TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

House approves measure to bar women from having to register for the draft

MenandBoysareGood

July 8, 2016
36 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/07/house_approves_measure_to_bar_women_from_draft_registration/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title House approves measure to bar women from having to register for the draft
Author

MenandBoysareGood

Upvotes 36
Comments 34
Date July 8, 2016 12:40 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4rrx8z/house_approves_measure_to_bar_women_from_having/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/house-approves-measure-to-bar-women-from-having-to.945939
https://theredarchive.com/post/945939
Top posts by MenandBoysareGood

Pamela Anderson will campaign for men falsely accused of rape

11016 upvotes
February 22, 2017
/r/MensRights

A woman who faked a paternity test to fool an ex-partner into believing he was her baby's father has been jailed.

4879 upvotes
June 14, 2017
/r/MensRights

A New Sexual Revolt Is Underway at British Universities; some male students are refusing to attend their university’s sexual-consent classes, and I reckon this could be the first salvo in a sexual uprising against the gender-studies prudes now running (and ruining) student life

2040 upvotes
November 3, 2015
/r/MensRights

Swedish Law Would Allow Men To Back Out Of Fatherhood

1814 upvotes
April 4, 2016
/r/MensRights

42% of men aged 18-45 'have contemplated suicide'

1465 upvotes
November 2, 2015
/r/MensRights

ISIS executes hundreds of kidnapped men and boys in Mosul; CBC and BBC reports silent on the gender of victims. Guardian doesn't even cover the story

1230 upvotes
October 27, 2016
/r/MensRights

New male contraceptive is safe, effective and inexpensive — but no company has agreed to sell it; maybe we should crowdfund and start our own company

1217 upvotes
April 1, 2017
/r/MensRights

Gender gap widens as women graduates outpace the men (63%:37%)

997 upvotes
August 17, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

To be fair, the opposition has little or nothing to do with 'female privilege.' The main concern is that the draft is brought into effect in times where it is difficult to find enough able-bodies soldiers. It is far better to draft from a population where the average member will be fit to go to war (men) than to draft from a population where the average member is unfit to go to war (women.) It is similar to why gay men can't give blood, it's not about oppression but rather practicality. Most women would not be fit to go to war, that's why we need more studies.

[–]xNOM 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Really... so how about we recruit scientists from a population where the average member will be able to do math -- high IQ males. Also, only about 20% of Vietnam era draftees ended up in combat duty.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

But science has nothing to do with the average member, because its a voluntary pursuit. The draft is involuntary, so there is more reliance on the average member. All that adding women to the draft would accomplish is lowering the percentage of armed forces members who could do the necessary tasks such as carrying a wounded 250 lb man, hiking for days with 70 lbs of gear, etc. And it is not worth endangering the lives of anybody unnecessarily.

P.S. your analogy does not hold up. We don't recruit scientists.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So no need to allow women to be in the armed forces.

Or is it "women should get all the opportunities but not a commensurate amount of responsibility"?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, it is that women should be allowed into the armed forces but only after passing the same rigorous fitness test that men do. I, like the rest of mensrights, support not watering down the standard for women. If we draft women, I guarantee you that the standards will be lowered.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The standards were lowered substantially prior to the US involvement in WWII when FDR instituted a peacetime draft.

The standards are largely a) to ensure the forces are manned as necessary for the given conditions and b) politically driven so a minimum % of a certain demographics are present.

In no way do the fitness standards consistently represent what is needed to achieve the job.

[–]perfectEarlobes -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Dude, people don't wanna hear it.

Because of crazy feminists, this has driven some people to think having women on the front line is not only a good idea but a fair one.

No one here really cares about having the strongest army possible.

Women have been utilized in War for the past 70+ years. In WWII in the armory making bombs, bullets, equipment, food, making planes, ships, stock field packs etc basically acting as support for the troops.

But on the battlefield....

There is little to no advantage, and in many tests it has been shown to be a hindrance.

But since men don't feel appreciated some would rather cut off their nose to spite their face.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Having a larger population to recruit from is better than smaller. Yeah, women tend to be less productive in everything but it doesn't mean that there is no women that are good soldiers.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

"We better only enslave the most fit would be slaves. That should be fair."

[–]2bx1x 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"Also, being considered a good fit for slavery is a privilege."

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"After all you get to select your taskmaster every few years. Also, I should have a say in who your taskmaster is anyways."

[–]2bx1x 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Furthermore, the fact that that taskmaster is the same sex as you means you're complicit in every awful thing they do, and they also work for the benefit of your sex at the expense of the other. It's like how the North Korean people aren't oppressed, because their leaders are all North Korean."

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Of course it goes without saying that you would be blind to these benefits as due to your sex as well as your complicity. I'm a different sex and see them, thus making me a more trustworthy source, but this same logic does not apply to any benefits I may be blind to. "

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Life isn't fair. You want it to be fair at all costs, which is why you'd be willing to risk peoples' lives by putting numerous unfit women into the army.

Women fail marine fitness tests at over 32 times the rate men do. For every person here rejoicing "equality, there will be some guy dead in a foreign country because a 150 pound woman couldn't carry him out of harm's way.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You want it to be fair at all costs

No where did I say that.

which is why you'd be willing to risk peoples' lives by putting numerous unfit women into the army.

Uh no. Even men when drafted who didn't meet the standards weren't allowed to continue serving.

It's quite simple:

Hold them to the same standards, and draft them with the same criteria as men are held to.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a fair point. I guess my concern was that more women in the armed forces failing tests would cause a social backlash and mean that standards would be lowered for women, such as

Here

And here

The army, upon seeing such a low percentage of women passing fitness tests now have three choices:

1: Process an extremely large number of people that will never see combat

2: Lower standards for women

3: Remove women from the draft

As it is, few women enlist, and those who do so are more likely than the average women to be fit to fight. I do agree with your point, but the place where we disagree is whether to protect the efficiency of the armed forces or to work towards a more egalitarian society - both important causes. I guess I have to agree to disagree with you, /u/TracyMorganFreeman

[–]DaneWhitman 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

A similar amendment would have to be approved by the Senate for this to become law. Since the Senate already approved draft registration for women, it doesn't look like they would approve such an amendment. Whether or not registration will become gender neutral this year will still come down to the House-Senate negotiations this fall. If not, there's still the NCFM lawsuit.

For anyone interested, here's the roll call vote. The amendment was approved by a 217-203 vote. A quick glance suggests that the partisan breakdown was Republicans: 215 for & 24 against, and Democrats: 2 for and 179 against.

[–]xynomaster 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The Senate voted in favor of drafting women, and the House voted against it. Interesting. It seems to me that the end result will be neither of these amendments is passed, and we're back at square one.

Worst case is that this amendment passes, and we're actually further from equality here than we were before. It would make no difference in the NCFM lawsuit, but it would make it harder for any change to take place in a future year.

[–]runner557 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't matter. The status quo remains. Only men are required to register. Only men are punished if they don't.

It's going to have to be decided by the Supreme Court. Not too optimistic about that either.

[–]jeff_the_nurse 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wonder how many were feminists.

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We MRAs and society have a conundrum. Women should have responsibilities concomitant with privilege. Thus, if they vote, they should be eligible to be killed in war, or at the least to be conscripted for national service. And why shouldn't a general be as willing to waste female lives in a diversionary tactic, as male?

Further, as millions of men have died protecting Western freedoms, why shouldn't we have a rest while the women are required to die protecting us?

But trying to use women exactly as men will weaken the military, weaken cohesion, have men die protecting women, and generally hurt men.

Thus, I don't see a solution fair to men.

Elaine Donnelly is less prominent now but used to be cited frequently about the preparedness issue:
https://www.cmrlink.org/

[–]thrway_1000 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[Archive of Article Here.]

 


Please think of archiving links to sites that are known to have biased and/or negative representations of men, masculinity, and men's rights -- i.e. The Guardian, Slate, The Telegraph, The Independent, Cracked, BuzzFeed, Vox, Vice, Bustle, Medium, Mic, Huffington Post, Salon, Think Progress, Raw Story, and so on. Or to articles and/or sources that may be controversial, which may be altered and/or removed because of our current culture of censorship. https://archive.is/

[+]perfectEarlobes -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I really don't get why people look for equality in war. Men and women in modern society are meant to be equal. War is not modern society. War is about strength, violence of action and winning at all costs.

War is about gaining advantage and exploiting it. Test after test, mixed squads, female only etc. women do not perform better than men on the front line. Where is the advantage?

No one is imaging there is a serious threat to your nation being invaded by a foreign army. Would anyone feel safe if your armed forces were a 50/50 split of men and women compared to an enemy that doesn't care about equality, 100% of the strongest men they have and will do anything to achieve their goal?

And when there is a draft, that is when things get serious and desperate.

Sounds like suicide in my opinion, but that's just me.

[–]ber_throwaway 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Men and women in modern society are meant to be equal. War is not modern society.

If you could explain to me, why a man should fight in a war for a society that doesn't care for him..

[–]perfectEarlobes -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters.

  • Camille paglia

I believe that quote to be true. It's awful and i get it.

But in War, it's just about who wins. That's it! Period.

War doesn't care about men or about women. All that matters in War is that you win at any and all cost. And simply put, Men are better at war than women.

I'm all for women to join, but only if standards are not lowered. There are no allowances in war.

Women have a place in war if it is needed. In WWII 90% women under the age of 30 work towards the war effort. Building Ships, planes, bullets, bombs, anything related to the armory, they were involved in communications, number of nurses shot up, rationing etc. women have had a place in war for 60+ years.

But at the end of the day, lets call it like it is. Men and women are different. They have different strengths and different weaknesses. It doesn't make them any less equal.

But the strengths of men are conducive to war and to not acknowledge that is a tackle mistake that i hope never is shown to be true.

If you could explain to me, why a man should fight in a war for a society that doesn't care for him..

So men shouldn't fight at all? Surrender is what you are saying because we aren't appreciated? Kind of an insane argument.

Imagine the world we would live in if that is how men decided to think in WWII. Society doesn't care for me, im not gonna fight. wtf.

Don't believe the hype that society doesn't care for men (and when you say society you mean women?).

It's not true. Women value men, i see examples of it everyday and it is all around us. The problem is it isn't as loud as a crazy feminist that attributes all of their woe to men and then tries to make mens lives difficult (child custody, jail sentencing etc).

Believe me women do care for men, and time and time again in war, women have been shown to support them (but its rarely on the battlefield).

But for all the logical arguments and good points i see on this sub, this is one of those issues where people wont accept men and women are different but they should be expected to do the same.

Women (for the most part) are weaker than men, that's just how it is.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If, say 20% of women are better soldiers than, say, 20% of men, what's the point of not recruiting those women? It just doesn't make sense. The problem is not that women have to serve but to find the 20% who are excellent at something the military needs.

[–]2bx1x 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Imagine the world we would live in if that is how men decided to think in WWII. Society doesn't care for me, im not gonna fight. wtf.

If men valued themselves and their lives that highly, maybe wars wouldn't happen in the first place.

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But in War, it's just about who wins. That's it! Period.

Agreed. So tell me again why we should expect men to fight and die so that the women back home that don't care about him can have the win?

[–]perfectEarlobes -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

...so that women back home that dont care about him can have the win?

Dude are you serious??

You would sacrifice having the strongest possible army because crazy people don't appreciate men?

That's insane.

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let me get this straight.

It's insane not to give your life, so that people who treat you like shit can have a nice life?

What's insane, is treating the people you depend on... like shit, and expecting them to continue with business as usual.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You aren't considering the full breadth of occupations required to have a functioning military. The majority are not involved in front line combat. In fact, drafting women would open up more men in support roles to fight in combat roles, serving your goal of having the best fighting force.

[–]perfectEarlobes 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yea that sounds rational right? Women's support in war is well documented and very beneficial. (look at my other posts)

The majority are not involved in front line combat.

However no one here wants that. Just read the comments. They want them fighting and dying like men do.

And all because society doesn't appreciated men. It's crazy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It depends on who you talk to. From what I've seen on this sub, most people only support front line women who pass the standards rather than any quotas. At this point the US has only mandated that women be allowed to apply, not that there must be a 50/50 ratio. Given that the ratio of men/women in the military is so skewed as it is, the government would have to take extreme measures to reach any kind of parity and I don't see that happening. The closest thing is integrated units, which were shown to have varying degrees of success based on the type of unit.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter