Equality Is a Bitch, Ain't It? - Army and Marine Corps Say It's Time Women Were Eligible for the Draft

Reddit View
February 4, 2016

As a conservative/Libertarian type, one thing that makes my fucking day is to see leftists suffer the unintended consequences of their bullshit policies. Exhibit A for today: Women have been claiming for so long that they're equal to men in every way that people are starting to believe them. They celebrated winning the right to go into combat without really thinking through what that means. Par for the course for leftists. Now they're freaking out because the military has said, "Great, so now that you're the equal of a man, you get to be eligible for the draft!"

What's especially great about this is that feminists are exposing themselves with their reactions. Many are blowing the whistle on themselves, saying "Wait, feminism isn't about equality." This is news to most everybody but us.

Also, it shoves their face into an uncomfortable fact - rights and privileges come with obligations attached. They've never understood this, but honestly, I think that this is our way out. They have to be made to realize this. Once they do, 99% of them will want to be housewives.


Post Information
Title Equality Is a Bitch, Ain't It? - Army and Marine Corps Say It's Time Women Were Eligible for the Draft
Author Sdom1
Upvotes 1298
Comments 436
Date 04 February 2016 04:30 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/39349
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/44602p/equality_is_a_bitch_aint_it_army_and_marine_corps/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
the red pillfeministfeminism

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon186 points187 points  (32 children) | Copy

Prediction 1: Mothers and mothers-to-be will be exempt.

Prediction 2: Women will mysteriously get pregnant at the first sign of war.

[–]Sdom1[S] 94 points95 points  (12 children) | Copy

That already happens when women are slated to go on deployment, so you're right.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]shitmoths24 points25 points  (7 children) | Copy

If I get drunk and fall asleep in the sun, resulting in a sunburn that requires medical attention, they could absolutely send me to non-judicial punishment, take away my pay, rank, and give me extra duty. For destruction of government property... because as a man in the military I am government property. Women are not property of any man, so they cannot be held accountable as property. Women in the military was a terrible idea, and they will never be able to crack down on them for pregnancy when they are trying to keep calm all of the false rape and sexual assault cases coming through every day. If they were to say no pregnancy the women would do it anyways. Then when it came time for a punishment or to be let out of the contract, it would be spun as "WOMEN PUNISHED FOR CREATING LIFE." Or "WOMEN THROWN OUT IN THE STREETS FOR WANTING A FAMILY" Witch hunts on capital hill would be immediate. They never should have let them in, and now unless you could convince all the men to walk away so they could fail on their own, you'll never get the old military back.

[–]fakenate15 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

So if a woman gets pissed drunk and gets a sunburn that requires medical treatment they cannot be sent to non-judicial punishment?

I'm asking about the technical legal code of justice here, not what will actually happen.

[–]shitmoths6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

They could. However in most cases where a male and female commit the same offense, the female gets less punishment if any. For example I was reading NJP results for the region a while back and an E3 male was sleeping with his female supervisor (E6), clearly fraternization. Normally in this kind of situation the lower ranking of the two would get a slap on the wrist and get a serious talking to. For previous cases I looked up the lower ranking / subordinate would get 45 to 60 days of restriction and extra duty. Life would suck for a while and then they would move on. The superior however would normally lose rank, forfeit pay and do the previously mentioned punishments. This basically is a career ending move because you get forced out at a certain year mark for not making rank.

Like I said those are the normal punishments, because normally the superior is a man, sleeping with a younger female subordinate.

In this particular case the male was 21 years old, and his LPO (leading petty officer) was 28.

His punishment was reduction in rank to E2, forfeiture of half months pay X2, with 45 days restriction and extra duties. Basically they fucked him as hard as the rules allow, and then spit on him.

Her punishment was reduction in rank to E5, and 15 days restriction without extra duties. She was also moved off the ship to another command.

Sure she took a hit to her career, but he took a hit to his life. She basically got sent back in time to try to make rank with a black mark on her record. It won't be hard to bounce back. In fact most of the E7 and above joke that you can't make chief without having been to mast (NJP).

His life got fucked. 45 days of basically being a prisoner of the ship, plus the extra duty, meaning 16 hours of hard labor per day with no freedom. Not allowed internet access, any food not served in the mess, no phone access. Then he probably comes off restriction to a negative balance in his bank account and another two weeks to a full, albeit reduced paycheck. He will be struggling to fix his finances for at least a year before getting back where he was.

Military life on a ship is bad enough, (check out the suicide rates compared to shore commands) but after that there is no way you re enlist.

So in summary you get a kid who made a poor choice who could have grown in to a great sailor with a great career completely raped by the system and soured to the military, if not life itself. While on the other hand you have a grown adult in a supervisory role who knowingly and blatantly disregarded and disrespected her position, rank, and self through her actions that gets a slap on the wrist and a time out, never to be mentioned again.

The roles normally being the other way with the exact opposite punishments paints a pretty clear picture for me.

[–]AvatarJTC3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

No. The UCMJ does not define soldiers as government property. The "sunburn myth" has been around awhile but it's bullshit.

You could still be reprimanded for not wearing sunblock or whatever, but you couldn't be charged under article 108 unless you let them.

Instead you'd be charged under 115, which is malingering, they talk a lot about that in basic/boot.

[–]mugatucrazypills0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

women are chattel property of the state, I expect the pimp hand of the state will be stronger, more abusive and cruel with them than any actual man

[–]shitmoths0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

The pimp hand of the state? Really. The only thing I've ever seen the state do to women has been cater to them and coddle them. Change rules for them and offer them extra support because "doing anything as a woman automatically makes it more difficult." The state is the machine of feminism and blue pill logic. It's the one issue no one conservative or liberal will ever try to get into for fear of being labeled a shit lord and losing all the female / SJW votes. If not being outright fired by the white knight system.

Women are a protected class. You can't criticize them getting preferential treatment without getting bashed by the media from all sides.

[–]mugatucrazypills0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Like a pimp the state coddles their weakness and encourages them to think of themselves as victims.

The state tells them to leave their husbands and "find themselves", but when the husband can't be made to pay, when the windfall of the divorce system evaporates, when there is no more blood from the stone, when the man is dead or imprisoned, when the equity of the whole middle class of the nation has all been eaten up and destroyed by the divorce industry and families and children are ruined and abused by a revolving door of CC chad tingle step parents, there is only

the handouts of the state, affordable housing, substance abuse and violence, spinsterhood, month goveling to month dependence on state funds, that's what the state has for her after she's been turned out

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy


That only applies to men, silly.

[–]Jester25520 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This. Can confirm it already happens. A lot

[–]ioncehadsexinapool2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Well, I guess I'll have a new pickup line in my pocket.

[–]foldpak1111 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

They're experts at manipulation so I wouldn't doubt it. You got to be quick to catch onto these hos

[–]juliusstreicher1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

With commensurate pay rises as well as special new programs that will be created.

AND, re-assigned to HR, to be hands-on "advisors" against sexual harassment and other programs in the Armed Forces. Also, as instructors and supply officers. Directors of sections which do not have equal representation of female officers.

[–]useyourmouth 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

I get the Schadenfreude of drafting women. I really do. But I DO NOT want my daughter drafted.

I don't want my daughter that I am raising to be a red pill woman penalized for the sins of the fat, blue-haired femicunts that came before her. Allowing girls to be drafted into the marines will just send our society further down the rabbit hole of gender confusion. It would be confirmation that we would be giving up on a future of feminine women.

There's got to be a way to limit female conscription to feminists.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy

I DO NOT want my daughter drafted

Noone wants their son drafted either.

There's got to be a way to limit female conscription to feminists.

There is. Get pregnant. We will never send pregnant women nor mothers into battle.

[–]useyourmouth 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

I don't want my sons drafted, either. But assuming no maiming or death (I know, a big assumption), a young man hardened by battle gains value, a girl loses value.

Also, like it or not, eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap. It wouldn't be wise for a country to send its future-soldier ovens to the front lines. So, if anything, push back female conscription so you're only drafting women after their prime baby-making years...maybe 25 instead of 18. Give them an incentive to get married and start a family at a reasonable age instead of as a teenager. That is something I could get behind.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

so you're only drafting women after their prime baby-making years...maybe 25 instead of 18.

So you're sending mothers into battle? As well as presumably the father? Who will look after the children?

This is why what seems like a great idea doesn't work and will never be implemented. At worst it will be drafting of women without children - and as I say, they'll get just get pregnant. They already do this just to avoid work, even more so to avoid work and possibility of death.

[–]Moldy_Gecko0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It will likely work similarly to how it currently works as far as sending people to battle. I'm sure there will be a rule in regards to children of draftees. i.e. only one member of the family can be drafted.

[–]Randomusernameyessss0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy

I would want to send mothers into battle just like they send fathers into battle..

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

Mothers is very unlikely to happen, much less pregnant women.

The draft for women just means a big stack of pregnant women on the outbreak of war. Just what the country needs going into full scale war - lots of extra children.

The draft legislation will look like this:

  • Men and women will be equally likely to be drafted
  • Primary carers of children will not be drafted
  • A person (female or male) who is breastfeeding or pregnant will not be drafted.

[–]Randomusernameyessss0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

Im still against women in combat positions I planned on joining the Marines and trying to get a Recon contract but as of now Im having second thoughts knowing someone weaker then me who cant pass the same standards (that is if I can cut it) will be what stands between life and death for me.. even my dad a 21 year Marine said that if he had to do it all again right now he wouldnt.. says a lot I suppose :\

[–]Moldy_Gecko0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

She won't be able to be Recon if she can't pass the same standards.

[–]Randomusernameyessss0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

They will lower the standards and allow them to run it past the failure point like they did with the 2 ranger school girls.

[–]Moldy_Gecko0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

I haven't checked recently, but from my understanding there are still no Marine Recon Female Officers. Even though there are a few female enlisted.

And yes, they will probably lower standards... it'll still be the same standards as you. Unless they do dumb shit like the Marine Corps PFT where women hang on a bar instead of pullups and are given more time to finish their run.

[–]Randomusernameyessss0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Thats the biggest problem for me who would respect the guy that didnt pass the same standard as they did... its a shitfest recon knows ,force recon knows it, and SOCOM knows it but the idiots in Washington dont. The biggest reason I looked at this thread was because we have a feminazi in our biology class. She tells me women should get lower standards and should still be respected so I tell her to put on my backpack (no more then 20 pounds so pretty light) but she ends up falling down when she tries and I say word for word "If you cant do what I do why should you get the same amount of respect and pay." 3 of her gal pals then walk over to me and call me trash, tell me to drink bleach ,etc usual feminist tactic ... So that be me story take it everyone as you will..

[–]Randomusernameyessss0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Welcome to life in the US where every politician is dumb as a rock and feminists aplenty..

[–]2renzy77499 points500 points  (154 children) | Copy

You know those opening scenes of the Normandy invasion in Saving Private Ryan where all the men get mowed down by MG42 machine guns as they spill out of the boats onto Omaha beach?

Now imagine if that had been women dying, instead of men.

That's what equality looks like.

[–]Endorsed ContributorRedPillDad122 points123 points  (13 children) | Copy

Watched QT'S Hateful Eight recently, and it contains violence o' plenty. The first scene where a woman is the target, she takes a hard punch to the face, I hear this big gasp from some women in the audience.

A boatload of men getting chewed up by bullets? No reaction other than, "War is bad. Men are evil."

[–][deleted] 36 points37 points  (4 children) | Copy

I loved that movie. Didn't seem like it was 3 hours Long at all. A+ acting crew.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's 3 hours of Tarantino sobbing his own knob, so yes, I absolutely did.

[–]letsdocrack7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Tarantino managed to put the line "my big black dingus" into a movie. That scene is gold.

[–]mijamala11 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I didn't realize they filmed everytime a film "expert" blogger was in the same room as Quentin.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (4 children) | Copy

I laughed my heart out at that scene

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Yea man, made me real happy to see my GF enjoy those scenes so much too. She's into BJJ and MMA with me so she's not a puss by any means, though.

[–]Moldy_Gecko1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

So, she was able to invade your private space and hobbies or you met her there?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Who says they have to be private?

Fitness is important to me and if going to class with me accomplishes both me and her being fit, sign me up.

[–]Ali_knows5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Great movie uh? And yeah it is a good example of how different men and women are treated in society even in 2016.

[–]TheReformist94234 points235 points  (100 children) | Copy

Brilliant. Id love to see that actually. They'll know what its like to be a man,being shat on by women all your life,being invisible from 14-28, getting cucked whilst fighting for your country, and divorce raped when you come home. Whilst men form a band of brothers, fight for their country's freedom,our women cheat on us behind our backs and instead of feeling remorse still take their military husbands to the slaughter house. I don't care if it'd their nature or if I'm in the anger phase,their behaviour is truly despicable.no positive way of spinning it

[–]2renzy77279 points280 points  (78 children) | Copy

Whilst men form a band of brothers, fight for their country's freedom,our women cheat on us behind our backs and instead of feeling remorse still take their military husbands to the slaughter house.

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. -- Hillary Clinton, 17 November 1998

They may have been unfaithful cheating whores, scheming up their divorce plans while their husbands were getting shot and maimed, but never forget, they're always the real victims no matter what.

[–]notmyusualreddit97 points98 points  (61 children) | Copy

The coolest guy I ever knew, a stockcar driver and master mechanic, died the weekend after finding out his wife was cheating on him. They had a 5 year old kid too. He magically went way too crazy on his dirtbike in the sand dunes and crested a peak going way too fast and fell too far. Game over within days. I wouldn't say he committed suicide, but distressing news has made more than one guy act extremely recklessly soon after finding out that kind of news.

His wife, confirmed cheating whore with a young child, has spent 10 years playing the widow victim card while bangs random dudes but never makes it public (I still know the group well). Making it public and having a new replacement would make her lose the victim card, which she prefers more than even having a new public relationship.

EDIT: Warning: Reddit admins deleted me after 2 years of posting, even with current gold on my account, just because I posted a link to a youtube account that was easily available if you took a name news organizations were giving out and typed it into google yourself. The bias against Trump and the_donald is real.

BUT, the reddit morons forgot to lock out EDITING your previous posts as part of the permanent ban.

[–]2renzy77109 points110 points  (59 children) | Copy

I believe it.

I had an uncle in the Marines.

After my uncle found out his wife was cheating on him, he climbed into the back of his pickup truck and shot himself in the head.

As a child, it was the first time I had ever been to a funeral.

He left behind a son (my cousin) who was around the same age as me.

After he died, his wife moved the guy she was cheating with into the house that my uncle had paid for, and went on living as if nothing had happened.

[–]MakeEmSayAyy71 points72 points  (55 children) | Copy

See I would take the wife down then do myself in, fuck that shit.

[–]19963927 points28 points  (4 children) | Copy

I bet he still loved her. That's why it hurt him so much that she was cheating. He would never hurt her because she meant so much to him. Obviously the feeling was not mutual, as it never can be with a woman. Since men are disposable women have developed the ability to replace a man without much thought. If a stronger man comes and kills your partner, it is in a woman's self interest to attach herself as quickly as possible to the new man. This provides the best outcome for her future offspring and herself.

[–]fingerthemoon17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yup. Brutal but true. Your wife fucks the guy that killed you. The history of our species.

[–]foldpak1112 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Eggs are rare, sperm is plentiful. Just throw males all off Normandy beach. Be sure she doesn't break a fingernail in her mansion she acquired from divorce raping a wealth dragon, though. Gotta protect that egg.

[–]ioncehadsexinapool0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Wasn't some girl maturbating to a guy the beat up her boyfriend?

[–]alpha_n3rd65 points66 points  (39 children) | Copy

If my wife cheated on me I'd laugh right in her face then go find somebody else to fuck for the rest of my life. Only a total beta is so attached to his wife that he'd off himself because she cheated. AWALT. How do you even REALLY know your wife has never cheated? You don't.

[–][deleted] 72 points73 points  (13 children) | Copy

But here's the thing relevant to that story.

OP's uncle was in the marines. He has a child.

So in addition to finding out his wife is cheating on him, he'll owe child support, probably lose custody of his child and his home, etc. If OP was 9 when it happened, that's nearly 10 years of having to pay a cheater to raise his kids.

He didn't just lose his wife that night, he realized he'd lost his life. So he decided to end it.

I don't see a beta, I see an alpha with no options left. In antiquity, it was a badge of honor.

[–]lawr119 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy

But when that 10 years is up, he's got the remaining 30, 40, 50 years of his life left.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy

After losing a majority of his pay, his house, his child (the mother will poison the kids mind), etc.

That's hard to come back from. Especially if he didn't have an education - how could he have used his BI Bill if he was forced to pay child support? He'd have to got to work immediately, and be worse off because of it.

[–]alpha_n3rd2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

That's crap. They weren't getting divorced. He didn't have to leave his home. He didn't have to lose his kids. His kids didn't have to lose their dad. I mean how fucking selfish was he to PERMANENTLY abandon his kids and check out b/c pussy?

Even if he DID get divorced he could fight it like hell. I know divorced guys who put their exes through the fucking wringer.

In most states these days they split finances fairly and he'd get joint custody unless he was really really horrible.

A man has gotta have a backbone and fight like hell. Pussies give up. And face it even if you're experiencing extreme negative emotions at least you're alive to feel it, that's beats a dirt nap.

[–]deeman0106 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Sometimes not choosing to play the game is the better call.

If these men went through their self loathing, their misery, their pain in silence would the Red Pill exist? Maybe their deaths helped others to realize their own self importance. Suicide is wrong but, when you have nothing left, when society tells you that you have nothing left and that you are worth nothing, try getting up from that with any hope left.

We thought that we had no options before, no alternatives. At least right now, we're aware of the fact that we have different options and that we can change.

[–]foldpak1110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

People need to realize that this is why men lose it and hold women accountable. But they won't. We'll just have to continue going crazy until people get the memo.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

he'd have been better off killing her

Could have argued temporary insanity and provocation as a defense (That doesn't mean you're insane, just that at the time of the act - not premeditated of course - the news of the cheating provoked you to commit an act you otherwise wouldn't have done, effectively temporarily losing your mind).

Yada, yada, yada high school sweethearts, and acquitted.

[–]Moldy_Gecko0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

His life was far from over. My old baseball coach (A single Dad) had his first son (an aspiring athlete) OD on drugs when he was around 20. Then, his other son (my age) offed himself a few years later. Being close to the guy that coached me from 8-16 and his son, I was worried he'd kill himself. That's a much more significant blow than a chick cheating on you. I think you're giving this guy more credit than he's worth. If he really knew his life was over and wanted to at least make his son gold, he'd have changed his Death Gratuity to go to his son. Alphas with no options left fight to the death, they don't off themselves. That's something that you would get from the Marines too. In the Marine Corps, surrender isn't really an option. You fight until you are incapacitated or dead.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The thing about suicidal tendencies is that no matter how objectively great your life may be, one's inclinations are very insular.

A massively rude awakening will cause someone to do that, which is why most regret attempting to kill themselves if they survive...

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours32 points33 points  (11 children) | Copy

You're right, ending it all because you're losing her is stupid. No bitch is worth your life.

However, being subjugated to her indentured servant, having to give her everything you've earned, and never being able to live for yourself again because she will forever be in your wallet, that can be worth ending it. I for one would rather be dead than be a slave to some cheating cunt, and I was exactly that for 15 years. Through my 30s I stayed alive because I knew it would end eventually. Now in my late 40s I would be near 70 before I could live on what I earn without a woman sapping everything.

That's why I had a vasectomy, no more kids. That's why I spin plates, no more bitches in my wallet. That's why I will never commit and sure as fuck not marry. In fact no bitch will ever hear me utter the words I love you for the rest of my life.

[–]deeman0107 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy

I can't help but feel saddened to hear this, if only because someone had to go through years of pain and torment for us to benefit from (your) experience.

Don't tell me that your kid hates you, how does one even deal with that?

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy

Tip of the iceberg, my life is an example of how many times can a man get back up to kick the shit out of what knocked him down. Fighting against it all made me strong and resilient, and a bit cynical.

My daughters are a story unto themselves, they had shit lives thanks to their mother and her bullshit. Long story, but they have to learn how to live on their own now.

[–]foldpak1110 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

It would actually be one situation where suicide is the proper out. So satisfying to know the little cheating cunt will get nothing from you. Absolutely nothing. Hahaha. All men should do this instead of dealing with it. Women would straighten up real quick.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That is why the second ex didn't go after my income or cars, she knew if she did she would get nothing. She was there while I contemplated ending it because the first one was getting mossy of my money and the state was punishing me for her transgressions. They would've given her at least half, leaving me barely enough to survive, and she knows I'd never live that way again. Everything I own would've been pushed into the yard, set fire with 5 gallons of gas, then I'd put a 45ACP through my brain stem.

I will not be anyone's slave ever again. 15 years was enough.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Why didn't you run to another country? Your kid?

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Military, then injuries related to deployments. Can't run if you can't earn a living because you sacrificed your health for others.

[–]alpha_n3rd-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I wouldn't want to abandon my kids of course. I'd prefer permanent separation over divorce for a lot of reasons. But if it came to where my kids could take care of themselves and I was bleeding money for her I'd probably head to Mexico or something.

[–]godcomesfirst31 points32 points  (5 children) | Copy

No you wouldn't. If you got to the point of asking a woman to be your wife, you're far too attached to just laugh in her face and fuck someone else.

[–]zxDanKwan31 points32 points  (1 child) | Copy

Married here. Been cheated on. Not true.

Reaction is the same as it would be to anyone else who wronged you. You immediately seek retribution and vengeance.

The difference is the rage burns hotter and longer, since it was done by someone you trusted.

How one moves on from there is impacted by their amount of alpha or beta. A beta will blame himself, accepting that he just didn't do enough to keep her interest, and that she was right to go find what was missing elsewhere. More extreme cases, believing they are irredeemably flawed may decide to go game over.

An alpha will know that the bitch is untrustworthy, and will act accordingly to a partner that failed. He will learn where he failed to spot or prevent this, but will also account for the fact that his partner actively deceived him, and there's only so much you can do to prevent that.

[–]clonegreen16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy

I remember when I was cheated on I was looking at ways to regain what we had, to have her want me as she used to.

After meditating on the thought I realized it was her active decision to, she could have choose to end it amicably instead of stringing me along as she used my resources and lead me to believe a false reality.

Fuck it burned bad, she would act so fake and pretend we were meant to be, meanwhile she was having one night stands.

You're totally right, being treated unjustly isn't the fault of the victim. Took me a while to realize that.

[–]alpha_n3rd4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

You must be new here. I've already have divorce lawyer on retainer, just in case.

[–]MyDickFellOff3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

No man can hurt a woman, as a woman can hurt a man.

You know better. We all know, as most of us in this subreddit have dated very toxic women. But if you don't and still believe in fairy tales. It might be the tipping point.

[–]MisterMisfit0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I'm curious, in a situation like that would you stay married to her and just divert your attention elsewhere or would you divorce her?

[–]redpillliger0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Divorce her and shame the fuck out of her to her family and friends so that she's less likely to play dirty in the divorce. Why stick around with someone who adds negative value to your life?

[–]MisterMisfit0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

But she'd still get half your assets, wouldn't she?

[–]QuantumDeath6660 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Ever hear of Seppuku it's literally the only option left for the modern white American man if they don't want to be enslaved to alimony and child support and social stigma.

[–]alpha_n3rd0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Fuck that dude I'd just head to Mexico

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]recon_johnny19 points20 points  (7 children) | Copy

I can say this as a father with two children. A Man can love, care, protect, and nurture his children as good as any woman can. That nonsense that only a mother knows or can care for them is utter and complete bullshit.

Now, I do notice I worked 12 hours days learning new skills, worked two jobs, and did everything I could to provide. If I chose to, I wouldn't have done those things and would have happily raised my kids by myself if need be.

Kids need a loving parent. Don't matter what sex.

[–]Sakash9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

What annoys me is that people continue to believe that mothers know best, when statistically women are far more likely to abuse their children. If a man kills his children, he's a monster. A woman does it, then she just have had problems, or a mental issue and needs to be nurtured.

[–]notmyusualreddit3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

True, I totally agree.

But in the context, the dude was talking about killing himself, and then adding he'd take the wife out too.

If I had to choose Id think most kids would end up better with only a father instead of only a mother anyway.

[–]foldpak1110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The funny thing is there isn't any research to know who would be better because fathers never get custody of the children. I bet the kids would still struggle yet slightly less. Children grow to have the least problems when two biological parents are present.

[–]NiceKicksGabe2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I reckon a caring father is better than a caring mother. A real man can give his daughter love and prevent daddy issues, and can raise his son to be a good, solid man. A single mother will most likely raise a girl that yearns for a man, and a son that is hard wired to subjugate to women.

[–]Hollerdongs0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

"... and a son that is hard wired to subjugate to women."

This describes the current school system.

[–]daddymonsterpoodle0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Single dad and early childhood teacher. Anyone who says a man can't care for children as well as a woman can go fuck thenselvescfor being a retard. We might not do it in the same way but we can do it. Men don't overprotect so much, want children to learn to do (not just talk about it), want to children to learn to take risks, and understand that firearms are more than just killing machines. A child who learns to hunt and protect themselves has a deeper understanding of nature than most 'greenies'. Men understand that if you want something you goddam work for it cos nothing is going to be given to you. Most men learn that life is hard and you will get hurt. Survive, grow and get the fuck on with it.
I say the female teachers banning everything if they can except plastic babies and sharing. Fuck sharing. If some kid went and got a cool toy and some other kid is crying because the first kid won't give up the toy, why should the first kid have to share it. If you reward crybabies, what are you telling every single kid in the class.
Sorry, rant over.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Then there's the kid. Often the only thing keeping marriages "alive".

[–]foldpak1112 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Shit that's why I'll never commit suicide. No one will give a fuck, hell they'll be happier. That's why I'm a hustler out here stomping on fools. I ain't slowing down either.

[–]UniversalFapture0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

My uncle is a marine.. Holy shit that would be a nightmare

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

If the "patriarchy" was a real thing, if we really did have as much control as these morons think, we'd allow every service member who was cheated on to shoot their spouse in the head upon returning home, no repercussions.

But we don't, we instead bend over and validate complaints about manspreading on the subway. I can't wait to see Europe get absolutely ransacked in a few decades, I will celebrate it. The thing about feminized societies is they sign up for their own doom.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

If you want to see a feminist's head explode, respond to the victim quote sternly with: "I'm sure there are a lot of gay parents who'd disagree with you."

[–]reddit_already26 points27 points  (3 children) | Copy

That quote has always struck me as one of the dumbest feminist wartime rationalizations one could possibly utter. Okay, Hillary, if the dead husbands, fathers, and sons truly have it so much better while the surviving women are the REAL victims, why not offer these women a cyanide pill or a bullet and immediately grant them the same "privilege"?

[–]zedsdedforever32 points33 points  (0 children) | Copy

From Joe Rogan: “Booty is so strong that there are dudes willing to blow themselves up for the highly unlikely possibility of booty in an other dimension. There are no chicks willing to blow themselves up for a penis."

[–]TheIceReaver3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

'... Did you just suggest that those poor women kill themselves? How dare you.'

[–]bushmonster439 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. -- Hillary Clinton, 17 November 1998

If you go by rules of primary vs. secondary sources, that actually makes them secondary victims of war.

No matter how you spin it though, it's a bullshit statement.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy

Shoo shoo with your logical arguments in the land of emotions.

[–]deeman0100 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

What?!? Stop with these fallacious statements!

Obviously, whoever feels herself to be the primary victim is the primary victim. That guy who died don't matter matter anyway.

[–]benuntu5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Primary: I don't think that means what you think it means, Hillary.

Pretty sure the primary victims are those who were injured or killed.

[–]QuantumDeath6660 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Did she actually say that? My jaw just dropped.

I swear if she's elected president she's going to let in every fucking Muslim into our country. If that happens don't be surprised if white American men stand the fuck up and clean up the trash. That's what men do, we act.

[–]Mumbolian-3 points-2 points  (2 children) | Copy

This quote could be used for the world wars. These days you know what you're getting into If you marry a military man. Hardly a victim.

[–]19963911 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy

You really think coming home with your face torn in half by shrapnel, haunted by the memories of the nights you laid awake hearing the death screams of your friends as they lay bleeding out meters in front of your trench, or perhaps even dying on the front are all better than missing someone really badly?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

You seem new to the fact that our instincts place female emotion as more significant than actual traumatic events.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

17 November 1998

I hope to fucking god she has changed her mind since then. It has been many years after all

[–]White_Phillip18 points19 points  (5 children) | Copy

The dependapotamus is the worst of the worst when it comes to women. It's healthy to get out of the anger phase, but cucking military wives absolutely deserve it.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

The behaviour is reprehensible but I personally see armed forces as one of the ultimate forms of Beta lifestyle, getting dressed when you're told, eating what you're told killing when you're told going home when you're told, dying on command for other peoples' profit whether financial or otherwise...

I can fully understand and see why women do it. On paper you're some tough rough bad ass, in reality you just weren't there and every day putting something higher up the priority list than himself and her (duty).

[–]JimiJons1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

That's an interesting way of looking at it, but it's not correct. Military men, like men in any other career field, span the scale of Alpha to Beta. The military is no different than working any other job where you operate under a superior authority, other than the risk of life in a combat zone. You're telling me working an 8 to 5 job in high finance for an investment firm means you don't have to get dressed every morning in a clean collared shirt at 7am sharp?

I know plenty of military men who do their jobs, play the same office politics found anywhere else with a heavy Machiavellian hand, get praised for it and put on the fast-track to promotion, and have zero actual respect for their superiors. They lift every day, go out on weekends, bring sluts home, and wake up Monday morning focused on nothing but their mission. If that's your definition of Beta, than i'm not sure your definition of Alpha is an attainable state of being.

[–]deeman010-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Well, isn't it also the highest expression of what we, males, were made to do?

Be subservient for humanity, fight for humanity, die for humanity.

It's not hard to see why so many people pedestalize serving in the army even if you have to sacrifice so much.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You were meant to fight and die for your 150 strong tribe where you knew the names and histories of each intimately.

Not on a dusty corridor thousands of miles away because it was politically expedient for a handful of people back home.

[–]antariusz9 points10 points  (9 children) | Copy

I'd love to see it too, but hollywood, in general, despises violence against women unless it's a major plot point to show how evil a villain is.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (8 children) | Copy

Hateful 8

Beat a bitch, knock her teeth out, and string her up.


[–]DrScientist81210 points11 points  (7 children) | Copy

That movie got a lot of hate for its alleged misogyny, but the truth is that she was just as bad as anyone else in there. Which is funny because when you consider Kill Bill, Jackie Brown, Death Proof, and Inglourious Basterds all had strong female characters its hard to imagine he's a misogynist.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (6 children) | Copy

Why is that hard to imagine? Disney, a franchise literally built on "princess" movies gets skewered every time they make a movie for having a female lead but wasn't strong enough or not independent enough or TOO independent. They can literally bitch about anything

[–]USModernMilitia5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

Damn man, so damn true. This statement really hits me hard. These feminazis ALWAYS find something to complain about. An example, feminists bitch because Target has separate toys for boys and girls, aka legos and girls and boys should be able to play with the same toys. Target caves and combines both sections, feminists then complain that there are no girl legos. It is literally diseased and psychotic thinking...

[–]mugatucrazypills0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

the red pill can always find complaining feminists to complain about

[–]spaceythrowaway0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I hated Brave because of that. The princess' mother was graceful, elegant and commanded more attention than the king. But the princess still wanted to be "strong independant like a man"

Screw that. The Queen dominated the court and she did it with tons of grace. Whats wrong with being like her?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Because of the same reason real life women all hate (but are totally BEST FRIENDS with) their mother. Because they tell them what to do and know how to call them out on their bullshit. Daddy will always think of her as his little princess but Mom knows she's just a shithead that doesn't care about anyone else but herself to the point that she magically morphs her mother into a bear and can't bear to say she's sorry. Like that was literally all she had to do but it managed to take up an hour and a half of movie time and like 3 days in universe.


[–]Gman7776 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

It takes a selfish bitch to do something like that. Humans have evolved their minds and social skills to control and keep in check base urges and to have a moral compass. A good woman doesn't cheat on principle, not because she dosn't have drives. Just the same as a good man doesn't rape or kill whenever he feels like it.

[–]foldpak1111 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's scary to know that most men can but most women can not. Says a lot about them. It's terrifying, actually.

[–]Jester25520 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Been on two deployments in my 5+ year career. At least 15-20 guys were cheated on during each deployment. Last thing you need to be focused on over there is some dumb bitch back home who can't keep a dick out of her mouth for six months. It's infuriating to watch.

[–]david_kimba0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

They do not fight for your freedom, they fight for the economic/political interests of corporations. Yeah it helps the emotionality of a post but it makes me cringe whenever someone tries to make it more poetic than it is. We are on TRP.

[–]blue_2727 points28 points  (5 children) | Copy

Would never happen. This is not an insult, but it sounds like you haven't been around women in the military. They do NOT pull their own weight. They just don't. They get knocked up, and go on light duty.

That opening scene of Saving Private Ryan would still be all men, but it would just be all backups, who didn't train for the mission. The soldiers who trained for it, would be fat and happy,back in the world nursing their brood.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]bcwalker8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

That will go to the SCOTUS, and they will rule in favor of the women- not the Services.

[–]adulttalkaccount11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy

Not quite. The women would have never qualified for combat. They would have been put in support roles and then would have gotten pregnant in theater. Then combat capable men would be pulled from the font lines to fill staff roles previously filled by women. The weakening of the front line would ensure MORE male casualties among those still in combat.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Correct. Once enough men die in combat from the stupidity of these polices, once the war is in danger of being lost because of women, these polices would change. There'd be an awful lot of corpses before then though.

[–]Sworn_to_Ganondorf5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Id rather watch that all female cast remake than the garbage ghost busters atrocity.

[–]Danimal8763 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy

It's probably also what defeat looks like.

[–]MakeEmSayAyy24 points25 points  (6 children) | Copy

dude an army full of women would agree to surrender SO fast, then get treated in the media as heroes. As they fuck the enemy and join up with them to save themselves.

[–]Danimal87614 points15 points  (5 children) | Copy

Very true, though awful to think about. What can be worse than your women first dishonoring each other by casting themselves as warriors, and then being taken as trophies by your enemies?

[–]MurderKube5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

I'm sure that could be solved by bolstering the ranks with some friendly NKVD style blocking battalions. Executions will continue until morale improves.

On a more serious note that kind of behavior would cause a nation wide loss of morale of a magnitude which has never before been seen. Further just imagine how the enemy would exploit such an event for propaganda? Just thinking about it disgusts me.

[–]Danimal876-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

A loss of morale to the point that the defeated becomes a footnote in history. We can see this beginning in Europe as Muslims treat our women there like dogs, while the governments entrusted to protect them do little to nothing. But the sick man of the world will recover.

[–]MakeEmSayAyy1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah that would look pretty fucking bad.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Those are the women we don't want then.

[–]CanIHaveSomeGum3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy

I don't think I'll ever be able to get used to this scene

[–]soadaa0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

I've seen it so many times without much problem. But something was different this time and it really hit me.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

Because this time you looked it from the right perspective, that it could have been you, that the entire reason it was acceptable for those men to come home in boxes is because they were utilities, average men like you. Not destitute enough to squeeze some sympathy, not wealthy enough to be spared.

[–]Anderfail0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

That was a different time actually. Even the wealthy fought in that war. It was generally expected in many upper class families that you would go into the military and serve your country. They may have been officers sure, but they sure as hell fought.

That was a war that mixed all of the economic classes together and showed them all that in the end, they are all just men trying to survive. It was a war that changed a lot of things for Americans.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

A joint struggle brings people together. The upper class accountant's kid is just as mortal as the young farmer.

Women in the west are the only class of people that have never been asked to make a great personal sacrifice, they consider taking over a factory job a sacrifice.

The Kurds and Syrians have women joining voluntarily to fight, whether they are as effective or not, knowing they will be facing a relentless enemy, women here are upset someone held the door for them (or didn't, you can never win).

[–]Endorsed Contributormonsieurhire20 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It would kind of be like that episode of Survivor or a similar show, where none of the women can work together and cooperate to get anything done, and thus they wouldn't be able to storm the hill. On the plus side, the women manning the machine gun nests would all be fighting over who got the privilege of mowing down the invaders, and the guns wouldn't be maintained or properly stocked because it was someone else who was supposed to do that.

[–]Radaghast380 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

There would be a lot more screaming, hysterics and above all, casualties.

[–]duardax74rp0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

No, thats not how equality looks like. There would be a mixture of men and women.

[–]RiseAboveRuin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Except women won't ever be on the field of battle unless it's a last resort...

[–]mugatucrazypills0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Closed eyes. Visualized. Smiled.

I've been on that stretch of beach. Could almost smell the salt air.

[–]The_Red_Paw0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

OMG, this would be a beautiful short film.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I can't believe we even won normandy considering we did the RTS equivalent of A-moving hundreds of rats into base turrets and not caring how many died.

[–]rpkarma0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Hey it works for Terrans, amirite?

/signed, bitter Protoss user

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Our history teacher showed us this scene first day of class believe it or not.

It created a weird atmosphere, and I did catch one of the girls almost look away uttering "Oh my God". The scene with the Medic dying would've had the class messed up for the day, but she just wanted to show what history and war are about.

We watched another documentary in my APUSH class and one of the girls got emotional with a soldier recounting dragging his friend whose jaw was blown off and later died. While there is definitely an empathy gap with the genders (not that I or anyone here expects this to change nor cares anymore), but seeing young men in such vulnerable positions is very unusual and can make anyone very uncomfortable.

[–]Randomusernameyessss1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thats because boys in you class face it knowing that could be them tommorow or the next day or perhaps in a couple of years while the girls think that would never happen to them oh no not them

[–]TecoAndJix-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thanks for posting that clip. Sometimes it's good to remember through reenactments the peril men went through to shape our world

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

A movie depicting a female military would be so interesting to see

[–]USModernMilitia-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I see your point, unfortunately Hollywood would skew it to fit the PC world. It would basically look like SPR but with women, they would never surrender, they would kick much ass, they wouldn't hurt or complain. They reality that we all know to be true is NEVER seen in Hollywood unfortunately. The worst part is that so many people take the blue pill, they actually believe Hollywood and subconsciously accept it as reality....

[–]Jessewilks-4 points-3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Can I quote you on this for my qualitative methods course paper?

[–]twatbutter-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I bet that they'd end up shooting each other in the boats before they got to the shore, or they'd just jump into the water and swim away from the fight.

[–]epicaricacy1273 points74 points  (12 children) | Copy

[–]Trail_of_Jeers35 points36 points  (3 children) | Copy

Jesus Christ. No concept of honor. She's excited because it's a new frontier for women, shirking duty to the state. Nevermind she made an oath or anything. Godsdamn.

[–]epicaricacy1219 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy

the pussification of America, boys

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

I swear. Terms and conditions apply.

[–]Randomusernameyessss1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The funny thing is she is now worth quite a bit of money having already gone through basic.. I hate to say I told you so to feminists about it being a waste of money but ah.. I told you so..

[–]BleachedWhale6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

She is officially a deserter, now.
Go giiirrls!

[–][deleted] 7 points7 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Kalepsis4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Holy shit, thank you for that. It's been so long since I said "LMFAO" and meant it. Everyone should have a good laugh sometimes.

Can't wait for the article about her going to the brig. She's gonna love that.

[–]foldpak1110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Nice to know where my tax dollars are going.

[–][deleted] 194 points195 points  (42 children) | Copy

If you think women would ever be pressed into equal levels of service, I've got oceanfront property in Mongolia to sell.

On paper women will be assigned the same roles and responsibilities. In real life the white knight officers will make the dudes do all the dangerous work while the women stand fast.

Then there's good old fashioned hypergamy. It was a common sight on base to see young E3 females hanging out with E-7+ guys. Take two guesses who's gonna be in a warm HQ tent and who's gonna be on the frontline facing enemy units.

[–]DoubleTappp120 points121 points  (37 children) | Copy

You are out of your fucking mind if you think I'm going to "make the dudes do all the dangerous work while the women stand fast" is a matter of being a white knight.

It's a matter of doing what it takes to win.

I'm all about some discussion that goes on here but when this topic especially crops up it just makes me feel uneasy because, I would certainly argue, most EVERYONE on this forum has not seen combat. It's just a sad case of you don't know, what you don't know.

Yes, you are probably right, if a female comes to my grunt unit and cannot perform adequately, she will probably end up as a clerk in the COC. In that warm fucking tent, sure. But in doing so, it is certainly not to protect her, but rather it's to arm my guys with the most efficient personnel to do the job that needs to be done outside the wire.

[–]Goddamnhologram40 points41 points  (18 children) | Copy

USAF vet, Intelligence. I remember multiple occasions where women would just break down and cry for getting yelled at, or when there was pressure to perform because of time sensitivity, etc. And that was on a cozy ops floor in Anchorage, AK. So imagine a female fully rucked in the middle of combat, getting yelled at, shot at, etc. I'm sure some can do it but realistically, most would fail miserably. Most men would fail miserably too, I suppose. When we got shelled in AFG it was always the women freaking out.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours34 points35 points  (17 children) | Copy

Also USAF, air cargo. Think a girl can push a 5,000lb pallet? Think five of them can? Girls in my job were in the fucking way most of the time, that's why they got the office jobs and bullshit where they didn't have to do anything physical. Was there ever a girl throwing bags in the belly of a plane in the desert? Fuck no, that plane has to leave sometime in the near future. Were there girls loading planes? Sometimes but you couldn't tell she was pushing the pallet. Everything they tied down we had to check and tighten. I had more than a few who couldn't spot a vehicle while backing up and many aircraft were hit. I knew two who could drive and operate equipment as well as my most mediocre man, the rest were fucking dangerous on a simple forklift.

Counsel them they cry then run up the chain and say you were mean to them, then you get yelled at for her fuck up.

The US military runs on things that are predominantly shipped via air, it is vital that my old job is done fast, efficiently, and as safe as possible or men in the field don't have what they need, tires, oil, armor kits, ammo, parts, everything is shipped by air at some point. Having bitches who can't lift 25lbs in that job means men will have to do her work for her, because the shit needs to get on and off the plane.

Logistics is everything. D day would have never worked if not for Eisenhower's abilities in logistics. Same with the Berlin Airlift, Desert Shield/Storm, and OIF/OEF. If the shit you need isn't there, you can't do a damn thing. Girls are usually in the fucking way.

[–]Zefwano11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy

Can attest to that, ex-Loadmaster here. Had a chick drive the tines of her forklift into the ramp, get lodged under a lip and snap it when she tried to bring them up. Saw a K-loader get ran into the Aircraft Strakes on the back end. Had another doofus blow the Fire Extinguisher unit in an MRAP that had 8+ people inside of it trying to find the battery toggle switch so we could start the damn thing and drive it off the plane. Literally every accident I ever saw involved women (rather girls/children) acting stupid and not knowing what they were doing.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I have hundreds of stories like that. Could write a book. I know one bitch who hit five 141s while driving 40k loaders and they never pulled her license, instead they blamed the spotters, who she wasn't watching. Reserves and females made me do accident reports and explain to the Col what happened, far more than active duty men.

I had quite a few loadmaster friends, mostly C5 guys.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy

Army combat vet here. On my first (and only) deployment, we went to the range in Kuwait to zero our weapons before we hot dropped into Iraq. We had a few females from HHC (headquarters) that were told to zero with us. When it came time to zero, we all got our sandbags and went to our lane to start firing. Not a single one of the fucking females could carry a sandbag to the firing line. There were probably 8 in their group, and not fucking exaggerating, we had to stop the range, and get men to carry the sandbag for them so they could spend the next 3 hours wasting tax payer money trying to zero their weapons. I'm all for females in combat...for women that can do the exact job as the average man, but unfortunately that is about 0.01 percent of females, and you can bet your ass the military isn't going to keep the standard the same across the board.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

Is the PT standard the same? Is the bf% the same? Are any requirements the same?

You have the answer to what will happen.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Anyone who has been to any selection for a school can tell you that a PT score means fuck all (assuming you pass selection in the first place). Nobody gives a damn about a PT score when you are 8 miles into a 12 mile ruck march carrying 65lbs with 13 mins left on the clock. Doing that as a man is unbelievable, doing that as a woman is just shy of a miracle.

And that is just the start to your next 9 weeks of shit eating. Unfortunately you are right, the standards will NOT be the same, because your average specialist princess won't be able to perform a task that can't even be performed by 1 percent of men.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

We had a chick from tmo come over to help net pallets. Bitch had 4" long nails so she couldn't wear gloves. She stood around and took up space while everyone else sweated. Cute black girl, absolutely worthless because se got out of everything by being cute.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

They should be paid less for doing less work.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Like that would happen. My job meant long hours, holidays were when possible and usually not even close to the actual day, random days off like Tuesday - Wednesday and often a mind numbing amount of effort. All our deployments were to the desert or some hot spot. The office people had 0800-1500 jobs, weekends and holidays off, very little effort involved in their jobs, and the deployments they went on were to places in the states, they rarely went to hot spots or the desert. They got paid the same depending on rank. That's how it works.

Girls who dont do shit still get paid by rank and time in.

[–]Senior Contributordr_warlock0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Women should be limited to nursing, linguistics, and paper pushing. Not officership, not leadership, nothing physically exerting, and most certainly not combat.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Mostly they are. The military is primarily a merit based system, if you can't do the job you get put somewhere you can do the job... Eventually. So despite being cute and flirting, they always end up not going anywhere because you won't be put in a position that matters if you're incapable. If you are, it won't last long.

[–]foldpak1110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah but feelings and being nice is more important than male lives.

[–]RedMoonAscendant-2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy

Honest question from someone who's not been in the military: why don't people just bang these women on the head until they go into seizures and drool and get sent back where they came from?

Honestly, I would strongly consider it in those circumstances. If they can't take counseling and go whining to command... just fix the problem permanently?

Is it because fellow soldiers are whiteknights and would tell command who did it?

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

You think a blanket party would work? You don't know girls. First of all you have to explain why she is unconscious, how it happened, where you were and what you were doing. If she knows you hit her, she will definitely say so.

If you say hello to a girl who doesn't find you attractive, she can accuse you of sexual harassment. Something as innocuous as hi is all it takes. Imagine if you asked her out. It only takes once, no pattern needed. It happened to me, and I stopped talking to military girls entirely unless it was mission required.

[–]1Dis_mah_mobile_one30 points31 points  (14 children) | Copy

It's both. Militaries do not spend the majority of their time in close combat. Of course women are not as good at combat, but the real damage will be done in garrison where women will percolate throughout combat MOSs, which under the name of "equality" will invariably lead to lower standards and wasted billets.

[–]doublereignbeau15 points16 points  (9 children) | Copy

I would argue that letting a woman into critical areas of operation will cause just as much failure as asking her to scale a 10 ft wall with 80 lbs of gear on.

Imagine a catfight between bitches while the men are trying to provide support during a firefight. Might actually be better to let the women die on the battlefield.

[–]DoubleTappp8 points9 points  (7 children) | Copy

Now just to be clear, there are absolutely women that already occupy various roles in Tier 1 outfits and high-clearance three letter agencies. It is true. Women possess the critical thinking ability, no contest. Have women passed grueling vetting courses? Absolutely. Are women capable of killing—ooooh, fuck yes

Careful now, your undue bias is showing; But please, keep doling out your "informed" opinion on the matter.

[–]doublereignbeau17 points18 points  (3 children) | Copy

Studies by the USMC and other military organizations would suggest such women occupy approx 3.8% of the female population.

If you are telling me there are enough level headed people to fill up the US military, I'll call bullshit. If you tell me there are enough level headed WOMEN to fill 50% of the officer corps, I'm going to call bullshit.

(Unrelated rant below)

Most MALE college graduates I interview for work (whenever my company hires) can't do 8th grade mathematics. The cognitive functions of the females are even worse.

Community college, State Universities, even the University of California graduates. All worthless with no higher cognitive function.

We're not talking about average people. University educated men. Don't even get me started on the women.

[–]Hollerdongs0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I am curious, what programs are they graduating from that they can't do basic geometry and algebra?

[–]doublereignbeau2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Anything that isn't STEM, I get the brainless SJW.

Anything that is STEM, I get the autistic sleepers. They CAN do middle school math but mentally are on autopilot.

[–]neonparadise0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Equal rights mean equal opportunity. It means if there was that magic unicorn badass lady, she won't be passed up for the job that she would be most qualified for the SOLE FACT that she is a woman. No feminist( except maybe crazy angry feminist) wants things easier for women, They just want it to be possible.

[–]Kalepsis6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

I agree completely. But in my experience, those females are 1 in 200 at best.

[–]Randomusernameyessss0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

They pass those grueling tests because the services are forced to make it easier for them such as the 2 slacking females who passed passed the ranger course they got SEVERAL attempts to do it where if a male had done what they did they would have been gone the first FUCKING DAY.. just like the 20 something women who tried 0311 basic infantry training and all of them happened to fail take a guess... the first day!

[–]RealGucciSosa0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Might actually be better to let the women die on the battlefield.

Interesting point. The most efficient strategy might be to 'expend' women in the battlefield rather than sending them to the warm tent.

[–]Kalepsis1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

This right here.

And they already walk away from boards with promotions that should've gone to better-qualified males, for no reason other than that they have no penis. I may get heat for saying this, but for the most part, I would say a male Corporal is a match for any female Staff Sergeant.

[–]1Dis_mah_mobile_one0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Depends what "better" is defined as: the ability to be a competent fireteam leader, or the ability to increase Inclusiveness and Diversity in "the Greatest Military on Earth"

[–]Kalepsis0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

"Better qualified", as in, "this man is adequately qualified for the position, while that woman is not".

[–]1Dis_mah_mobile_one0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yes I know, I just don't think that your version of qualified is shared by much of DoD.

[–]trendynamegoeshere3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Im with this guy. I have seen women in the Engineers and they become dead weight, fast.

[–]Kalepsis0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Nine years. Saw brief combat.

You sound like a rational Company Commander.

I would keep the females away from combat because they are not emotionally prepared to kill men, they aren't held to the same standard of training (especially in SOI/MCT), and their presence jeopardizes the success of the mission, and thereby the lives of their fellow Marines. Like you said, it's got nothing to do with white-Knight protection bullshit, I just would not take women into combat because most of them are useless in that role.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy

To be fair not all the officers making the men do all the hard shit are white knights. Some of them just know a woman physically isn't capable of doing a lot of the jobs.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's not even white knight officers, man, officers who need to get shit done will have men do it. I'm sorry, but there were maybe two women in the service when I was in that pulled their weight - the rest just kind of did lightweight shit and collected their paychecks.

[–]Sdom1[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

If you think women would ever be pressed into equal levels of service, I've got oceanfront property in Mongolia to sell.

I don't. Again, I just thought womens' reactions to this were funny.

[–][deleted] 80 points81 points  (31 children) | Copy

Worth noting that Israel is one of the few countries that conscipt women

(but for 2 not 3 years like men)

Virtually all of Israel's female combat soldiers are confined to two light battalions which are assigned to guard the borders of Egypt and Jordan.

Its not a conicidence that Egypt and Jordan are the only two Arab countries to have a peace treaty with Israel.

[–]Sdom1[S] 34 points35 points  (1 child) | Copy

That is still a benefit, though, as it frees up more men to guard the dangerous regions.

[–]el_superbeastooo20 points21 points  (0 children) | Copy

Most of the women in the army there are glorified secretaries and eye candy for the higher ups.

It's also worth noting that while they're part of the draft they can also opt to do "National Service" for whatever bullshit reason they can make up. It mostly consists of unsupervised "community service".

[–]MedayekMan8 points9 points  (4 children) | Copy

Yeah but nothing is hotter than going out on a Thursday night and seeing a girl in an evening dress with her hair done, make up, heels and an M16 hanging off her back. Oh, and she's in shape.

[–]Kalepsis6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy

In shape? Which military are you in?

[–]MedayekMan6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy

Not in any military. But a fan of these girls of the IDF. http://www.guns.com/2013/03/22/girls-of-the-israeli-defense-forces-37-photos/

[–]Kalepsis1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Damn. Those are some good-looking bitches. Their prone positions are a little sloppy, though. It helps to fold back that left leg for stability, and to present a smaller target. You keep as much of your body as possible directly behind the weapon.

[–]verify_account17 points18 points  (21 children) | Copy

Its not a conicidence that Egypt and Jordan are the only two Arab countries to have a peace treaty with Israel.

Israel would crumble in a month without the support of the United States. The USA is why they have peace treaties with Israel.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (1 child) | Copy

Very true

And completely off topic with females having miniscule value in a combat role.

[–]fakenate10 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

That's an interesting theory. I would wonder if the USA were to pull our influence and support from Israel if another powerful nation would step in.

Like, imagine if red China or Russia started to send arms and money to Israel in the absence of the USA's arms and money. They would instantly become allied to the most powerful economy in the region. A good balance to the USA's other regional parter the KSA.

[–]WHY1110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Russia was Israel's primary ally before Egypt became Russia's primary ally in the Middle East in the 60s. Israel also used to be a very socialist nation.

[–]DanAffid-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy

US aid is less than 1% of Israeli Budget.

Most of the major wars were won under ambargo and with minimal aid

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]DanAffid0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Israel could (and almost did) choose the commie path.

Every small country has a strategic ally. Israel was backed by the US while the Arabs were backed by the USSR. Both Israel and the Arabs would had it much better IMO without the superpowers intervention and proxy-wars.

[–]The_Truth_is_a_Troll85 points86 points  (10 children) | Copy

Of course, registering for compulsory military service is immoral and shouldn't happen at all.

So it's short-sighted to simply spike the football on retarded feminists, when statists believe that your life is the state's to use and dispose of.

By law you are required to register yourself in the event that they decide to use you and put your life on the line for their goals. That is monstrous.

[–]Sdom1[S] 33 points34 points  (8 children) | Copy

I'm not a fan of the draft, but realize that is a big part of the rationale for allowing 18 year olds to vote. Women, as always, have ridden on these coattails and proceeded to back ridiculous social policies, some of which have created the anti-male environment our societies have become. They always want, and get, free shit and claim they've earned it, so it's funny to watch them get mushroom stamped by reality's big fat dick.

Rights always come with responsibilities attached, as they must. In our current society, we've been gradually separating the two and it's done nothing good for us.

[–]alpha_n3rd15 points16 points  (7 children) | Copy

There is no draft. US military service is currently strictly voluntary. Selective service just makes it easier to track us down in case there ever is a draft, although looking at your IRS record would probably be easier.

In terms of preventing another draft, good luck with that, conscription is as old as humanity. It doesn't matter what we do now, when the time comes for a draft there will be a fucking draft.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (3 children) | Copy

Yeah, but now you can't get out of it because you have tits.

Earn your spot.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]CalamariRP 4 points4 points [recovered] | Copy

They don't line you up and choose, rather they draw a specific day of the year out of a lottery, and whoever has that birthday is drafted.

[–]foldpak1110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I'd rather do the 5 years than serve this tyrannical government at gunpoint.

[–]mugatucrazypills0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

your cell phone would be easier than either

[–]thefisherman19610 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

In terms of preventing another draft, good luck with that, conscription is as old as humanity. It doesn't matter what we do now, when the time comes for a draft there will be a fucking draft.

And guess where I'll be if it comes down to that? Either in a different country or in jail

[–]CoriolanusRevisited57 points58 points  (0 children) | Copy

As a Marine veteran, I completely agree with you. However, since nobody gives a damn about men or the immorality of the draft, the only way we can possibly repeal Selective Service Act is by forcing it upon women as well, and getting people to as usual vote with their gut instincts and have it repealed for women's sake, especially given how women are the large majority of college students and are so often in government jobs (both of those situations it is absolutely vital you are registered with the Selective Service).

[–]hva_vet74 points75 points  (14 children) | Copy

I used to stand watch on the flight line over our squadron of aircraft. We shared a hangar and flight line with a RAG squadron and back in the early 90's those were the only Navy squadrons with women. One cold night I was standing my four hour watch and a female sailor was doing the same one row over. She was constantly calling on the radio for relief because her nipples were hard and sore from the cold. True story.

Our squadron made a brief deployment with the same RAG squadron on a carrier and it was, to my knowledge, the first time women were allowed on the flight deck. While us guys humped chains and did our manly shit launching aircraft off the pointy end the girls were huddled up together around the island. Equality my ass. Us guys could haul 15 chains to their four or five.

I got out before women were allowed to join full sea going squadrons so I have no idea what it's like up on the flight deck now. Back in the early 90's it was pathetic.

[–]thenemaxofredpill49 points50 points  (11 children) | Copy

Those chains are no fucking joke. "But they are just little tie down chains"....yeah maybe but add 120 degree flight deck temp....jet exhaust everywhere....50mph head winds and then drag some damn chains.

God that Navy was so badass. Well...except for all the fat ass women in it.

[–]hva_vet34 points35 points  (9 children) | Copy

The thing that really pissed us guys off on that deployment was the women got to stay in officer ward rooms while we were packed in our 80 man birthing, like sardines, as usual. I have no idea what they do now. I mean, there wasn't much distinction between a passageway and a birthing and privacy wasn't even a thing. So WTF do the women do on a carrier now. If a dude wanted to walk around in his birthday suit there wasn't really anything to stop him and nobody would give a shit or even notice anyway. It must be a different Navy now.

[–]thenemaxofredpill43 points44 points  (7 children) | Copy

Dude. I feel you. And get this.

So I join a year before this fat chick. I was a plane captain and shop night supervisor....me and the other guys in the shop busted our asses on the flight line with the aircraft. This chick, on the other hand...never did any work because she was fucking the Chief. All she did was sit inside and study for the next exam. Before I got out...this chick was a rank higher than me. She couldn't even answer how to repair electronics. Couldn't even pin a harness when we needed her to. Pure political BS. I got out because of it.

[–]hva_vet24 points25 points  (4 children) | Copy

I got out in '93 and this stuff was just starting to ramp up. Coed boot camps were just about to start. Before then the women were just waves and nobody paid them much attention while on sea duty. They were around but hardly noticed unless you went sick call or PSD or something. I was in a male dominated Navy and this is where I learned TRP before there was ever any TRP. If you didn't own your shit and behave like you genuinely had a pair you would be eaten alive in that Navy.

[–]blue_275 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

We served around the same time. I went to boot in San Dawg, and ... we didn't have any females on the base. HOWEVER, we weren't allowed to be shirtless in the barracks, just in case a female officer came in (for whatever reason) and got offended. This is right after Tailhook.

The stories I hear now absolutely terrify and disgust me. No way I'd be able to handle today's Navy. I'm POSITIVE I'd end up with a Big Chicken Dinner. At least we tied up next to the Prairie in Long Beach, because if you couldn't get ass at the base club, all you had to do was stand by her quarterdeck for a little while and pull a chick there. If you still couldn't get laid, then you absolutely didn't deserve to.

And ... female A-school students were fun too. Fuck, I miss NTC sometimes.

[–]hva_vet3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Tailhook changed everything. It was literally what changed the military to what it is today. One little interesting anecdote....my CO was Tailhook and my squadron and leadership were ground fucking zero. I was just a kid and didn't even know what was going on around me but I learned later just how involved officers right up my own chain of command were involved.

[–]thenemaxofredpill8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy

I got out in 07. I was still privy to the old school ways like sleeping in the barracks that didn't have real heat or air in the Chicago winter. All the while...the female squads got to sleep in the brand new barracks with central heat and air with a restaurant and market on the bottom floor.

[–]Kalepsis0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

We told one to replace a cannon plug in the hellhole on a Harrier. 125 pins. She went out with a pair of diags and cut it off.

The bird spent the next three months at NADEP while they tried to identify which wires were which.

[–]thenemaxofredpill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

hahaha nothing like cutting off a plug that has 87 white wires running to it.

[–]Kalepsis4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Marine veteran here. Last ship I was on was an LHD (the Essex). Females have their own berthing now, same as the guys. And oh, the bitching, the glorious, wonderful bitching. It was so thick you could drizzle it over pancakes. We loved knowing they were just as miserable as we were.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm ex USAF cargo. I know the chains very well. 10k and 25k chains, most girls could barely lift the 25k stuff. Most of the time they stood around while we worked, and while deployed they were only on the ramp to drive passengers to and from the planes.

[–]purgisupp56 points57 points  (1 child) | Copy

The army is mandatory where I come from. During my time there I noticed that another group had two women, aged around 27-30 in them. Found out that they were officers working for the air force and needed to do 3 months of basic army training in order to get a promotion.

So during the army here you pretty much spend two weeks in the base, then one out in the forest (or sometimes two) going through the exercises. It goes like this pretty much for 11 months.

During the time when these women served, I never saw them going out to the forest. Every time the group had to go, they suddenly both "felt ill". Or when every time the group had a hike they were "ill". In the end of the 3 months, the group made a 40 mile hike what was needed for completion of the basic training. Guys were going through deep swamps and walking with blistered feet. What were these two girls doing? Sleeping in the base at the same time.

In the ceremony, both of them still got the emblems showing that they've completed the basic training, while they actually didn't do quarter of the stuff what everybody else did. It was like special olympics.

[–]Lsegundo70 points71 points  (0 children) | Copy

Good post but I think special Olympics is a the wrong example. Special Olympians work hard with what they have got.

[–][deleted] 53 points53 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Adolf_ghandi32 points33 points  (2 children) | Copy

Like any politician ever wanted to surrender his stolen power to reasonable people that are actually concerned about their country.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

I dunno, trade in the under 24 crowd and you can raise the age of consent, drinking age, smoking age, etc. That's quite a bit of money you can make for the prison industry

[–]1ToSeeAndToHear10 points11 points  (5 children) | Copy

I'm generally left on my social policies, but I feel like the "pay in more than you take out" requirement for voting would be a good way to balance out a system that does provide substantial assistance to those who need it.

[–]strps8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

In fact this was the basis of greek democracy. Not a bad plan to have the stakeholders being the one making the calls.

[–]omnicidial-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Depending on how you factor that, a great deal of the Super wealthy would be ineligible to vote because their wealth is based on abuse of their employees and reliance on the welfare and Medicaid system to keep them able to work.

[–]omnicidial-2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Like in theory none of the Walton family should get to vote because they make their profits off welfare food stamps etc.

[–]omnicidial0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Also in that situation any government vendor or employee would take more from the government than they're paying in, which would make them all ineligible to vote also, right? Otherwise you create a permanent underclass controlled by those people.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (3 children) | Copy

If women's suffrage was reversed the Democratic Party would evaporate overnight. TRP should vote Red. Fuck Bernie and Hillary. Trump the God Emperor --- 2016.

Outcome of 2012 Presidential Election if only white men were able to vote

The first "victory" of women winning the franchise....Prohibition.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children) | Copy

There was a Harvard study done which found that without women's suffrage the Republican Party would have swept every election but two in the last hundred years. Also, that was precisely the time that the government began its inexorable growth.



[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

I'm leaning more Cruz, but I legit laughed at "Trump the God-Emperor 2016."

[–]Sdom1[S] 7 points8 points  (6 children) | Copy

I actually fully agree. Repeal the draft and yes, unless you are a net taxpayer, no vote for you. I think 25 is a good place for the age restriction - you can't rent a car until age 25 for a reason.

[–]the_number_2-1 points0 points  (5 children) | Copy

you can't rent a car until age 25 for a reason.

That's not a thing. At best, it's a limited policy on a company-by-company basis, but there is no global policy or law mandating it.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]the_number_2-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

check out insurance rates before 25 vs after 25.

"While people under 25 are statistically more likely to get into an accident, each company handles the impact of age on the price of the policy differently. There is no hard and fast rule that once you turn 25, the price of your car insurance will decrease. Some carriers may offer a pricing break at 21, 23, or 30."

src: https://coverhound.com/blog/post/5-auto-insurance-myths

I'm with you on the brain development. And, honestly, 25 is a good age for voting rights as a result of this (perhaps 18+ for those that go through military service).

[–]Sdom1[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's not a thing anymore. It used to be. It's probably a no-go now due to age discrimination. But still, the companies were basing that on actuarial math.

[–]Senior Contributorcocaine_face2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

God I wish we could restrict the vote.

I like Heinlein's idea of a couple years of service - military or otherwise. You want to decide on the direction the state should go? You put your stakes in the game.

[–]fakenate10 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

Amend the constitution, you mean. The 26th amendment gave people18+ the right to vote.

What is interesting about the USA is that there is no positive right to vote. Nowhere does it say that people have the right to vote. It just says who cannot have the vote taken away.

In a hypothetical situation where the 26th is appealed... States can set the age of 40 for enfranchisement. And that would be legal. Of course some states may have different rules, but from a federal POV it would be cool.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]fakenate10 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

I don't think that people will actually move to another state just for enfranchisement.

Having personally moved to another state, it ain't easy.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]fakenate10 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Oh, okay. Maybe I and everyone I talk to are just special snowflakes.

I mean, I personally found making friends and building community ties was hard personally. Only so many soft ball teams one can join

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]fakenate10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yes, after 7 years I have built a new life here. I don't think something as silly as enfranchisement will motivate me to do it again.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

it was land owners previously.

considering home ownership rates, I'm guessing that takes a lot of people out of the loop

[–]blacwidonsfw126 points127 points  (21 children) | Copy

Do you really wanna be in a trench with Brittany checking her snapchat next to you?

[–][deleted] 89 points90 points  (0 children) | Copy

the trench

You must mean the droneroom?

[–][deleted] 14 points14 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]ezone2kil29 points30 points  (8 children) | Copy

If the draft filtered women for 'sanity' and 'level-headedness' how many percent do you think will make the cut?

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]TerryYockey2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Sure, many women do shitbag things like purposely get pregnant immediately before their unit deploys (pregnant females don't deploy with their units) or they'll get pregnant while deployed and get a ticket home

How is this remark any different than the comments made by the so-called armchair vets?

[–]bluedrygrass-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

But one thing I'm not worried about is a trained female's ability to pull a trigger when the situation calls for it.

Neither do i. I bet they absolutely love the feeling of killing someone, directly instead of indirectly.

[–]1kick62 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

Absolutely not, but I'd leave to see these stupid equalicunts back off their position.

[–]GnonSequitur11 points12 points  (2 children) | Copy

I'm fantasizing about a female-only squad of feminists all getting slaughtered in combat. Flailing pathetically. Realizing how inadequate they are for the job, and suddenly for the first time in their obtuse lives admitting to themselves that they really, really need some big strong men to come save them.

Then bullets and blackness.

I'm not bitter.

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar42 points43 points  (20 children) | Copy

Welcome, gentlemen, to the Cycle of Civilization.

Through hardship and opportunity, a K-selected, warrior culture crashes into prominence. Relentlessly, systematically, over a number of generations, this aggressive, militant civilization crushes its enemies and achieves dominion over the known world. Think: Rome, England, USA.

Then, their victory becomes their own downfall. Resources, previously scarce, are made abundant through conquest -- so abundant, in fact, that they appear to be infinite. And this is the beginning of the end. You see -- it was scarcity, hardship, and lack that drove those Roman grandfathers to board their primitive boats and go slaughter the Carthaginians, so that their grandchildren might know a world without opposition.

The illusion of infinite resources triggers a civilization-wide shift to a more R-selected reproductive strategy. Instead of the most capable and educated couples having two or three children, and investing heavily in them, you have the dumbest, least capable citizens pumping out three, five, or even seven future underachievers.

This is the stage we are in. Socialism has so engrained itself into the national psyche, that we no longer consider it a bad idea to tax the most productive citizens in order to finance the babies of the least productive. You can have some dumbass like Bernie Sanders promising free college, and people think it's a great idea. People clamor for women in combat, in the name of equality. This all flows directly from the illusion of infinite resources.

The final step in the process for Rome, England, or USA is to be conquered by another insurgent, warrior culture at the beginning of the cycle. Rome fell to the Visigoths, and England fell to an upstart America. Who will the USA fall to?

[–]Sdom1[S] 16 points17 points  (2 children) | Copy

It's also funny that people think socialism is a new idea. It's been around for thousands of years by various names and in various incarnations, from the Romans to the Ancient Inca, and it's failed every fucking time.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

But they have computers this time!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy

Socialism will be our downfall. More democrats are for it than ever before. Young people love the idea. The fact that Sanders is promoting this BS and is not seen as a radical polling at 5% is absurd. Trump may be a dick but Sanders policies would literally destroy this country

Wealth and success were once idolized in America. Now it's demonized. Failure of all things is what people tout. Just look at the victim wars, it is an absolutely sickening race to the bottom. Poor people on welfare in this country have cell phones, electricity, plenty of space, food stamps, cars, television, etc. YET assholes like Sanders STILL convince America that we are some disaster of a nation.

Fuck them.

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I heard conservative commentator Bill Whittle (who, by the way, is a genius communicator) summarize the three major beliefs of the Left:

  1. Wealth is unearned
  2. Sharing is cool
  3. Let us help you!

It's that #1 that's so insidious, and justifies all this damaging taxation. Because, if wealth is unearned, then it's okay to take it -- moral, even. But... if wealth is EARNED, then taxes are theft.

Btw, these are his Conservative values as he articulates them:

  1. Wealth generation
  2. Don't be a jerk
  3. Leave me alone

Sounds pretty damn good to me.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yep. Notice how quickly one group shuts up when it's out victimed by the other.

For example: that catcall video that made the rounds a few months ago. Great at showing the hardships women faced due to the evil nature of males!

....until someone pointed out that all the men were black. Being a woman is haaaard but being black is oh so tougher! The group had to backtrack from the video.

Absolutely hysterical to see how sexism and racism is allowed to go in one direction to those morons

[–]bluedrygrass4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

This time, tough, it's directed and coordinated, not just spontaneous. This time it doesn't need a direct enemy.

This time, The people behind the curtains will unite in a global government where states don't really matter, only to keep civilians down. This time there's the technology, the science to do so.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

I'm afraid it looks increasingly likely to be Islam

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

Yeah. Violent as they are, though -- Islam is a bunch of fuckups. Other than violence, they can't do anything right.

I'm thinking it's China that's the real long-term threat. For example, here in the West, we have been having this whole giant debate about the ethics of genetic engineering. While we're busy arguing about morality, the Chinese are quietly trying to isolate and replicate the genes for intelligence.

Like, they're just a smart as we are, maybe even a little smarter, and they don't have any moral hangups. That scares the shit out of me.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I don't think China's looking to drive planes into buildings on American soil. They will be the biggest competitor to US' global hegemony, that's for sure. But they're not spreading religious hatred under left wing tolerance BS, nor are they looking to start a fight.

How Saudi Arabia is a US ally boggles my mind

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Saudi Arabia is a US protectorate. We give riches to their "leaders" in exchange for oil extraction. It's a neo-colony; we are engaging in neo-colonialism.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

I mostly agree with everything you've said, though I'd argue central banking has far more to do with the illusion of infinite resources than does "conquest."

Also I don't really get the "R" or "K" selection points. What's that mean? Can you point me to any resources that I can read about them?

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Long story short, scientists have identified two major approaches to reproduction.

  • R-selection: have a ton of offspring, invest lightly or not at all in each one, and let attrition determine the fittest. Think, insects and rabbits.

  • K-selection: have a few offspring, and invest heavily in each. Think, elephants and wolves.

Here's the thing: humans are generally K-selected, but within the human population, different groups lean more towards R or K selection. Generally speaking, the more northern the human population, ie. the colder the climate they inhabit, they more they skew towards K-selection.

This should make some intuitive sense. If you live in the tropics, it's pretty damn easy to survive, as there are no seasons. No seasons means there is ZERO need to PLAN AHEAD. This, coincidentally, is why the more southern populations haven't progressed technologically -- there is zero discomfort in their lives driving innovation. Like, I was just in Hawaii last month. Even in the beginning of January, it was 78 degrees F (29 Celsius). Coincidentally, the native Hawaiian population was basically stone age when we found them in the 19th century, because they never had to plan more than one or two days ahead. Life is simple: you just eat the coconuts and fuck the women.

By contrast, if you live in a northern area with a real winter, it takes an enormous amount of time, effort, and planning in order to survive the winter. You can't just shotgun out a bunch of kids, you have to have a few, and then carefully train them into your method of survival. These populations tend to have much higher IQ's, lower testosterone, much more cooperative group behavior.

There's way too much to go into here, so here's a video that gets into it. It's long, but the first 10 minutes does a pretty good job explaining the concept:


The long and the short of it is, white and east asian populations are smarter, less violent, and more cooperative because they had to be in order to survive harsh winters; all because they follow a K-selected strategy. More equatorial populations are dumber, stronger, and more prone to anti-social behavior, because those are the traits that create reproductive success within a social group that more resembled a primate troop.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Very good writeup, that helps explain it. Thanks.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

As someone who loves learning about the Punic Wars I really enjoyed this comment.

[–]Endorsed Contributorleftajar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Dan Carlin's hardcore history is fantastic for learning about the Punic Wars, if you're not yet acquainted with that podcast.

[–]12_f_taiwan21 points22 points  (1 child) | Copy

Well solution is very simple: not eligible for draft - not eligible to vote.

[–]CDBaller23 points24 points  (1 child) | Copy

Do we really think this will happen? White knights will be up in arms (lol). It doesn't fit the narrative, just like equal physical fitness standards don't. I fully expect the top brass to be ignored on this, just like they were ignored on combat integration. The pussy pass hamstering will prevail.

On the other hand, I'd love to see a few whales inserted on the front lines as bullet sponges.

[–]beachsalmon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

bullet sponges

Fat chicks who get told that there is nothing wrong with their body shape is something that frustrates to no end. Fucking made my day, have an upvote.

[–]DroppinHadjisLandR15 points16 points  (2 children) | Copy

99% of them are unfit to be fucking housewives let alone serve in the military.

[–]thefisherman19610 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Almost no one is fit to serve in the military. How many of them come back with PTSD and end up homeless or committing suicide?

[–]RedPill808 15 points15 points [recovered] | Copy

Women still have an easy out that's unavailable to a man. If they get drafted or ordered to deploy it'll be "oops, I'm preggers! See ya boys."

[–]2Overkillengine0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Which is why I think voting eligibility should be based on either successful completion of military service with an honorable discharge, or at least being a net positive on taxes paid/benefits claimed.

[–]TheAureate16 points17 points  (7 children) | Copy

From The Last of the Mohicans:

"Magua understands that the white man is a dog to his women. When they are tired, he puts down his tomahawk to feed their laziness."

[–]LelSupSon15 points16 points  (3 children) | Copy

Women sure do have a strange definition of a word " equal ".

The truth is that there is no equality when it comes to male and females, but it is not because women are oppressed, it is the opposite.

In my country I had to go to the army for one year while girls my age did not.

[–]Cam_Winston21 11 points11 points [recovered] | Copy

They haven't even met the male military standard of getting their heads shaved.

[–]bluedrygrass6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

And this is particularly stupid. It's not that getting a head shaved requires particularly skills or strenght. There's no reason to let females keep their fancy hairs, outside privilege.

[–]lost_lurker4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is actually a really bad thing. While the government is opening combat roles to women they can't pass the physical tests to get combat jobs. If a draft comes through guess which sex is going to get all the cush office jobs. It won't matter if a man is more qualified for the non combat job because women can't do the combat job and men are expendable.

Source: in the military

[–]Endorsed ContributorMeat-on-the-table9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy

As much as i enjoy watching feminists squirm, i still have to say this move would be bad. We know that the presence of women generally dilutes the quality of any structure--the most masculine ones suffer the most.

In a combat zone, with Stephanie in a position to influence whether or not you make it alive...that scenario should scare any man.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Why try so hard to stop the pendulum's momentum, when you can just let physics do the work for you? Let Cultural Marxism run its course, the harder you fight the more fuel their righteousness receives.

Of course it won't be fun but you can maintain hope that there's going to be a day when anyone that complains about toxic masculinity in public will receive a solid dose of it on the teeth.

[–]Gbcue10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

I've seen feminists now moving the goal posts to "eliminate the draft." Now that they're going to be included, they have to change the subject.

[–]WALLOM11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy

Then we're going to hear that the rigors of basic training are too much for Tiffany and her friends, so they dumb them down enough to get them through, and then deaths due to negligence and unskilled training go through the roof. You can almost predict how this shit will go down.

[–]yomo869 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy

I loled. Faced with the right in your face hamster women miraculously oppose the draft in general now .

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]yomo867 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

I know crabs in a bucket, however, when equality strikes with objectivity suddenly all femnazis are in support of abolishing the draft altogether. They wanted their equality so fight with all the other crabs of society.

[–]balancespec2 13 points13 points [recovered] | Copy

Feminist: "We demand equal rights!"

"Oh... those rights come with a drawback? Better talk about how the drawback should be abolished for everyone to win political support... but since that will take forever exempt only us for now since we established that it's not fair and because it's not fair it would harm women!"

Literally every feminist comment on the issue

[–]1 Endorsed Contributormordanus0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I noticed the same exact thing. Every time this is brought up and the woman you are talking to thinks how terrible it would be for her to be forced to die, her response is always "I don't think this should exist." No matter how hardcore the feminist is.

[–]stawek4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I am pro women in combat.

Let ISIS behead a few of them on national television and the politicians will very quickly decide that sending soldiers out just for the fun of it is a bad idea.

The few women soldiers that will die will save thousands of young men from useless death at the hands of trigger happy politicians.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

I feel like (know) other countries laugh at us every time we lower our military standards to make it more accessible for women. Its like we are telling the world we are so stupid as a country that we are going allow the physically inferior gender to fight wars for us.

[–]Gman7773 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

So true. Men recognized very early on that when it comes to reproduction, women are a lot more valuable than men, and need to be protected in times of conflict.

You want your bullshit equality? Fine, we'll lower your standing for you, off to the front lines, cupcake.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Oh god I chipped a nail. Its so hot and sandy here! Everyone is mean to me! I cant deal with this im going home! That guy on the otherside of no mans land keeps looking at me through a periscope hes so creepy not my type!

[–]Captain__Stabbin5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Can't find the source. But I saw a thread where women were calling for the repeal of the draft saying it's unnecessary (which it definitely is necessary) which I thought was funny. Only now that women are about to be include in the draft are they worried about it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Thing is, this could get people killed. Like, what if some guy gets shot and a girl physically cannot drag him to safety?

Women can fight, and they can meet requirements and then I have no problem as long as they are at least near men's. but a draft is different.

[–]Sdom1[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

A small price to pay for feelz, right?

Don't worry, they'll never go. They'd open the gates and let the barbarians in first, after cutting a deal.

[–]Yoxinov1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm not sure you understand the rationale that some feminists have to support this. They know that women should never be forced to draft, so by moving society towards that option either the government will force them to draft or society will force the government to stop using the draft completely,and they are betting on the latter. They intend to 'extend' their privilege to 'equal' males to say no one should be forced to take part in the draft.

[–]Venicedreaming1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

But do you actually want women fighting along side with you in battle though?

[–]herewegoaga1n1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

The facts are that dead female soldiers and raped female P.O.W.s is terrible for moral at home and the brass would have already seen this possibility. This is a P.R. stunt that will inevitably cost more male lives, but it's a good thing society doesn't give a fuck about them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others

[–]Brewjo1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Popp tells it straight. Also his warning about a graphic segment is possibly NSFW/L.

[–]masterm1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I mean, it sounds like a good time to use this public fiasco to get rid of the selective service

[–]rokr12921 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

inb4 a war and pregnancy is the #1 way to draft dodge and more men get scammed into unplanned fatherhood, creating a generation of bastard children

[–]dsquard1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Where are some good examples of feminists reacting to this news?

[–]Janus_Fawkes1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Of course...it won't come to pass. The feminists will abolish the draft if they can't avoid it.

[–]RiseAboveRuin1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Bunch of fucking idiots in this thread

[–]1nzgs1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't see how someone can be a conservative and libertarian unless they misunderstand what the terms mean.

[–]Mgtowredpillonroids3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy

If you want to know what this could look like, look no further than Isreal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces#Combat_roles

[–]JF09095 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

I visited Israel when i was in my late 20's and met a lot of people younger than myself who were currently serving their mandatory military service.

Both men and women serve. Not everyone picks up a gun and goes to the front line, lots of people do civil service or other government jobs. After you serve the 2-3 years, you can stay in and make a career in the military, or you can go to college.

It was interesting to see how it changes the attitudes of the people. They have much more respect for their country and what it means to be a citizen. I'm not sure it would work in a country this size, but it might be a step in the right direction.

[–]BradPill5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

The Russians during WWII and the North-Vietnamese during Vietnam War (maybe even after) deployed all-women battalions into combat. Many as snipers. The Russians also had a few all-women Air Force squadrons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches
So it is nothing 'new' as such: we're just not used (or willing) to women in body-bags (apart from physical constraints/limitations - it's still not clear (to me - well, ok....) how women perform in, say, SEAL teams).
But any feminist worth her salt (and being only moderately tactically advanced), would/should have demanded the draft for women when the movement (and demands) started. But then, they are of course pacifists as well - how convenient....

[–]Sdom1[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I'm not advocating for women in the military, I just thought the "wait, what?!" reactions of feminists on twitter were pretty funny. I love watching people realize they got a little too tricky for their IQ level and fucked themselves.

[–]Mgtowredpillonroids-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think this is actually the second attempt of getting women to take part in the draft. The first attempt got repealed. https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft/Backgrounder-Women-and-the-Draft

[–]1 Endorsed Contributormordanus4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

The problem with this is that it won't work. Women have absolutely no ability to feel empathy for men. That is why they can watch movies about men dying in war and feel nothing but watch a movie about a woman getting punched and they go apeshit.

If there were to be a real life situation where women were being forced to go die in war our country would grind to a halt and go out of our way to help females. Once it got shown how many women were dying they would force the draft to be abolished.

[–]BlackPhoenix015 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

I have no problem with women serving in the military. It's illogical for a government to cordon off ~50% of its population from fighting, especially in a war. Look at the Soviet Union during WWII. Some of the female soldiers there did quite well

That said, this debate is purely in the realm of the theoretical. If we're talking about the US, we're never going to have a draft in our lifetimes, especially since the generation that is governing the country (Baby Boomers) experienced the Vietnam War in all its horror.

That said, Julie Borowski, a libertarian, mentioned women being eligible for the draft being one reason why she opposed women being in the military. As the old adage goes, freedom isn't free. You want your freedom and equality, it comes with responsibilties

[–]rektum_expander2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't think it's going to be a problem. With the rampant obesity and them not being able to pass fitness tests, and the option to become pregnant before deployment they will never leave home. Or worse, they lower standards when these zero women passing.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

If you're in a long term war, sending your baby factories to die is a bad decision.

[–]Sdom1[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It absolutely is! From a biological standpoint, it's fucking insane unless you're facing utter annihilation and every soldier helps.

[–]BleachedWhale0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah, because we're really running the risk of running out of people :|

[–]Philhelm1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I wouldn't let them take my daughters. I'm against conscription out of principle (maybe others here aren't, but I'm not here to argue that point), but I think that at the very least, the sons and daughters of veterans should be allowed a waiver from having to register for the draft. Maybe there could be certain stipulations, like a requirement of actual deployment to a combat theater, or perhaps a certain length of service, but it would be a way for the government to thank its veterans. "Thank you for your service. You went to war for this country so that your sons and daughters don't have to."

[–]Vasallo7G1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I dont think a women would be able to sacrifice herself for other men or women, like men do. And that is kind of a day to day thing in war so I dont think they have them in their nature and this Draft issue just makes it plain clear.

[–]Sdom1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

They would be given mostly non-combat assignments and easy assignments. But still, a year or two of discipline and sacrifice? EEEEW.

[–]brannana1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

If the draft actually represented a real threat, this might mean something. Except that we saw in Vietnam the difference between an all volunteer military and a conscripted one, and short of WWIII, we'll never enact a draft again.

These days, the only thing that's a problem about registering with Selective Service is digging up the number when you apply for a background check for a government job.

[–]Kalepsis1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I am a (mostly) leftist independent. After being to Iraq, and living through feminism, I totally agree with this move.

[–]50pluspiller1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

You will NEVER see the draft reinstated in the United States.

No political backbone to enact it.

[–]USModernMilitia1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I find it unfortunate that women are in the military at all... The U.S. military used to be a brotherhood of warriors. It was composed of the toughest and best trained men in the world. Now our military is a mulit-sex, multi-racial glee club. The National Guard commercial actually makes me sick. I don't know what it's going to take for women to know their place again. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I wish I was born a hundred years ago. It's Political Correctness and Political Correctness alone that has literally destroyed our country. PC finds its way into every single thing and then it metastasizes. I hate to say it but I think we're done. We are being overrun by Mexicans and Arabs and our men don't have the balls to take the country back... It's literally a media beat-down of men.

[–]SwagnumMagnum1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

lol, there hasn't been a draft in nearly 45 years, so it's not like any of you fucktards would know about war or being drafted. Jesus.

[–]Endorsed ContributorThe_Titleist2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Ha, the timing on this post is funny to me.

[–]DoubleTappp0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It's not going to be as big of a deal as we would like to think. I don't know how it is on the big army side of things but I doubt we are going to get females en masse flooding to grunt units.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]relaxedfitkhakis0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

this post is weirdly self satisfied, but I dont really see any places on the internet where woman are lambasting this as some further sexism. seems like they don't care? I don't believe in the draft regardless...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I'll believe it when I see it.

They always rationalize a way not to make women accountable or responsible.

[–]Kalepsis0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Here's something I thought was poignant:

  • "So you, with a straight face, make claims that the Marines’ study was flawed and biased, even if you did not even go see the study being performed?” McCain said. Mabus did not respond then, but said at another point in the hearing that it was “clear that the conclusions focused on the average performance of female Marines rather than on individual abilities. “Averages don’t tell the abilities and performance of an individual Marine,” he said. “There were and are capable women who can meet the arduous standards the Marine Corps set for ground combat arms units and we all know that Marines have never been about average.”

You're right, we're not about being individually average. But averages, in terms of performance metrics, are useful and necessary because we Marines work as a fucking team, and that is a core concept that is essential to killing enemies and winning wars, which is what we're trained to do. Women are, on average, counterproductive to that mission statement.

By the way, I love how the article said that revised training and evaluation standards will be going into effect soon... That's fucking bullshit. Females in the Marines are coddled as fuck already, and I know maybe one in two hundred who have the temperament and physical ability to serve in a real combat role, for which there should absolutely be NO double standards. The females in combat platoons need to be trained exactly the same as the men, and evaluated exactly the same as the men. They should be capable of completing the same mission.

Can't wait to see the first few formal complaints from women who are required to drop trou and shit in a hole in the woods where half the company can see them, like the men do.

[–]mcavvacm0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I hope your country is successful in implementing this draft. For equality's sake, off course.

[–]Gorkildeathgod0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I thought they didn't even have the draft anymore ?

[–]Indigo_Monkey0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

"Also, it shoves their face into an uncomfortable fact - rights and privileges come with obligations attached. They've never understood this..."

Almost all women I know possess this character trait of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. I assume It has some basis in evolution.

[–]batfish550 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I totally agree.

Mostly though, I'm trying to figure out how I posted this story several hours before this one went up, but I got modded out.

[–]fakenate10 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Of course, the vast majority of jobs in the military are non-combatant roles. The colonel needs a secretary and there's the cook and the idiot who drives the general around.

All drafting women will do is take away those non-fighting positions away from the men that are already there.

[–]humanmeat0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Women have been claiming for so long that they're equal to men in every way that people are starting to believe them.

I see what you did there, you said Women aren't people. Subtle.

[–]Sdom1[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I see what you did there, you said Women aren't people. Subtle.

No. What I'm saying is that women are not physically men's equals when it comes to anything athletic and especially combat-based. Their bell curve in this area is shifted so far to the left of ours as to make them basically noncompetitive in this area.

Women and men are equals in the eyes of the law, but that is very different from claiming that men and women are equals in everything. We're not. We were made to work together, and each has strengths and weaknesses. Man is the fighter of this team. Women are not evolved for combat AT ALL, which is why historically they were never combatants unless their society was desperate. This makes sense - women are the reproductive bottleneck, getting them unnecessarily killed is stupid.

No subtle point here, you just saw what you wanted to see without using the lump of fat on your shoulders.

[–]humanmeat0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

speaking of a lump of fat on shoulders, I see that sarcasm is lost on you.

[–]Sdom1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I hate to say this, but I just don't expect much sarcasm on the internet for pretty obvious reasons.

[–]Starcruiser280 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I also think that a rule should be placed that mandatory contraceptives be issued and/or any female getting pregnant while enlisted be court-martialed if they do become pregnant. No reason to be unavailable for service if your enlisted right?

[–]neonparadise0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

Guys. Equal rights means if a woman wants to be in the military, she will have to pass the same rigorous physical and mental testing as a man and then get to be in the military. As such, the best people for the job will always get the job. ( As opposed to discrimination, where a strong motivated woman can't get a physical job despite being qualified for it) A world where we force women ( who are statistically weaker and smaller) to do physically demanding war shit is not a war that America will win. So stop worrying males and feminist, should there ever come a time where draft is enacted for all, a majority of active field jobs will still go to men.

[–]Sdom1[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

Guys. Equal rights means if a woman wants to be in the military, she will have to pass the same rigorous physical and mental testing as a man and then get to be in the military. As such, the best people for the job will always get the job.

You must be fairly young. What will happen is that they won't be able to meet the standards, and thus the standards will be lowered. Happens every time.

[–]neonparadise0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

But from all the women I know who work in male dominated field, they also don't want standards lowered for the benefit of them. They feel it is demeaning and condescending to their gender if they are automatically assumed to be worse than a man and need free points. So pretty much, nobody wants lowered standards. By adding women into the draft, there will be a few badass motherfucking ladies who will be as physically capable as an average male in field work, and more likely than not, we'll pull a WWI thing where women pick up slack on mental or machinery heavy jobs like engineering, weapons manufacturing, nursing, driving etc. ( which they already do, just saying)

[–]Sdom1[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

But from all the women I know who work in male dominated field, they also don't want standards lowered for the benefit of them.

You're thinking of fields that are dependent on mostly mental faculties. I'm talking about combat. When it comes to physicality, women simply cannot compete with men, especially in elite endeavors - special forces, pro athletics, etc, and even another notch down from there.

This is just evolution. Women evolved to bear children and gather plants and stuff. That's why, for example, women produce far and away more supertasters than men, because they had to be able to determine which plants were ok to eat or not; both for the tribe and when she was pregnant so she wouldn't lose the baby.

WOMEN DID NOT EVOLVE TO FIGHT OR OTHERWISE TAKE RISKS. They are our reproductive bottleneck. One man with four wives can have as many children as four men with one wife each. Women that took risks, fought and otherwise got themselves pineboxed were weeded out of our gene pool fifty thousand years ago or more.

That's why they are less aggressive, smaller, and weaker. Their resources go towards maintaining their reproductive machinery. That's also why they don't maintain singular focus as well as men can; they weren't hunters. But they have stronger social intelligence, which makes sense considering they were maintaining the camps, raising children, etc.

God and the afterlife may or may not exist, but the evidence is clear - humans are animals. We have our own instincts and drives which are programmed into us, and we are sexually dimorphic with each sex evolving to play a roll and compliment the other.

[–]neonparadise0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

I completely agree with you that women are statistically weaker and smaller than men. But that doesn't negate the small amount of physically stronger women ( like for example Ronda Rousey) who perhaps may not be as strong as the strongest of men, but are definitely equal or slightly higher in strength to an average male. Whose to say, if such a woman, who also has the desire to work hard and join the military ( which, of course all the respect to them since being a woman in the military is like having a disability, you've got to work twice as hard ) shouldn't get the job for the sole fact of being a woman? If she passes all the same tests as a man, she is equally capable to have the job.

[–]Sdom1[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

But that doesn't negate the small amount of physically stronger women ( like for example Ronda Rousey) who perhaps may not be as strong as the strongest of men, but are definitely equal or slightly higher in strength to an average male.

Ronda Rousey is probably not nearly as strong as the average man, and definitely much weaker than the average man who exercises. She's only 5'7'' and 135 lbs. The average white or black American man is about 5'10'' and 195lbs (177cm and about 86.6kg).

Beyond this considerable size difference and the hormonal differences which have myriad effects on performance, a man's body is structured differently than a female's (stronger joints) and has much higher bone density. Our skin is even tougher.

Now, that being said you will continue circling back to the ever-seductive meritocracy argument, so let's address that. The problem is that very, very few women can even qualify for basic combat roles, and any small benefit you get by being able to recruit some more bodies is more than outweighed by the negative effects of having women in the field with men.

The presence of women on military bases can already be quite divisive due to their hypergamous behaviors. I can't imagine what that could do to a unit. A woman playing psychological or sexual games in a unit could destroy their effectiveness just like that. Throw that on top of the fact that that woman, while elite for a woman, will just baaaarely hack it in the first place, and it's just a bad risk/reward scenario.

And you're not even considering the fact that affirmative action policies will inevitably follow. Ever seen a fat, 5'2'' lady cop that looks like she couldn't catch a cold? There are plenty of them out there, as well as desk dollies that make a full cop's wage to do receptionist work.

Now, consider that female cops shoot and kill at statistically significantly higher rates than male cops do, as they don't have as many sub-lethal tactics at their disposal (basically, they have to shoot because they can't whoop ass). The men and women that have been shot and killed by these female cops have essentially been sacrificed on the altar of feelz before realz.

Add those to the men who will die on engagements where their less effective coed units lose fights an all male unit could have won. Their lives have also been traded. Do you think it's worth it?

[–]neonparadise0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

While everything you say is true, that assumes the fact that we are still giving affirmative action to ladies. In a meritocratic world, which I believe the army should be, if you were a lady that was messing with the productivity of group, you'll be out. If you were a man and the same, you'll also be out. If you are not professional enough to work in an environment with the opposite gender, or sexual differences, or racial differences, without getting distracted and getting sexual, well sorry, you're out. Saying you can't work with women without wanting to have sex makes as much sense as saying you can't work with gay guys, or black guys, or guys with blue eyes. Also, contrary to popular belief, women come in all shapes and sizes. Ever seen a butch lesbo? A female to male transgender? Or freaking Briene of Tarth? Physical ability should not be based off the number of x's in your genome, but by (oooo scandalous) your actual physical ability.

[–]Sdom1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

While everything you say is true, that assumes the fact that we are still giving affirmative action to ladies.

Aren't we? I didn't notice affirmative action and like policies going away.

In a meritocratic world, which I believe the army should be, if you were a lady that was messing with the productivity of group, you'll be out.

The military is not that much different from the corporate environment.

Saying you can't work with women without wanting to have sex makes as much sense as saying you can't work with gay guys, or black guys, or guys with blue eyes.

My personal feelings have nothing to do with this. I'm looking at broad swaths of people, and when you consider that many people you have to realize that will happen.

Also, contrary to popular belief, women come in all shapes and sizes. Ever seen a butch lesbo? A female to male transgender? Or freaking Briene of Tarth?

Yes, seen them all. Even a large woman like the actress who plays Brienne gets her ass handed to her by the vast, vast majority of men in a fight. A trans man will still have a woman's bone structure, which is a giant disadvantage. A strong woman can hit me and I can take that hit and smile. She can't take what I give back, her bones just can't hold up to my damage output.

Again, there are vast physical differences at play here. You're comparing women, whose purpose is to give life, to men, whose purpose is to take it. Our advantages in combat cannot be overstated.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAFPJ0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Pregnancy post draft call has answer or once in service should be penalized and considered a dishonorable discharge.

I'm sure civilians will spin it however they want, but it is desertion - a betrayal of the pledges one swore to uphold.

With those rules being upheld with consistent court martials, though, there'd likely be no women in the military.

[–]snugatron0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Honestly... I always wanted to be in the military. When I was nine or ten I was devastated when a recruiter told me I could never be a sniper because I was a female. Fast forward a bit in my life, and I was bummed to learn that the draft doesn't apply to me as a female. Although I think I may be in the minority...

[–]Sdom1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You probably still couldn't, no offense. Women sacrifice a lot for the ability to bear children. Making elite units is nearly impossible for women because you're not competing with average men for the spots, you're competing with 2 or 3 sigma men, probably higher for certain special forces. I've known a few special forces guys, and they have a rare combination of traits even for a man.

Being our reproductive bottleneck comes with ups and downs, but mostly downs. I feel for ya.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (0 children) | Copy

They'll just get pregnant to dodge the draft. The smart ones will abort; the dumb ones will be perpetually pregnant.

[–]Betamax693 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

When I was in anytime a female got orders for a hardship tour she would get pregnant with the nearest Chad she could find. Even if it wasn't her husband.

[–]ether_reddit2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

Hey, there could be a positive outcome out of this.. there might actually be serious peace talks now.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy


What is this?

[–]looc221 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

What a terrifying thought that is.

[–]Betamax691 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I heard that if they were killed by a woman or a weapon touched by an unclean (menstrual) woman then they don't go to paradise and get their 72 virgins

[–]flyercomet0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy


I had to check my draft status because it was so long ago. This is mostly symbolic, but it IS equality.

[–]randarrow-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Thanks! I forgot to do mine decades ago and was reminded in a very nasty letter about a year after I turned 18. Turned in paper work but never received confirmation. Looks like I registered after all.

[–]chances_are_ur_a_fag0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

conservative and libertarian are not even close to the same. one is statist and the other is not.

[–]Sdom1[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

Both are considered right wing. I understand they have their differences, just as fascists and communists and fabian socialists all have their differences but in the end are on the left and in the same political family, as it were.

[–]chances_are_ur_a_fag0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

fascists are right wing and not even close in line with left wing communists. get your shit straight homie

[–]Sdom1[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

fascists are right wing and not even close in line with left wing communists. get your shit straight homie

Alright, let's get our shit straight. Let's start with listing Hitler's policies and beliefs.

  1. The official name of the Nazi party (translated, of course) was the National Socialist German Workers' Party. So, "socialist" and "workers'" was right in the fucking name.

  2. The only thing they took from the right wing was nationalism. The Communists wanted to wipe all nations away and replace them with a communist super state. The Nazis were for the Germans, plain and simple.

  3. "Scientific racism" and "pan germanism" were both fairly new ideas, not traditional nor right wing. Neither were their eugenics derived policies, euthanizing the mentally disabled, attempting to genocide the Jews, etc etc. Conservatives by definition want slow social changes that come about organically, not as a result of government intervention, and believe in the importance of tradition.

  4. The Nazis still believed in government control of the economy, and were hence socialists (it's in the fucking name, remember?). The implementation was not as extreme as Communism, where both fruits and means of production were completely government controlled, but that's because even other socialists realized how idiotic and unworkable communist economics were. They maintained just enough of the free market to keep their economy functioning.

  5. The Nazis made heavy use of leftist propaganda techniques.

So, you have a totalitarian government regime that has new, radical social ideas and whose economic policies are smack dab in socialist territory, and they're right wing? Really?

[–]chances_are_ur_a_fag0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

my god.. you really should pick up a book and not base your opinions on what you think leftism is. it's not left wing because "socialisms" is in descriptions n stuff.

literally the first paragraph: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

What's especially great about this is that feminists are exposing themselves with their reactions

Where? I apparently missed that part of the article. I hope this isn't your revenge fantasy playing out in your head, that would be pretty weak of a man to do.

And more importantly, who the fuck cares? What's with this crab bucket female social matrix like bullshit?

Explain how your post applies to rule 0, and I'll send you an apology in the mail, but as it stands now, this is childish bullshit

[–]bytesunfish0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I just want to point out that pursuing higher education used to exempt you from the draft. I might be pessimistic, but I expect this will be another tool used to push men out so that women can be sheltered in the universities while men are sent to die.

[–]Sacrimundar0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy


I mean, I'm pretty sure feminists wanted this from the get-go so this really isn't an opportunity to take jabs at LE EBIL FEMNAZI

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

As far as I can tell the cries of "Everyone should be drafted" are quickly followed by "Well it's about time we got rid of the draft anyway"

[–]1iluminatiNYC-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I'm OK with women being eligible for the draft. If shit ever hits the fan, we need anyone and everyone who can grab a gun and wreck shop. No biggie on my end.

[–]Ladybargod-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

The joke's on the military in this one.

[–]Ymeynotu-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I wonder if this is just another example that the feminist agenda is involved with eugenics philosophies

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]RealRational-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think 99% is laughably idealistic, but otherwise yeah, bout damn time this happened.

50% is probably the best we could hope for by 2050.

[–]Meshakhad-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I've heard some women complaining about this, but they always frame it as "we should get rid of the draft altogether!"

Plenty of women are okay with registering for the draft. Especially since the chances of the draft being used in the near future are negligible.

[–]94redstealth-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

As someone who tends to lean to the left, I have thought women should have been in the draft for years. Don't stereotype all 'leftist'. You can only do that with women and be right all the time.

[–]1pluvoaz-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

I predict that if the actually happens, they will decide to end the draft before it can take effect.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

How about, oh, I don't know, not drafting anybody, and cutting back on the whole slavery thing just a little bit more. Stupid gits.

And, OP, that you think this sort of equality is poetic means you're definitely not libertarian.

[–]slimcoat-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Not sure this is going to solve anything, or make women "realize" anything. They know they can get pregnant to avoid combat, so they'll just do that to avoid the draft. Over and over again, if needed, all the while saying they're completely equal on paper.

EDIT: Almost forgot, Dalrock has a pretty good prediction of what'll happen. Check out The Fantasy of Drafting Women and Turning a Blind Eye. The latter is pretty insightful.

[–]InsaneRay-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

None of them said that they think women should be required to register for the draft. What I heard them say is that they believe "It should be a national discussion" They know saying "yes make the women have responsibilities" would be a career ending statement.

[–]BlueFreedom420-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

This means nothing. Remember how many people got out of the draft during Vietnam?

If there is ever a need for the draft, its going to be biggest war and the last war. Women will completely shirk their duty. Most women are too unhealthy and can list a whole page of mental and physical problems. They probably just claim past rape trauma.

Or they will simply refuse. What are they going to do? put these women in the comfortable easy life women's prisons? Remember women never get charged for falsely reporting crimes.

Women will run from combat. Because they know the consequences are trivial.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

If this happens, it will end US military dominance of at least put a serious dent in the force's fighting ability

[–]steventysonjr1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

You mean like the Soviet Union in WWII, correct? Which had 100% gender integrated combat units. Men and women, both unwoefully prepared for total war, armed with outdated equipment, often with little or no ammunition, all fighting side by side against the most elite, technologically advanced and disciplined military on the face of the earth - Germany - and they still won.

You may not hold women in high esteem, but don't discount their legendary acts of heroism in the most brutal war has ever fought on this planet. Like Lyudmila Pavlačenko, one of the deadliest snipers in wartime, or the Night Witches, one of the most effective strategic bombing units in the war. Russian women have done more to achieve glory 70 years ago than you or your offspring ever will.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

A pyrrhic victory doesn't disprove my point. It doesn't matter what your fee fees say, women in war zones are liabilities

[–]De_Polignac2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

They won because they buried the Krauts in bodies, not because of some kind of magical strategic advantage provided by gender integrated units.

[–]NameOfAction-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah its fair but so what? Now we are going to force more people to become mass murderers? I'd rather see the selective service abolished than expanded.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter