditional role.

This is irrelevant. This is just Ms. Weaver trying to cling to arguments about "women being caregivers" and homemakers to protect female privilege. It's an argument grasping at straws and trying to justify why women have a higher purpose than men and deserve to be protected.

Women should undoubtedly be granted equal opportunity to pursue a career, yet our strength as a nation is not found in the “equity” of our military forces. Furthermore, as important as military preparedness is,our strength is not only found in a strong national defense. The “home front,” rather, represents an important harbinger of our national security and strength. And on the home front, it is women who tend to be the captains, majors, and generals.

This is a sexist argument that considers women to be better caretakers of children than men are and only a role that women can carry out.

My point, of course, is not to disparage the many brave women who have served in the military.

It's obvious your are defending female privilege and are not in any way disparaging women. You aren't the first to do this either. Many people that have come out in favor of male only conscription have been eager to mention how much they respect women that have served in the military.

No doubt, they have served this country well.Americans are very grateful for their service. But these extraordinary women chose this path. Other women unwilling to make this choice should not be forced into it.

And yet you see no problem with forcing men into it.

And to argue against this, we must ultimately accept that fundamental differences between men and women make the latter generally less fit for military service.

There are no "fundamental differences". If women can be in combat roles, there is no reason to consider them less able to fight than men.

Furthermore, the U.S. at large rejects this measure. An Ipsos poll found that only 45 percent of Americans want women to be required to register for the draft, down from 63 percent when a similar measure was initially introduced in 2016. Women are even less supportive of the measure than men: Only 36 percent of women favor the measure (compared with 55 percent of men).

All that says is nobody likes to be conscripted when it's them that conscription is aimed at. The draft and selective service should either be made gender neutral or abolished altogether.

stonckcel · 2021-12-05T06:07:40+00:00

Only feminists should be drafted.

Problem solved. In fact, a self-solving problem 😁

-HawasKaPujari- · 2021-12-05T18:35:07+00:00

Throw the fucking bitches in the infantry and force these cunts to fight the wars. ONLY then, cunts would become grateful.

Sarah Weaver in the National Review says that it's "profoundly shameful to send our mothers and daughters to war" but says nothing about how that has been the case of fathers and sons.

Crosspost "Sarah Weaver in the National Review says that it's "profoundly shameful to send our mothers and daughters to war" but says nothing about how that has been the case of fathers and sons." from /r/Pro_Male_Collective:

Comments

u/onomatopoeiawording made great comment on it: