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

Army Secretary posits women should register for the draft if accepted in combat roles.

eloquentnemesis

October 13, 2015
666 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/army-sec-american-women-could-be-required-to-register-for-draft-if-combat-jobs-integrated/
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 Army Secretary posits women should register for the draft if accepted in combat roles.
Author

eloquentnemesis

Upvotes 666
Comments 156
Date October 13, 2015 5:32 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3oju52/army_secretary_posits_women_should_register_for/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/army-secretary-posits-women-should-register-for.969524
https://theredarchive.com/post/969524

Comments

[–]Devilsgun 65 points66 points67 points 10 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link

Yes, this.

[–]Demonspawn 23 points24 points25 points 10 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

This is meaningless.

You can't draft any woman who doesn't want to be drafted. She can just get pregnant to avoid conscription.

[–]DAVIDcorn 32 points33 points34 points 10 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but its the fairness that they have to at least put their name in for it.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

So it's all about appearances rather than results?

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Depends, because the result could be abolishing the draft all together. I doubt most people would be happy with a "well, just get pregnant ladies" solution to avoid sending women to go die.

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

because the result could be abolishing the draft all together.

Also meaningless. If the country needs men, it will write a new draft law if necessary to draft men.

I doubt most people would be happy with a "well, just get pregnant ladies" solution

Already accepted. Some military women do get pregnant to avoid deployments. It's a documented problem in the military.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Well, in that case let's do nothing at all. Things can just change back.

Already accepted. Some military women do get pregnant to avoid deployments. It's a documented problem in the military.

That's basically saying "rape culture exists because rape happens."

If women were forced to go to war, no one would say "oh that's fine, just get pregnant". The fact some women do this is not a counter argument to the point I'm making. Just as "rape exists" is not a counter argument to "there is no rape culture".

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

What?

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

He's saying that society would tell women to "just get pregnant" to avoid the draft, rather than... I don't know, get rid of the draft, because he thinks we already do tell women this, based solely on the fact that "women do it".

So his logic is that because it happens, society condones it and encourages it. With that same logic, rape culture exists, because rape happens. So if it happens, obviously society supports it and encourages it, otherwise it wouldn't happen at all.

This is obviously false. Just because some women get pregnant to avoid deployment, doesn't mean society is supporting or encouraging it.

If the draft effected women, no one is going to be okay with it. No one's solution to the problem is going to be telling women to just get pregnant. It'll be to end the draft.

How well do you think telling all women to "just get pregnant" to avoid the draft is going to go over? In a society where "telling women what to do with their bodies" is taboo?

It's not going to go over well, which is why it would never fucking happen in the first place. You think society would take the "women get pregnant or go to war" stance? Please.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That makes better sense...

Besides. If they did get pregnant to avoid draft/deployment. They should be punished for it in some way.

[–]Demonspawn -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He's unaware that women already get pregnant to avoid deployments and face no repercussions.

Basically, he's making an argument on "how it should be" totally ignorant of "how it actually is".

[–]blueoak9 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Also meaningless. If the country needs men, it will write a new draft law if necessary to draft men.

The draft is worse than useless for modern armies. This isn't WWII where you can just grab some kid off a farm and throw an M-1 into his hands.

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This isn't WWII where you can just grab some kid off a farm and throw an M-1 into his hands.

Basic infantry is still basic infantry.

[–]CplCanuck -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck you it is. Conscription one is a horrible idea that is futile to implement in a modern conflict. Infantry isn't as simple as a 10 week boot camp and away you go to the front. It might fly for Stalinist Russia when life was less valuable than wheat was. Current standards as they are now are almost too low for what's considered a frontline troop. As well as our training periods are in the 9-18 month range to even consider deployments. Other than a very narrow group of smaller countries who use mandatory service conscription is a dead end when you consider your options for building a fielded military. Just handing someone a weapon doesn't mean you've got yourself a soldier capable of handling modern fighting. It's just not a justifiable solution. Unless you're some kinda madman soviet dictator.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]intensely_human 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It would make the most sense to just defer their draft for nine or ten months. Let them push it back, but if your number comes up you gotta serve.

So let them carry out the pregnancy, give birth, leave the kid with dad or foster care, and she serves after they're born.

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

Exactly. There are plenty of noncombat military jobs. Find the shittiest jobs and put the ones who got pregnant after their number got called, there.

[+]Demonspawn -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Charge them with draft evasion if it can be proven

Charging women with draft evasion for becoming pregnant? Shall we charge women in the military for desertion or dereliction of duty for becoming pregnant? I don't think that will go over well.

just ditch the draft altogether.

Also meaningless. If the country needs men to wage war, it will draft men. It will write a new draft law if it needs to do so.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

No its not...Once your in the military. THEY OWN YOU...whatever you do to yourself such as getting hurt or getting pregnant. You can be in big trouble in the military.

You are the property of the military.

[–]Demonspawn 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

whatever you do to yourself such as getting hurt or getting pregnant. You can be in big trouble in the military.

Name any women who's gotten in trouble for getting pregnant within the last 10 years.

I'm very familiar with how the military works. I'm prior service myself. And I know for a fact that women get pregnant to avoid deployments and nothing happens to them.

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

Could be because of politics? They don't want to punish women because they will get shit for it?

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, women do control 55% of the vote...

Beyond that, the military is very pro-family. Punishing a woman service-member for getting pregnant rubs many the wrong way. I understand that apprehension, which is why I think the military is better off with a minimal number of women in it.

[–]FigNinja 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I think that would be very difficult to enforce in the case of pregnancy. Accidental pregnancies happen even when using highly effective contraception measures. So while we can know that some women will do it on purpose, proving a specific woman did within a reasonable doubt would be very difficult. You would have to have some record of her admitting it. Pursuing it would mean a lot of money and time for investigations that would likely go nowhere.

What else are you going to do? Force them to have abortions? Yeah. That would never fly.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I don't believe in Accidental pregnancies. Every man and women understand the risks of sex. There are no accidents.

[–]FigNinja 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So if people are registered for Selective Service and a draft is implemented, does that mean that all women registered should abstain from sex lest they be called up? Are we going to tell a generation of young people that they have to postpone having any children for the duration of a war. We may be talking five, ten years, maybe more. No children. No sex.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That is a great point you make and I strongly agree on your rhetorical questions about that.

But, I believe you misread my statement. I'm not saying people shouldn't have sex. I'm saying that getting pregnant is no accident. Its a matter of risk people take.

[–]FigNinja 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thank you. Though my points are less rhetorical and more about practical implementation of policy. It's one thing to acknowledge that some women might get pregnant to shirk their duties and to believe that it is reprehensible. It's another to figure out how they should get in "trouble" for it, what kind of policy an institution can implement and enforce. In this context, whether you want to call it an accident or an unintended consequence doesn't bring much to bear.

People are going to have sex and make babies. But, hey, if you did ban sex, I'm sure there'd be a real motivation to get that war over as quickly as possible.

[–]Vandechoz -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

With that logic, there are no accidents of any kind, regardless of topic.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You don't understand the logic. I didn't say accidents in general. Where did you get that from?

[–]Vandechoz 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Everyone understands that all sorts of action, hell just going outside, puts you at risk of any number of things that are statistically unlikely to happen. That doesn't somehow keep them from being accidents when they occur just because you made a conscious decision to leave the house. Same with sex when using multiple forms of highly effective birth control.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Service member here.

Reprehensible would be a draft. If someone doesn't want to be in the service, we have little use for that person in the first place. Next, we value families a lot, especially the kids. Locking up a child's mom for being pregnant with them is not going to contribute to that child growing up in a physically or mentally healthy environment. We do not volunteer years of our lives for the goal of punishing children for no fault of their own. We also have things like leave, profiles or re-classing to accommodate situations such as pregnancy or other medical necessities regardless of gender.

As a group of people who swore to uphold the constitution (not so much the interpretations of the 9 wise wizards who come down from the mountain once a year to govern without election, despite the fact that we do), we'd be hard pressed to support an action that criminalizes the reproductive or other individual rights of citizens. We are here to protect you guys, even when we disagree with you, not lock you up. We also submit ourselves to the principle of civilian leadership so that ultimately, the people decide our actions, or at least have an opportunity to. Tell me, when would you appoint us to relieve you of your individual rights? I would hope never, as liberty is the precious thing that we grind away for.

Spreading possible involuntary servitude to everyone in the name of equality is counter-productive, and much less about securing men's rights than it is about acquiring women's punishment.

[–]99639 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

If someone doesn't want to be in the service, we have little use for that person in the first place.

You say that now... while we don't need to call up hundreds of thousands of new recruits in a short period and replace massive casualties from a large war. It's only been a few decades since the last time that happened, is that really so long ago that you've completely forgotten about it?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The idea that we have to have a massive number of bodies on the ground is misconception in modern warfare, conventional or not., large scale or not.

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

Only for stupid optional wars like Iraq. If North Korea lobs a dirty nuke onto Seattle and China gets pulled in, there will be a draft.

[–]99639 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This statement is so out of touch with reality that I now question whether you were lying about being in the armed services. I'm not here to fight "stolen valor", so I'm not going to ask for proof or anything stupid like that, but honestly I am quite skeptical.

Large conflicts between large states have large forces. The only reason you disagree is because there hasn't been a large conflict between states in a few decades and you have the memory of a goldfish. The USA sending a small force to obliterate an enemy using 50 year old technology doesn't require a large force, but fighting a competent opponent would. Even the Vietnam war, which had a large counter-insurgency component and US air supremacy (in the south), required hundreds of thousands of US soldiers. It's honestly staggering to me that you can't even recall a major conflict like that... It seriously was NOT that long ago.

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

You are welcome to your opinion.

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

There are a lot of people out there who have deluded themselves into believing the draft won't ever come up again and it could just be abolished. This is easily the most common counter argument I see when the draft is mentioned as systematic sexism against men. I'm sure people thought the same thing a decade after WW2.

The current political climate has peace between major powers hanging by a delicate thread, contrary to the facade of friendly diplomacy put on for the public. There is a very good reason the US government never even considers cutting funding to Selective Services.

[–]blueoak9 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's only been a few decades since the last time that happened, is that really so long ago that you've completely forgotten about it?

And in that short time weaponry has advanced to the point that mass armies are nearly useless. It is very, very easy to kill huge numbers of people with minimal effort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon

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

Yeah, just like the atomic bomb ended mass armies!

Oh, wait...

[–]99639 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your logic is 75 years out of date.

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

Reprehensible would be a draft. If someone doesn't want to be in the service, we have little use for that person in the first place.

If voters know they will be drafted, we are much less likely to get in an idiotic war like Iraq, in the first place. A huge professional military drains money and leads to perversion of law like subverting Congress' exclusive power to declare war.

[–]blueoak9 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Shall we charge women in the military for desertion or dereliction of duty for becoming pregnant? I don't think that will go over well.

Times are changing. Thirty years ago I heard female officers talking about this as a corrective measure. Nowadays it might not be such a marginal opinion.

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

Times are changing.

So far, they have not changed.

[–]deadalnix 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You are missing the point. Getting women to be drafted is the shortest path toward getting men out of the draft.

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You are missing reality. If the country needs to draft men, it will draft men. It will write a new law enabling the drafting of men if need be.

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I still don't agree with your solution of just throwing our hands up and doing nothing about it, though.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

My solution is to remove suffrage from women.

Not only can we not force women to serve via conscription, women control 55% of suffrage while only contributing 1/3-1/4 of the taxes.

Women's suffrage is a moral hazard. Period. What we see today is the result of that moral hazard: women get rights while men get responsibilities.

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There's no way short of an apocalypse that women would ever lose the vote, so your solution is just as useless if not more.

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

The problem is, the MRM is politically dead in the water as long as women have suffrage.

That's why I've said before that there are only three solutions: Revolt, Expat, or Turtle.

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

Except you just said your solution is none of those, but removing women's suffrage.

Why do you hang out on r/MR so much when you are obviously in favor of MGTOW as a solution instead?

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

Except you just said your solution is none of those, but removing women's suffrage.

Those are the 3 ways of removing women's suffrage.

Why do you hang out on r/MR so much when you are obviously in favor of MGTOW as a solution instead?

There's nothing MGTOW in saving the nation.

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

I don't think this is 100% realistic in anyway. First it depends on the war, I doubt nearly as many draft dodgers existed during WWII as the war with Viet-fucking-nam. This is especially true considering that several countries draft women even now in 2015 and this doesn't seem to be a massive problem for them. The British also drafted women during WWII with out massive problems.

So yeah, I'm going to have to say that if a law were instituted, under 50% would draft dodge deliberately.

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

This is especially true considering that several countries draft women even now in 2015 and this doesn't seem to be a massive problem for them.

  1. It is a problem in our current volunteer military. Women get pregnant to avoid deployments.

  2. Those countries currently conscripting women (other than Israel) are not in active conflicts.

[–]AsianThunder 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They could still get drafted and put into non-combat roles. Even if she gets pregnant, make it an obligation that extends past the birth of the child.

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

Even if she gets pregnant, make it an obligation that extends past the birth of the child.

What good would that do when the need for manpower is now?

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

No, not this. Ideally, nobody would have to register for a draft in order to vote.

[–]Lethn 95 points96 points97 points 10 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

Just wait for the feminists to start screaming about how it's the patriarchy trying to force them to fight in wars.

[–]mikesteane 47 points48 points49 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

My guess is that it will not actually happen, but maintaining the double standards will be an obvious embarrassment for feminist apologists.

[–]matthew_lane 46 points47 points48 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I think you underestimate feminists: Embarrassment is a trait of the self aware..... The lack of self awareness possessed by feminists could fill an ocean.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The lack of self awareness possessed by feminists could fill an ocean.

Huh, I thought it was the leading theory on what dark matter is.

[–]matthew_lane 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No, it turns out that Dark Matter was problematic, part of the patriarchy, was oppressing women & was also keeping them out of STEM & also street harassing them.

[–]Paladin327 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

No, it turns out that Dark Matter was problematic, part of the patriarchy,

Naw, Dark Matter is just racist, you have to say "Matter of Color" now

[–]gprime 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Be sure to specify whether or not said Matter is cisgendered.

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

Don't the particles self-identify as neutrinos.

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

HAhaha

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

It happened with race after the military was desegregated. Suddenly war was "The black mans war" despite them making up no more than their population percentage.

[–]elmariachi304 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You overestimate their capacity for embarassment. Are you familiar with the term "shameless"?

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

Feminist apologists are a little less shameless than radfems. And that section of people who don't have strong opinions but think feminism is about equality may get a little jolt.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

That's a significant improvement to their original policy, which was simply "We oppose the draft."

That said, follow the money. They're not spending any on lobbying to end the draft.

Lip service is better than opposition, but not by a lot.

[–]GunOfSod 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Lip service is better than opposition, but not by a lot.

You could very well be right. I wouldn't be surprised if we'll see a sudden vocal opposition as they suddenly realise that they opposed the draft all along, just when it might begin to affect them personally.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

That is what the MRM would do, certainly--but this movement has never pretended to be about justice for women, supportive of equality though it may be.

I think the idea of feminism as the great opponent is mostly wrong-headed, but the idea that feminist leaders have neglected the issues that face men, just as they did minority women, is fairly evident.

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

When did NOW pretend to be about justice for men? It's called the National Organization for Women.

It's exactly the same. They're supportive of equality, but they're not going out of their way to help men. It's outside their purview.

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

When did NOW pretend to be about justice for men?

A couple of weeks ago i asked you to name a feminist organization that addresses Men's rights issues and you posted a link to NOW.

I called bullshit, after which you spent half the tread trying to defend your position, and now you're saying that men's issues are outside their purview.

Bravo

Bra fucking Vo

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

Apparently we misunderstood each other then.

IIRC, you had claimed that no feminist organization had ever done anything that benefited men.

I pointed out that many of NOW's initiatives benefited women AND men. I was trying to show that they weren't trying to step on men to raise women higher. Not that they set out with initiatives designed to specifically help men.

I believe I also said then that I didn't understand why you were looking for a feminist organization to specifically be trying to help men in the first place, and that the lack of doing so didn't equate to "we hate men."

If you want to discuss this more, PM me.

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

Apparently we misunderstood each other then.

Speak for yourself.

IIRC, you had claimed that no feminist organization had ever done anything that benefited men.

I said no such thing.

there's a lot of people who identify as feminists and do/would care about men's rights issues as well, because they're interested in general gender equality.

Many of us are well aware of this, but for some reason they remain silent even while faced with overwhelming evidence of Feminist abuses. Can you name one feminist organization that tackles the issues that /r/mensrights cares about?

The proof is in the pudding.

I didn't understand why you were looking for a feminist organization to specifically be trying to help men in the first place,

Because you said they care about men's issues.

If you want to discuss this more, PM me.

No thanks, and LOL @ you claiming that NOW is just like the MRM while they oppose egalitarian measures like shared parenting and alimony reform.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

NOW... supportive of equality... but opposed default shared custody... they went out of their way to stop equality.

[–]soulless_ging -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

NOW's position was that default shared custody is not necessarily in the best interest of children. According to their website:

The National Organization for Women-New York State, Inc. is in favor of primary caregiver presumption. This means that the parent who assumed primary responsibility for the children during the marriage, either father or mother, should continue to be the custodial parent.

http://www.nownys.org/archives/leg_memos/oppose_a00330.html

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

Gee, I wonder why they have that position... because it's mostly mothers. It's handy when things work out in women's favor and you can claim to be about equality at the same time.

You think they would have the same opinion if more men cared for children? Please.

It's basically "whoever asks someone out on a date should pay! Equality~" Yeah, too bad men are the ones who are still saddled with paying, because men are still expected to pay. So you're either being dishonest, or stupid in claiming it's equal.

It should be default shared custody.

[–]99639 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Exactly, just like my belief that the parent who assumed primary responsibility for income during the marriage should continue to have that income. See, not sexist, it JUST SO HAPPENS that men are overwhelmingly the majority, but that's just a silly coincidence!

See?

[–]soulless_ging -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I get your point, but it's apples and oranges. Child custody should be about what's best for the child, not what's perfectly "fair" for the parents.

50/50 custody just doesn't make sense in a lot of cases, especially if the parents live in different school districts or are especially volatile with one another. Logically, there's going to have to be a "primary" caregiver in most circumstances. And it's not such a crazy idea to think a child would benefit from having a more stable/permanent sense of "home."

With all that in mind, and with putting the kids' needs first (and not just making it about evenly splitting responsibilities for the parents), default shared custody just doesn't make sense.

[–]C0uN7rY 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft

if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft

Reinstatement? Return? What? While there has been no draft in a long time, registration for it is ongoing and has never gone anywhere. It sounds like NOW, for some reason, believes that selective service isn't a thing anymore.

NOW's primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft.

We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women

Then put your money where your mouth is. I have yet to hear of NOW, or any other feminist group, taking any action to end the draft or make it equal.

[–]dungone 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Translation:

Move along, nothing to see here.

They don't have a "primary focus" or in fact any focus that is of their own initiative. Like all feminists, if they try to do anything at all, it is to subvert any discussion about drafting women into a discussion about ending the draft for men. So they turn something that should have already happened a hundred years ago into something that will probably never happen. And they're happy with that. They just want to make sure that their own equal responsibility as citizens becomes someone else's problem. If their country was being invaded, feminists would spend the first 10 minutes putting up "don't be that enemy" posters before switching into high gear with white feathers to hand out to men.

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

BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women.

Googling suggests this is a 1980 policy that no longer appears on now.org.

[–]unbelievablepeople -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for this. I get really, really tired about the feminist strawmen I see in the men's rights community. Back when we had the draft, the vast majority of feminists opposed the Vietnam War and wanted to abolish the draft entirely. But most of them acknowledged that if we were going to have the draft, men and women should both be drafted.

It was the anti-feminist women like Phyllis Schlafly who wanted to keep the draft and keep it men-only. If you oppose that, criticize Phyllis Schlafly and her ilk, not feminists.

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

I suppose the ire comes from the people who coded as feminists during Vietnam who called the returning grunts (who had been conscripted) "baby-killers".

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

Precisely, that bullshit should also, not be forgotten.

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

Women should not be forced to fight in wars, but neither should men.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I'm glad to see any efforts toward dismantling benevolent sexism.

[–]fullhalf -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

If your objective is true and pure equality,

you can tell he's getting sick of all the horseshit. anyone who isn't in denial knows without a doubt women in combat roles make no sense. women will always be weaker physically and mentally than men.

[–]geniice 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

anyone who isn't in denial knows without a doubt women in combat roles make no sense.

You appear to have missed the eastern front in WW2.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

I spent a long time in the Army and I've fought in Iraq in a combat MOS. Women don't make sense in combat roles.

Did anyone tell the insurgents about this combat/combat non MOS thing and did they respect it?

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

russians used canon fodder tactic. that's exactly why women worked in that case. also female snipers worked too just because as there are men who act like women, there are women who act just like men. you're bound to find a few masculine women out there.

[–]geniice 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

russians used canon fodder tactic.

That is something of a myth. While there were units deployed in that manner the general army after the intial invasion period was not for the most part.

that's exactly why women worked in that case.

It is more than bullets don't care which gender fired them.

[+]fullhalf -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

holy shit. spent like 5 mins writing a shit load and half way through. i got sick of it. you win.

[–]TheLizardKing89 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

anyone who isn't in denial knows without a doubt women in combat roles make no sense.

There are plenty of non-combat roles women could be drafted into.

[–]Nulono 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Seeing as women not serving in combat roles was the SCotUS's reasoning for not drafting women being consistent with the equal protection clause, the current state of affairs is pretty obviously unconstitutional.

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

even that was a thinly veiled legal dodge. There is always far more support troops than combat roles, women could easily fill many of those without ever seeing combat...but that fact was just ignored with a wink and a nudge.

[–]mynewromantica 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Better solution: get rid of the draft for everyone.

[–]intensely_human 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It may not seem like it, but this is a step in that direction.

Equal application of the law incentivizes a society to make the laws just. In this case that means as soon as the draft applies to women, it will have more opposition.

[+]McFeely_Smackup -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

they "got rid" of the draft over 40 years ago.

[–]NecroticFury 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you're registered for to vote, you are registered for the draft. Its blatant sexism that a woman can get the right to vote without paying any price to their country while a man can't.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No they didn't.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

yes, they did. Congress formally abolished the draft in 1973. It would take another act of congress to re-instate it.

what we have now is selective service registration...which means exactly nothing, since everyone with a social security number is already identified and tracked by the government.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So because it now takes an act of congress to start a draft it is gone?

You didn't think this trough did you?

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

So because it now takes an act of congress to start a draft it is gone?

yes. by definition, when something is abolished it no longer exists. do you know anyone who's been drafted since 1973?

This is so ridiculous that I'm starting to suspect we're somehow not talking about the same thing.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What you mean is there is not an active draft at the moment. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you as it is pretty obviously true.

What we are telling you is that congress can still initiate a draft and the law still requires eligible young men to register for the draft at the age of 18. All it would take is another large war and a majority vote in congress.

Selective services exists so that congress can call a draft. Therefore, the right of the government to force male citizens into military service is very real. This what what people here mean when they say "the draft" is still a thing.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What we are telling you is that congress can still initiate a draft and the law still requires eligible young men to register for the draft at the age of 18. All it would take is another large war and a majority vote in congress.

Sure...but that would be true if the idea of conscription had never been invented before today.

Congress has the AUTHORITY to initiate a draft, but that's not the same as a draft existing.

I suspect the difference here is one of semantics, draft as a practice does not exist, draft as a possibility does. I think the statement "abolish the draft" was actually meant to be "remove congressional authority to initiate a draft"...which itself could simply be reversed by a congressional vote.

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

which itself could simply be reversed by a congressional vote.

At this point it would have to be an amendment to the constitution in order to actually remove the authority. That will probably never happen. It is far more realistic to require women as well to register at 18 with Selective Services if we're shooting for "gender equality" under the law.

[–]dungone 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The draft should have been tied to getting the vote a century ago. Not to combat roles and not to lowering standards and getting men killed. The Sgt Major who ran the Marine study is right - equality is about making the draft equal in the civilian world, not about imposing some blank slate gender theory on the men who are putting their lives on the line in combat.

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

xpost from https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/3oi8vp/army_sec_american_women_could_be_required_to/ credit to u/appleapple123123

[–]wanderer779 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

this could paradoxically turn out to be a move towards traditionalism. I would imagine if they have a draft young women will want to settle down and get pregnant to avoid it.

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

Women in the navy got preggers all the time to avoid deployments

[–]texasjoe 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Did they get dishonorable discharges like the men who were openly gay to avoid certain death?

[–]Gnometard 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Before Don't Ask Don't Tell went away, plenty of guys got out under "General under Honorable Conditions" (no different than Honorable Discharge) because they told the captain they were gay. 3 on my boat did it (non engineering) once the hell of the job got to them.

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

I'm sorry then, I have assumed wrong.

[–]Gnometard 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Never assume. Assumptions are the tools of ideologues. If you can't quantify the problem, it's not a problem.

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

You didn't. Both of those things happened, just at different times in history.

[–]nMaibO 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The question is, are women interested in negative equality?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Indeed.

MRA: Hey modern progressive woman, do you believe that sex equals consent to parenthood?

Her: Of course not, no one should be forced to be a parent against their will.

MRA: Ah, so you would support legislation that allows men to opt out of parenthood during the initial stages of pregnancy, something similar to what women can do with abortions.

Her: It's not the same thing, there are many complications that come with pregnancy that could endanger an expectant mother's life.

MRA: Are you saying that abortions should only be allowed if the pregnancy puts the mother's life in danger?

Her: No, there are other factors as well. For instance, if having a child would have a negative impact on your life and you aren't ready to have a baby, then you shouldn't be forced to have one.

MRA: Don't you think that we should extend similar considerations to men that aren't ready to have a baby?

Her: No, because men aren't the ones that get pregnant; besides, if he didn't want to have a baby then he should've kept it in his pants.

MRA: ROFL, you do realize that's the same argument that the the pro-life crowd uses right?

Her: [ignore] Fuckin MRA assholes just don't get it.

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

"But wait, didn't you say sex is not consent for parenthood?"

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

Are women interested in responsibility?

Voting record loudly shouts: NO.

[–]autotldr 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 73%. (I'm a bot)


His remarks come just weeks after the service secretaries were required to submit recommendations to Defense Secretary Ash Carter as to whether certain combat positions should remain shuttered to women.

Carter is due to make a decision on women in combat roles by January 1 after hearing arguments from service leaders.

The role of female service members in combat has become a contentious topic, especially since a study conducted by the Marine Corps found that mixed-gender units were significantly outperformed by all-male units in simulated combat operations.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: Service#1 combat#2 women#3 Secretary#4 units#5

Post found in /r/Military, /r/MensRights and /r/news.

[–]fullhalf 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

The role of female service members in combat has become a contentious topic, especially since a study conducted by the Marine Corps found that mixed-gender units were significantly outperformed by all-male units in simulated combat operations.

oh that's fine. just make all female units. since they are the worst performing units, they should be sent in for first line attacks like the first wave in normandy. finally feminists get what they want! all those women medals of honors all around!

[–]bertreapot 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

have an entire battalion of women get killed in a war and society will freak out.

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

wouldnt that at least make feminists put their money where their mouth is? it's like men are parents arguing with women who are their kids. the kid is asking for more responsibility that she can't handle and is throwing a tantrum about it. the parents don't want to see the kid get hurt so the kid gets to just keep crying about it without ever proving it or facing any consequences.

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

They will quickly pull the "misogyny!" card on that one.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

let's not turn into /r/killthosewhodisagree

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

oh that's fine. just make all female units. since they are the worst performing units, they should be sent in for first line attacks like the first wave in normandy. finally feminists get what they want! all those women medals of honors all around!

Thats actualy a realitiviy poor use. Lead units at least have some element of supprise and thus it generaly makes sense to equip them with the best equipment to give them the best chance of gaining a foothold. Since you are using the best equipment you will probably be wanting to use your better (although probably not best) troops. Following this doctrain was why causilties were fairly low on most of the normandy beaches.

Weaker units are generaly used to hold defensive positons against conter attacks.

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

Two faced femnazi bitching in 3...2...1...

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

Equal right = Equal responsibilities.

[–]looneytunes2 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So wait, you're telling me that equality means equality... This is blowing my mind.

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

It could be a good thing. Think of how many fewer wars we would have.

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

HAHAHAHAHA!

Ya right.

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

Women should be forced to sign up for selective service regardless. Even if they can't fill the combat arms roles, they can fill the combat support and combat service support roles. This would allow more male soldiers to fill the combat arms roles in the event of a national emergency that would warrant a draft.

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

This would be awesome, the next step would be making such that men get the right to vote. You know, being able to vote without having to put their names down on the Selective Service list. One day we'll be equal!

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

The real issue here -- do not be distracted, is that should should BE NO DRAFT.

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

This is worth bringing up.

This isn't the Army Secretaries opinion. The justification for NOT drafting women is that the service didn't allow them into combat jobs, so the draft for them would force women into non-combat roles and force males out of them for combat roles.

That no longer exists, kinda anyway.

It's just logic.

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

Women subject to the draft? Obviously the draft must be unconstitutional!

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

“If your objective is true and pure equality, then you have to look at all aspects and at some point Selective Service will have to be one of those things considered very carefully"

...but since our objective will never be true "equality", we'll just continue to "consider" this issue for a few more decades.

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

Then maybe we should stop pussyfooting around people in an attempt to not hurt someones feelings and actually mandate a year of service for every united states citizen. Fuck this draft shit lets just go 120% and require everyone to sign up for it. You want equality, then lets give them equality.

No mens/womens restrooms. Just one for all

Same thing for showers and bunks.

This PC is all shit anyway. Just a bunch of pansy fucks thst cant bear to be judged or compared, gotta sit in your bubble and pretend the world revolves around it.

Sure some women get pregnant to get out of shit in the military. Ive met some guys who sucked dicks to get kicked out. They cant do that now!

Boo fuckin hoo you joined the military and its not a cakewalk and people are pissing all over your bubble.

Grow the fuck up

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

Jackprot.

I need feminism bc I'd like to reduce the chances of a young man being drafted by half.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't know. I think we're really talking about getting rid of the Selective Services, right? I'd really hate to see a lot of MRAs endorse this for what I'd consider disingenuous reasons that feminists use to justify their tactics in undertaking "progressive" projects.

... The discussion on...making the age of consent eighteen instead of sixteen, was behind closed doors. The wives of some of the Senators and Assemblymen told us the discussion was positively unfit for us to hear....

Which all goes to show that what Bernard Shaw said is true, that many men are afraid of votes for women because they know that if women get power they will impose on men the same standards of sexual morality [through the power and force of the state] that men have imposed on women. [Note that these latter "standards" are informal ones enforced largely by other women!] Now, that is just exactly what we are going to do. If those standards are wrong for men, they are wrong for women. I don't know any better way to find out which is right than by enforcing the same standard [by convention and law rather thab just by convention] for both.

Katherine Philips Edson, 1913

Using our voice as a tool for reckless social experimentation through law is the kind of inhumane utilitarianism we want to avoid. Feminists have never respected their fellow humans except insofar as they are useful in fulfilling their ambitions, whose possible unintended consequences are of course flagrantly disregarded; if you have just one reason for opposing feminism's relentless march, I'd hope that would be it.

[–]Jander97 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well if we the people feel that there is still a need for Selective Service, then maybe it should still be around. If people think it should never be necessary ever again, then lets get rid of it. That's a different argument though.

As it stands now, it does exist, people have tried to make it go away several times with no luck. It's something ONLY men have to do to gain rights in this country, rights that they should have intrinsically by being an american citizen. If the draft is still needed then it shouldn't be exclusive to gender. If it isn't still needed then maybe making it include both genders might get more people on our side to get rid of it completely.

[–]NecroticFury 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He didnt even argue against that. You're arguing with someone in agreement with you.

[–]Jander97 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd really hate to see a lot of MRAs endorse this for what I'd consider disingenuous reasons that feminists use to justify their tactics in undertaking "progressive" projects......Using our voice as a tool for reckless social experimentation through law is the kind of inhumane utilitarianism we want to avoid.

I was explaining why I don't feel it is a disingenuous reason nor a reckless social experiment. Yes we both want selective service to go away, but I wouldn't say we are in agreement at all.

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

Most MRAs, I think, would say it should be gotten rid of.

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

Feminists have been advocating for women to be subject to conscription since the incarnation of the ERA. Traditionalists and Conservatives have been shreiking in opposition- often hysterically- for nearly just as long. Equal rights must correspond to equal responsibility and equal opportunity. Notwithstanding the myriad permutations of feminism, the firgoing proposition is one of CONSENUS. The caveat, where it exists, is that many feminists deplore conscription generally (for both sexes) and propose that war should be a last resort, that blood and treasure should be not be easily spillt.

[–]draykow -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The thing is, Selective Service registration has nothing to do with the Draft. They are two different things that only have a male-only requirement in common. The Draft arises during times of extreme conflict and the military volunteers aren't able to meet demands. Selective Service is simply data collection that lets the military branches know how many males are in turning 18 in different areas of the country, thus allowing them to set up recruiter offices in areas that will have the most candidates sign up.

[–]Jander97 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"The Selective Service System is an independent agency of the United States government that maintains information on those potentially subject to military conscription."

The selective service system is the precursor that facilitates the draft in time of extreme conflict. They ALSO send this information to the Joint Advertising Marketing Research & Studies (JAMRS) program for their Consolidated Recruitment Database.

If the only thing selective service registration was about was to help military recruiters, no one would really care. The possibility of a draft and the withholding of rights for not registering is the glaring issue.

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

Selective Service is a list of names that will be drafted in times of major conflict.

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

Selective Service registration has nothing to do with the Draft.

Ah yes. You're right. They're just collecting the names of adult males for social security purposes or something, but not women's. Obviously not related to a potential draft at all. Silly me. /s

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