TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • 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/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/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • 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 Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Republicans Are Going To Draft Your Daughters Unless You Raise Cain

JannTosh12

December 1, 2021
57 upvotes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/01/republicans-are-going-to-help-democrats-draft-your-daughters-unless-you-raise-cain/
Archived from /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates is a place for the discussion of men's issues from a left wing perspective.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Republicans Are Going To Draft Your Daughters Unless You Raise Cain
Author

JannTosh12

Upvotes 57
Comments 49
Date December 1, 2021 2:59 PM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/r6gnai/republicans_are_going_to_draft_your_daughters/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/republicans-are-going-to-draft-your-daughters.1089320
https://theredarchive.com/post/1089320
Top posts by JannTosh12

“Don’t draft our daughters” but sons are ok?

911 upvotes
October 19, 2021
/r/MensRights

Law schools are majority-female, so where are all the female lawyers?

884 upvotes
December 1, 2022
/r/MensRights

Anyone noticed those anti draft activists who Kept saying “don’t make women register, just abolish the draft!” Vanished after the proposal to include women was dropped?

712 upvotes
February 27, 2022
/r/MensRights

Lawmakers drop proposal to add women to the draft

595 upvotes
December 6, 2021
/r/MensRights

Denmark calls for mandatory military service for women

563 upvotes
January 30, 2023
/r/MensRights

Defence Minister of Singapore thinks it's unfair that women should be enlisted into National Service like men because "Women will be delayed in their entry into the workforce".

527 upvotes
June 12, 2022
/r/MensRights

Now that females being included in a draft is off the table again expect the “anti draft” activists to vanish without a trace

488 upvotes
December 3, 2022
/r/MensRights

“ House Votes To Make Your Daughters Eligible for the Military Draft” oh but when it was sons it was OK?

391 upvotes
October 4, 2021
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]JannTosh12[S] 65 points66 points67 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

“ “ If we need more warfighters at a time of dire necessity, the military and representatives can make that case to the American people and elicit more volunteers. If insufficient numbers of available men volunteer, draft men. If numbers are still insufficient, broaden the pool of men for selective services to include men ages 18 to 40. Anticipating objections to drafting men with creaky knees: let them fly drones.” Disgusting. This whole issue has revealed to me his misandrist conservatives can be

[–]Petsweaters 42 points43 points44 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Conservatives, the religious right, libertarians, the whole bunch of them; they hate men who aren't useful to them. I believe this is why they hate gay men so much as well

[–]Zinziberruderalis 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Generally those people don't hate gay men. Why wouldn't gay men be useful anyway?

[–]AdamChap 24 points25 points26 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Gay men wont provide for a women, and her family. That's why some conservatives don't care about gay men; they are conserving "traditional family values". Any man that doesn't play along is a problem.

[–]Zinziberruderalis 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That may be true of some but I never met a libertarian who opposed equal rights for gays.

[–]AdamChap 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I would have personally left libertarians off of the list.

[–]34T_y3r_v3ggi3s 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What do you mean? You mean to actually say that the ultra conservative religious right don't actually hate gay men and women? That's downright delusional.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So Douglas Murray, being a conservative, hates himself for being gay? This makes no sense.

[–]34T_y3r_v3ggi3s 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not all conservatives hate gay people, but generally both conservative Christians and Muslims do hate gay people.

EDIT: I should frain from saying "generally" in this instance, but Islam and Christianity are two very intolerant religions when it comes to people's differing sexuality.

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

I would have used Andrew Sullivan as an example. I don't really agree that much with him in a lot of issues, but I consider him way better than Murray.

[–]TheLWMA 41 points42 points43 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This line is what infuriated me:

"If we need more warfighters at a time of dire necessity, the military and representatives can make that case to the American people and elicit more volunteers. If insufficient numbers of available men volunteer, draft men. If numbers are still insufficient, broaden the pool of men for selective services to include men ages 18 to 40. Anticipating objections to drafting men with creaky knees: let them fly drones."

I hate this because she's talking from a place of privilege.

[–]AdamChap 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Send the poor men to their deaths!

[–]hendrixski 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Every time there's been a draft the draft age was raised. If you're a man under 35 then you are effectively in the age range for the draft.

We need to stop saying we're sending our sons. We're sending husbands and fathers.

[–]khandnalie 37 points38 points39 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Either abolish the draft or make it gender equal. I obviously want the former, but I wouldn't argue against the latter.

[+]Zinziberruderalis -9 points-8 points-7 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I am a little conflicted about that. If the draft is immoral, shouldn't you oppose any extension of it?

[–]khandnalie 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The draft is immoral, but not egregiously so. I think there are potential justifications for a draft, basically only in a defensive war. I don't foresee there ever being a geopolitical situation in our lifetimes that would actually necessitate such a thing, but I think having it available is a necessary deterrent. It's one of those rare lesser evil situations that is actually necessary to deal with, I think.

But so long as there is a draft, it should be gender equal.

[–]GoodApollo1994 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The draft has only ever been used in conflicts that could be considered existential threats for the United States.

[–]N19864[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What BS! Vietnam war? Korean War?

[–]Skinnyguy202 56 points57 points58 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

There are three basic reasons all elected officials should oppose drafting women: It is bad for military readiness, it is bad for women and families, and it is opposed by the American people.

Why isn’t it opposed by American people to draft our brothers, fathers, uncles, sons, Or nephews? Is it not also bad for families to not have the dad around? Or the brother?

[–]TheLWMA 22 points23 points24 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She probably has the "men start wars, so only men need to fight in them" mindset.

[–]Zinziberruderalis 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Republicans? the clause was added by a Democrat and passed by the Democrat controlled House.

https://news.yahoo.com/women-required-register-selective-amendment-100049010.html

[–]JannTosh12[S] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Guess they mean that there will be enough Republican support

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

Does seem a little like blame shifting.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Their target audience is not Democrats.

[–]Deadlocked02 33 points34 points35 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I wonder how the author would feel if she had to be “drafted” to birth more soldiers for America then.

You know, for all the dislike I have for tradcon men, they at least advocate for a fantasy world where they would earn status by being the ones putting their asses on the line and shouldering responsibilities. Tradcon women, on the other hand… is there anything more indigestible? Always seeing men as wage slaves and canon fodder to fulfill their fantasies of hypergamy and safety, so that they can live a comfortable lifestyle at men’s expense. Always hiding behind a facade of admiration for men, except such admiration is only for those men who manage put her every need first while simultaneously being traditionally masculine and assertive enough. For men who don’t fit the mold, nothing but contempt.

[–]Zinziberruderalis 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Tradcon women are not our allies.

[–]Man_of_culture_112 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

but they like infiltrating this space and MRA spaces to attack feminism. Not for the benefit of men but self serving praise and to say "housewives have it tough".

[–]Zinziberruderalis 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Similar to the reasons many men have "infiltrated" feminist spaces.

[–]djblackprince 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Selective equality

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

The article implies that it's still okay for the gov to be able to draft your sons though.

[–]LeftcelInflitrator 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I remember when people thought Trump might go to war with Iran after a US drone assassinated their top general there were all these meme's on tik tok of women running back to their traditional gender roles as housewives.

It was pretty funny, but made me realize who acutely aware women are of their privileged position in this regard.

I don't want to see women drafted but it will probably happen because western women have zero solidarity with men and as a result most men would be ambivalent to a female draft.

[–]Carkudo 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Combat conscription with biblical necromancy? Count me in!

[–]Banake 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, The Federalist is... not very good. Even for a conservative magazine I consider it very low brow.

[–]BitsAndBobs304 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

We live in a post-nukes world, the idea of needing to use the draft is a joke for nuke-having countries anyway.

[–]AdamChap 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, I think you are wrong. Nukes are not the be-all and end-all of military might. In fact in their current state they are far too unpredictable to drop on an enemy.

Think about it, how many nukes have been dropped in war since Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

How many infantry men have we sent to battlefields in that same time?

Anyone dropping nukes isn't playing the "war game". Dropping nukes would likely bring about total annihilation to everyone including those dropping the bomb. Two countries can war but the moment one starts talking about nukes the whole world be involved.

Any war of the future will not use nukes, because there would be no future left worth fighting for.

You probably will be drafted into the military but they'd probably give you an Xbox remote and let you pilot a small drone army... if anything!

[–]BitsAndBobs304 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

....how many countries have invaded the usa? All has happened is colonialism, and proxy pissing contests. No one has attacked american ground, or russia, or uk. Israel has nukes but is the aggressor, and they cant nuke palestine because they want to occupy it and are occupying it while genociding the population. No one has put land troops on france ground, no one has bombed china. Wonder why? Why do you think all the countries that are juicy target for american colonialism are rushing to develop nukes? Because they saw what happened to saddam hussein who surrendered his not-really-wmds. Why do you think north korea is blowing up their mountains rushing to develop nukes while they cant even keep he lights on, just like a starcraft cheese noob?
Now please name , on the other hand, how many nuke-wielding countries has the usa invaded and colonized ? None, that's how many. How many countries without nukes have they messed with? Now that's a long list..
Think about it. You say no one would use nukes, but do you really believe that a small country with 0% chances to win regular war but armed with bukes, if invaded by a 1000x bigger military, would not use nukes on the enemy? Are you kidding? Lmao. That's like saying that a kid bullied would not use a gun to kill a bully rushing at him with a machete because they know they may go to prison for that.

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

That's like saying that a kid bullied would not use a gun to kill a bully rushing at him with a machete because they know they may go to prison for that.

Not even close. Listen, we allow war to happen all across the world. They may be a bully, but he doesn't have a machete. In comparison on how we treat nations that are at war and how other nations treat us when we are at war the analogy should be more like this:

A kid being bullied by someone that was calling them names pulls out a tank and starts blowing up the city. The kid is then arrested and thrown into a juvenile facility for the rest of his childhood. Then after he becomes an adult he is executed. THAT'S how big of a difference it is.

I know you wrote an entire wall of text and I'm more than happy to address it, but I figured the analogy would be enough.

[–]BitsAndBobs304 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

A kid being bullied by someone that was calling them names pulls out a tank and starts blowing up the city

so if tomorrow the USA attacked France with bombers and parachuting land troops, threatening annihilation of the population or enslavement, you think that this is akin to calling someone names, and that France would not defend themselves from annihilation / enslavement, and keep their nukes in their pocket? are you kidding me?

you say no one has defended themselves with nukes because this would bring mutual destruction, and yet you can't even name one war against a nation that has nukes. what country with nukes would surrender and be destroyed rather than fight?

[–]Mr-OhLordHaveMercy 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

are you kidding me?

No, I'm not. That's how much bigger of a threat a nuke is. Go find me anything that cause a nukes level of destruction and causes it at the same rate AND has the same lasting after affects. Go ahead, I'll wait.

That being said. In your scenario, what would most likely happen is that every other country we ever allied with would declare war on us (ya know, since France is an ally). We would then surrender and face whatever consequences. No nukes involved. The moment ANYONE throws a nuke that country is done for. Nukes change EVERYTHING. It's why we haven't used them in war since WWII.

[–]BitsAndBobs304 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Can you name one country with nukes that has been invaded?

As for "done for", do you really believe that dictators and military high ranks that work for dictators are sane people? Mike pompeo goes around saying that we must accelerate the process of Israel "reunification" so that rapture can come ffs!

And I wasnt saying that a country would attack with nukes and then not get annihilated somehow.

My point is that no country can attack with regular weapons a country with nukes, so there's no chance of the draft ever being put to use in nuke wielding countries, such as usa and russia and france and israel, because no one can attack them, and if they did they would get nuclear retaliation and drafting untrained people to wield rifles on top of that would be utterly pointless. Now if you're in a country with no nukes and no nuclear allies, then you're at risk of being invaded and drafted. But that's not the usa, nor china, nor russia, nor nato countries.

[–]Mr-OhLordHaveMercy 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Can you name one country with nukes that has been invaded?

None. For very good reasons.

And I wasnt saying that a country would attack with nukes and then not get annihilated somehow.

It really seems like you did. But I'll take your word on it.

My point is that no country can attack with regular weapons a country with nukes

Yes it can. As soon as that country that has no nukes gets blown, then every other country across the ENTIRE earth that has nukes will get involved. Say some non-nuke owning attacks North Korea. Nobody cares. North Korea nukes them. EVERYONE gets involved. And North Korea is no longer a thing, irregardless of who they're allied with. The world will not stand for it.

because no one can attack them, and if they did they would get nuclear retaliation

We JUST got done with the middle east. By like maybe a couple of months. A year hasn't even passed. Trust me, not the last war. I guarantee you that.

Why do you think the world would EVER be silent over a nuclear attack? Why? For what reason?

[–]BitsAndBobs304 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The world will not stand for it.

so you're saying that if germany sends bombers to attack the usa plus ground troops, and the usa retaliates with nukes instantly winning the war, the rest of the world is gonna say HELL NO!, and all attack together the usa, in solidarity with the morons that started a war of aggression for conquering reasons against a country with nukes? are you kidding me? lmao

[–]Mr-OhLordHaveMercy 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Attack the U.S? Nah.

Have every country on Earth force the U.S to dismantle all their nukes and their capabilities. And after that they'd probably stop trading with it and try to cripple it economically. Also probably label the U.S as monsters for the rest of however long the U.S lasts. Plus refusing to work with U.S politicians? Yep.

NOBODY. Would let it stand. Nukes are scare tactics nowadays. The moment anyone uses them you'll have that country be destroyed economically, politically, and whatever else they can do besides nukes. Otherwise you would actually have an apocalypse.

[–]BitsAndBobs3041 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And after that they'd probably stop trading with it and try to cripple it economically.

oh yeah no one traded with japan, italy and germany after ww2 right? pfft...

[–]Mr-OhLordHaveMercy1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They didn't throw nukes. Also nukes were literally JUST introduced. It took a while for the world to make sense of it and realized we might have gone too far.

I ask you this. Why didn't the U.S just throw a nuke to the middle east after 9/11?

[–]BitsAndBobs3041 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

because they were never at 'war' with "9/11". colonialism wars are quite different form survival wars, dont you think? can't take oil if you nuke it, nor poppy fields. besides... "15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens". americans authorities will never touch saudi arabia lol, except for exchanging money and weapons. you really think that the usa is at war with the 9/11 terrorists? the ones they trained, financed and armed for proxy pissing contests with the russians? lol

[–]Mr-OhLordHaveMercy1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The entire war with the middle east is a whole other conservation. Where in short we never should of gotten into it.

We are talking about nukes. And how that affects the draft.

The only answer is that we would still probably need it because nobody is going to nuke anybody unless they're crazy and stupid.

[–]SolarEngine89 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think people should be reminded, than in old times rights wre given in exchange of draft.

No service - no rights. Kinda brutal...buuut kinda logical.

Today people get all and owe nothing (and give away far much than owe) to country and society.

So, equal rights should be packed with equal draft. That would solve a lot of problems with entitlement, discrimination and other stuff.

[–]ExcellentTraffic123 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Way to go full Starship Troopers.

No thank you!

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