PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jim Logajan on February 24, 2019, 03:27:47 PM
-
Recent court decision on military draft registration:
http://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/24/federal-court-rules-male-only-draft-regi (http://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/24/federal-court-rules-male-only-draft-regi)
The author mentions a couple possible resolutions should the decision be upheld: women are made to register for the draft, or the draft (and registration for it) is abolished. The author (and I) would prefer abolition of the draft.
-
Recent court decision on military draft registration:
http://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/24/federal-court-rules-male-only-draft-regi (http://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/24/federal-court-rules-male-only-draft-regi)
The author mentions a couple possible resolutions should the decision be upheld: women are made to register for the draft, or the draft (and registration for it) is abolished. The author (and I) would prefer abolition of the draft.
I concur.
-
So everyone has a crystal ball and are sure we'd never need the draft again? Wow, I'm honored to be with such visionaries.
I think we should have mandatory military or public service for all able bodied.
-
So everyone has a crystal ball and are sure we'd never need the draft again? Wow, I'm honored to be with such visionaries.
I think we should have mandatory military or public service for all able bodied.
Aw shucks. Tain't nothing.
I agree with the mandatory military/public service for all able bodied kids. I'd even go so far as to say that such service could be rewarded with tuition benefits similar to the GI Bill. Switzerland does this. This is part of their requirement that all citizens own a firearm, in case of national emergency.
-
Germany and other Euro countries as well as Israel do it too.
-
Recent court decision on military draft registration:
http://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/24/federal-court-rules-male-only-draft-regi (http://reason.com/volokh/2019/02/24/federal-court-rules-male-only-draft-regi)
The author mentions a couple possible resolutions should the decision be upheld: women are made to register for the draft, or the draft (and registration for it) is abolished. The author (and I) would prefer abolition of the draft.
I’m with this guy too.
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/19/why-mandatory-national-service-is-both-u
-
Been wondering what took so long for this to happen...
-
Been wondering what took so long for this to happen...
Because when the rubber meets the road, people realize that women aren't just exactly the same as men after all.
-
I guess the court is concerned solely with emotion and feelings instead of the real world mission of the military.
I guess it could be worse, they could mandate that the military take trannies.... oh wait.
-
Because when the rubber meets the road, people realize that women aren't just exactly the same as men after all.
In the eyes of the law, they are.
Yes, physically they aren't. But all men aren't physically the same either. That doesn't really matter when it comes to doing a job unless that job is one of the rare ones where strength is a requirement. So let the man carry the M-60 and the woman can carry a normal weapon.
-
In general men are physically bigger, stronger and faster. I also think they posses more warrior/hunter DNA than women. Who would you want in your foxhole?
Bflynn, you are way off base. You are talking about exceptions and anomalies.
-
In general men are physically bigger, stronger and faster. I also think they posses more warrior/hunter DNA than women. Who would you want in your foxhole?
Bflynn, you are way off base. You are talking about exceptions and anomalies.
Well, the exceptions are in the jobs being done. I'm stating that both men and women can be capable of doing the same work with the rare exceptions of certain strength based tasks. I say that because I've seen it first hand.
If you have an opinion that all women are just incapable, then you're contradicting my personal experience.
And then it's the law too. If Congress doesn't like this, then they are capable of controlling it.
-
Where did I say or even imply women were incapable?
-
Well, the exceptions are in the jobs being done. I'm stating that both men and women can be capable of doing the same work with the rare exceptions of certain strength based tasks. I say that because I've seen it first hand.
If you have an opinion that all women are just incapable, then you're contradicting my personal experience.
And then it's the law too. If Congress doesn't like this, then they are capable of controlling it.
Even though young men have been greatly feminized these days, I still think that if you draft 100 random millennial males and 100 random millennial females and run them through boot camp, many more women will wash out (assuming standards aren't lowered). At some point, if enough women wash out, then it doesn't make sense to keep taking in equal numbers. So an equal draft is probably not a good idea.
I say get rid of the draft and improve conditions and benefits to draw enough volunteers that have a chance of meeting the physical requirements. If that means 10 women for every 100 men are accepted, then we are probably getting the best of both.
-
Even though young men have been greatly feminized these days, I still think that if you draft 100 random millennial males and 100 random millennial females and run them through boot camp, many more women will wash out (assuming standards aren't lowered). At some point, if enough women wash out, then it doesn't make sense to keep taking in equal numbers. So an equal draft is probably not a good idea.
I say get rid of the draft and improve conditions and benefits to draw enough volunteers that have a chance of meeting the physical requirements. If that means 10 women for every 100 men are accepted, then we are probably getting the best of both.
THIS.
Men and women are NOT equal and they do NOT perform equally over time. Yes a woman may look just as capable as a man doing x on a particular day. But woman are far more likely to "wash out" over time, take more sick leave, want to get preggers, see a doctor more, yes, are more hypochondriac. This is averages. Yes there are some women who are harder workers than some men but on average men are far more dependable and productive in the long run.
You know this is reality because men earn more. No it's not gender discrimination, it's pay for unit value. Women are less valuable as dependable productive employees and their compensation demonstrates this fact. It's a free market price set point (except where wage laws force equal pay for equal work without regard for seniority, reliability, etc.) If women were as equally productive as men but were paid less, companies would be falling over themselves to preferentially hire women. The same inferior performance over time would translate to the military if women were drafted. When women are volunteers, they self-select and you get women with more masculine traits suitable for military work.
-
Even though young men have been greatly feminized these days, I still think that if you draft 100 random millennial males and 100 random millennial females and run them through boot camp, many more women will wash out (assuming standards aren't lowered). At some point, if enough women wash out, then it doesn't make sense to keep taking in equal numbers. So an equal draft is probably not a good idea.
I say get rid of the draft and improve conditions and benefits to draw enough volunteers that have a chance of meeting the physical requirements. If that means 10 women for every 100 men are accepted, then we are probably getting the best of both.
Well said Joe.
-
The military is extremely good at getting people in line, picking the right roles for them, and washing them out of they're not cut out for the job. I can't think of any reason not to allow the entire pool of eligible people from which they can choose members. Doubly-so in a war-time draft.
That men are better on-average in a warrior role is not the point. The military allows for a range of strengths even within individual roles.
-
So women will get all the administrative roles and men the more physical and dangerous ones? Yeah, that's fair.
They should just bring back WACS and WAVES then
-
Even though young men have been greatly feminized these days, I still think that if you draft 100 random millennial males and 100 random millennial females and run them through boot camp, many more women will wash out (assuming standards aren't lowered). At some point, if enough women wash out, then it doesn't make sense to keep taking in equal numbers. So an equal draft is probably not a good idea.
I say get rid of the draft and improve conditions and benefits to draw enough volunteers that have a chance of meeting the physical requirements. If that means 10 women for every 100 men are accepted, then we are probably getting the best of both.
Will more of women wash out? Sure, that's the experience of the Marine Corp, the ratio is about 2:1 using a gender neutral standard. For the Marine Corp and the Army, that might be appropriate. Maybe not so for the Air Force or Navy where doing the job tends to be more about operating procedures and systems than force. At the Air Force Academy, female cadets have a consistently lower attrition rate than males. Make all the Air Force jokes you want and I'll probably laugh at them and add some more, but the fact is, women can serve in combat roles and there's no legal or moral reason not to require them to give the same service that men are required to perform.
Does that mean women should not be required to participate in the draft? Absolutely not and if anything it proves that they can be more capable than some men. After all, it's draft registration. If we ever have to use the draft, it will be a time of war and all kinds of rules will change then.
BTW - that more women wash out is a failure of recruiting and identifying the right people to bring in. The military would prefer that nobody wash out because they did the right screening in the beginning.
-
So women will get all the administrative roles and men the more physical and dangerous ones? Yeah, that's fair.
This is sexist. You assume that women are weak and dainty and therefore will get office roles. That simply isn't true.
If that isn't what you meant, then reconcile your statement about women getting all admin roles (because they can't perform anywhere else?)
-
This is sexist. You assume that women are weak and dainty and therefore will get office roles. That simply isn't true.
If that isn't what you meant, then reconcile your statement about women getting all admin roles (because they can't perform anywhere else?)
Sexist my ass. Read post #16.
-
So women will get all the administrative roles and men the more physical and dangerous ones? Yeah, that's fair.
They should just bring back WACS and WAVES then
Ain't no fair in the military. I'm confident more men than women will be selected for the front-line combat roles. That's the nature of the sexes coming into play. But the military should make that call on a recruit-by-recruit basis, and we should give them the largest pool of applicants available.
-
Ain't no fair in the military. I'm confident more men than women will be selected for the front-line combat roles. That's the nature of the sexes coming into play. But the military should make that call on a recruit-by-recruit basis, and we should give them the largest pool of applicants available.
Sounds oh so enlightned, evolvedvand OK on paper until the reality of very young men and women are close together for long periods of time. Check the Navy and their pregnancy rates and other negatives they try to hide.
Progressives never anticipaye the horrible unintend consequences because this stuff makes you feel good about yourself.
-
Is anyone else surprised “the draft” is still in law? We have been an all-volunteer Force since 1973. I was born in 1960 and the first group required to register under Selective Service.
In looking into this I found this fascinating.
Jeffery Mellinger was the last drafted enlisted man, drafted in 1972.
He retired in 2011 as a Command Sergeant Major.
-
Sounds oh so enlightned, evolvedvand OK on paper until the reality of very young men and women are close together for long periods of time. Check the Navy and their pregnancy rates and other negatives they try to hide.
Progressives never anticipaye the horrible unintend consequences because this stuff makes you feel good about yourself.
The Night Witches had more balls than a lot of men - as this history video shows (warning - military aviation content.)
-
Sounds oh so enlightned, evolvedvand OK on paper until the reality of very young men and women are close together for long periods of time. Check the Navy and their pregnancy rates and other negatives they try to hide.
Progressives never anticipaye the horrible unintend consequences because this stuff makes you feel good about yourself.
I wouldn't call 15-17% pregnancy rates for women on ships as "horrible" or an "unintended" consequence. Sailors doing the dirty and women getting pregnant is a given, especially cooped up on a ship. This comes with the territory of a mixed-gender force, and progress can be made tailoring the logistics to lower the pregnancy rate.
Pregnancy is a part of life. Only women can get pregnant. Stating these facts doesn't come close to proving that women in the force is a net negative. Especially when the Navy already pulls sailors off of shore leave early because critical billets are unfilled (https://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-mandates-early-transfer-to-sea-for-sailors-who-can-fill-critical-billets-1.535493).
-
Sexist my ass. Read post #16.
I did. It said that men are physically stronger and better suited to being warriors. That is just a fact of nature.
Then I read post #17, which said women would get nothing but (soft) admin jobs. I infer that you mean women are weak and cannot do anything in the military.
Once again - that attitude and those facts are counter to my real life experience with women in the navy.
-
I did. It said that men are physically stronger and better suited to being warriors. That is just a fact of nature.
Then I read post #17, which said women would get nothing but (soft) admin jobs. I infer that you mean women are weak and cannot do anything in the military.
Once again - that attitude and those facts are counter to my real life experience with women in the navy.
Link?
-
I infer that you mean women are weak and cannot do anything in the military.
Typical internet debate technique.
Nobody said they couldn't do anything in the military (well, I don;t THINK anyone said or meant that). There are tons of jobs that women can do, and do better than men. Sure, many of them are administrative. But combat isn't one of them.
I don't subscribe to the theory that women will take "cushy" jobs away from men. Most" women don't make good warriors, but they arguably do make better doctors.
I'll be honest. I am conflicted on this. But I agree with Asechrest that we should open the pool of available talent as wide as possible. Just because women can't hoist the heavy weapons, there are many jobs they can fill.
And while I am being honest, I don't want women to be put in jeopardy of becoming POW where they will be subject to sexual assault worse than men will be.
-
So everyone has a crystal ball and are sure we'd never need the draft again? Wow, I'm honored to be with such visionaries.
I think we should have mandatory military or public service for all able bodied.
The problem I have with mandatory public service is that the left will do what they do when they have impressionable young people (like the K-12 education system), they will turn into an indoctrination system for them.
The left is mainly in the bureaucracy of the military, so I am not as worried on the mandatory military service. The left would try non the less.
-
But combat isn't one of them.
If you mean generally, then I agree. But if you want to talk individuals, I can introduce you to quite a few women which can kick all our butts. Looking at individual people, there are many women who can not only pull their weight in combat positions, but will do it better than many men.
As far as POWs go, that ship sailed a long time ago. There were female POws in WW-II and Vietnam, but if you want something current, here’s the Amry’s take on whether or not women are ready for this.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.army.mil/article-amp/54136/female_pows_prove_women_can_endure_wars_hardships
The right often is incensed at the left for being offended on behalf of others. Today’s women do not need you to protect them.
-
I wouldn't call 15-17% pregnancy rates for women on ships as "horrible" or an "unintended" consequence. Sailors doing the dirty and women getting pregnant is a given, especially cooped up on a ship. This comes with the territory of a mixed-gender force, and progress can be made tailoring the logistics to lower the pregnancy rate.
Pregnancy is a part of life. Only women can get pregnant. Stating these facts doesn't come close to proving that women in the force is a net negative. Especially when the Navy already pulls sailors off of shore leave early because critical billets are unfilled (https://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-mandates-early-transfer-to-sea-for-sailors-who-can-fill-critical-billets-1.535493).
Now come asechrest. I was kind of tracking with you on this issue until this post. I think you’re either being naive or haven’t read about the impact of a significant number of women getting pregnant on ships.
It is no small matter when you have to pull a woman off a ship, especially a nuclear vessel that could be at sea for half a year without needing to dock.
A nuclear aircraft carrier is not a college dormitory. The interaction between the teams and need for esprit de corps is mandatory to maintain a combat footing. Interpersonal and sexual relationships interfere with that.
Saying “this comes with the territory in a mixed gender force” is an answer given by sociologists, not warriors who’s job it is to win a war, not conduct social experiments.
I used to have a woman work for me who was a Lt. Commander in the Naval Reserves and flew MH-60 Seahawks. When in active duty she flew these off destroyers in anti-drug ops off South Africa. She was a tough cookie. Her husband was retired Navy. In the reserves they would fly from Jacksonville to Bath, Maine to test weapons systems when they put out a new Destroyer.
While working for me she became pregnant. The navy let her continue to fly until the earlier of (a) 7 months or (b) when her survival gear no longer fit.
She stopped flying around 5-6 months, but for neither of the reasons above. She stopped because her crew mates were doing HER jobs for her, like climbing on top of the aircraft for preflight inspections. They were being gentlemen and didn’t want her to fall in her pregnant state. That’s gallant in a peacetime reserve setting, but could disrupt union cohesion when the shit hit the fan in a combat footing, especially on a vessel.
-
If you mean generally, then I agree. But if you want to talk individuals, I can introduce you to quite a few women which can kick all our butts.
See, there is another example of internet arguments.
Of course, and obviously, I meant generally. Generally, humans are under 7 feet tall. Generally, humans have an IQ less than 150. Generally,m women are less aggressive and physically weaker than men.
-
It's not a good thing to neutralize gender. It isn't leading us to anything good. It's softening males and turning females into insufferable, self-entitled bitches. There's nothing wrong and everything natural about role divisions between the genders. Men express aggression with physical violence - better warriors. Women are better at nurturing - better nurses and general doctors (possibly not surgeons.) Women are better at thinking holistically. Men are better at thinking linearly.
These are averages. I am all for individual variation. I'm against banning genders in any profession or vocation. I am for letting people voluntarily attempt any job. But I am opposed to forcible labor roles; so I'm actually opposed to the draft at all for men or women.
I used to be for it and am somewhat conflicted. I feel that being a citizen and enjoying the advantages of a country come with responsibilities toward it. If we had an immediate threat to our homeland, an invasion, I would be for drafting anyone needed to fight it. If there aren't enough men then we'd have to go for women. Not enough youth is a looming problem for us for many reasons. But drafting for the likes of Vietnam? NEVER AGAIN.
-
If you mean generally, then I agree. But if you want to talk individuals, I can introduce you to quite a few women which can kick all our butts. Looking at individual people, there are many women who can not only pull their weight in combat positions, but will do it better than many men.
As far as POWs go, that ship sailed a long time ago. There were female POws in WW-II and Vietnam, but if you want something current, here’s the Amry’s take on whether or not women are ready for this.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.army.mil/article-amp/54136/female_pows_prove_women_can_endure_wars_hardships
The right often is incensed at the left for being offended on behalf of others. Today’s women do not need you to protect them.
This is all I need to know. From the article:
“Earlier this month, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended to the president that DoD eliminate all combat-exclusion policies for women.”
Smh.
-
This is all I need to know. From the article:
“Earlier this month, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended to the president that DoD eliminate all combat-exclusion policies for women.”
Smh.
So, it’s not for the benefit of the best military preparedness, it’s for social diversity. Damn the consequences.
-
So, it’s not for the benefit of the best military preparedness, it’s for social diversity. Damn the consequences.
I said it elsewhere. Liberals never consider the hugely negative unintended consequences of their feel good, self validating policies.
-
This is all I need to know. From the article:
“Earlier this month, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended to the president that DoD eliminate all combat-exclusion policies for women.”
Smh.
Just to be sure - you are happy they recommend to eliminate the policies that exclude women? Because this isn’t a media report, it is the US Army.
-
So, it’s not for the benefit of the best military preparedness, it’s for social diversity. Damn the consequences.
I have heard this argument before. IMO, military preparedness is served by having more people who can serve.
I have no interest in social diversity. But I have very strong interest in equality, equal access and no barriers. But those things can be a double edged sword. With freedom comes responsibilities and there are more reasons than social engineering to have women in the military.
It is also a consequence of the law.
-
See, there is another example of internet arguments.
Of course, and obviously, I meant generally. Generally, humans are under 7 feet tall. Generally, humans have an IQ less than 150. Generally,m women are less aggressive and physically weaker than men.
Yes, you too.
Invalid comparisons. 7 feet and a 150 IQ are extreme outliers, like less than 1%. But being a member of a group that is generally less aggressive is irrelevant to being able to do the job.
-
Just to be sure - you are happy they recommend to eliminate the policies that exclude women? Because this isn’t a media report, it is the US Army.
And here I thought we were talking about military readiness, and not “opportunities” from a Diversity Commission.
If we are really talking about military readiness, then I believe you need to differentiate between the general differences in the sexes.
This is the physical fitness test I had to take when I was tying out for the Scott County (IA) Sheriff’s Posse. A volunteer arm, duly sworn deputy.
I was 40 years old at the time, and among the tests was running a mile and half in a certain time. When I was in high school and college football, we had to do it in 12 minutes. Being 40, it was age weighted to 14.29. Still fast for an older guy, but I did it.
But look at the attached. It was greatly differentiated by sex. In fact, the time for the run for a 20-year old woman was the same as the time for a 50 year old man! In what world should there be such differences, especially in running?
Tell me again how men and women in the armed forces are being held to the same standards?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190226/3b279963a9ab93ed11f09a35dc7a0442.jpg)
-
Now come asechrest. I was kind of tracking with you on this issue until this post. I think you’re either being naive or haven’t read about the impact of a significant number of women getting pregnant on ships.
It is no small matter when you have to pull a woman off a ship, especially a nuclear vessel that could be at sea for half a year without needing to dock.
A nuclear aircraft carrier is not a college dormitory. The interaction between the teams and need for esprit de corps is mandatory to maintain a combat footing. Interpersonal and sexual relationships interfere with that.
Saying “this comes with the territory in a mixed gender force” is an answer given by sociologists, not warriors who’s job it is to win a war, not conduct social experiments.
I used to have a woman work for me who was a Lt. Commander in the Naval Reserves and flew MH-60 Seahawks. When in active duty she flew these off destroyers in anti-drug ops off South Africa. She was a tough cookie. Her husband was retired Navy. In the reserves they would fly from Jacksonville to Bath, Maine to test weapons systems when they put out a new Destroyer.
While working for me she became pregnant. The navy let her continue to fly until the earlier of (a) 7 months or (b) when her survival gear no longer fit.
She stopped flying around 5-6 months, but for neither of the reasons above. She stopped because her crew mates were doing HER jobs for her, like climbing on top of the aircraft for preflight inspections. They were being gentlemen and didn’t want her to fall in her pregnant state. That’s gallant in a peacetime reserve setting, but could disrupt union cohesion when the shit hit the fan in a combat footing, especially on a vessel.
In the interests of being sure we're not talking around each other, let me clarify that I am NOT saying women getting pregnant is not a detriment to the ship. It is, quite literally, classified by the Navy as a temporary medical condition not appropriate to ship life after a certain point. But many men are also shipped to shore for temporary medical conditions.
The question is not whether this is true. It is whether this fact makes allowing women to serve in these roles a net negative to the force.
-
I see. You think that because a diversity commission made a recommendation, that must be the only reason it would be done.
The draft is a way to conscript the unorganized militia. More is better. Women are capable of being trained to fight and the law requires equality, so they should be included.
I never said the entire military used the same PT standards. I said the Marine Corp did, at least in basic training. Physical fitness standards are one small piece of a service member. People in shape are healthier are more difficult to kill. But people who are trained and execute as a team are even more difficult to kill.
-
In the interests of being sure we're not talking around each other, let me clarify that I am NOT saying women getting pregnant is not a detriment to the ship. It is, quite literally, classified by the Navy as a temporary medical condition not appropriate to ship life after a certain point. But many men are also shipped to shore for temporary medical conditions.
The question is not whether this is true. It is whether this fact makes allowing women to serve in these roles a net negative to the force.
It is an impact. When deployments are announced, a surprising number of women become pregnant. It is somewhat of a joke, except it it isn’t that funny. Because we worked with a tender, we saw this happen with regularity the one time a year the tender was required to prove it could still go to sea.
However, units still deploy. People still do their jobs. The work still gets done.
So pregnancies create a problem to be solved, but they do not prevent operations because the problem is solved.
-
It is an impact. When deployments are announced, a surprising number of women become pregnant. It is somewhat of a joke, except it it isn’t that funny. Because we worked with a tender, we saw this happen with regularity the one time a year the tender was required to prove it could still go to sea.
However, units still deploy. People still do their jobs. The work still gets done.
So pregnancies create a problem to be solved, but they do not prevent operations because the problem is solved.
But there is a cost and the taxpayer pays it.
-
But there is a cost and the taxpayer pays it.
I am tired of paying for my government to social engineer especially for PC political points.
-
But there is a cost and the taxpayer pays it.
This is not a meaningful comment without elaboration. Pulling men from the ship for various reasons has a cost, and the taxpayer pays it.
-
This is not a meaningful comment without elaboration. Pulling men from the ship for various reasons has a cost, and the taxpayer pays it.
But those issues normally can't be avoided. Pregnancy can. So we are paying for extra crap for purely political reasons. If a woman gets pregnant, she should get a discharge and not a good one.
-
This is not a meaningful comment without elaboration. Pulling men from the ship for various reasons has a cost, and the taxpayer pays it.
You can’t be serious.
-
But those issues normally can't be avoided. Pregnancy can. So we are paying for extra crap for purely political reasons. If a woman gets pregnant, she should get a discharge and not a good one.
In this day and time, birth control is readily available for those who wish to use it.
-
You can’t be serious.
I'm completely serious.
In my opinion ya'll are just bitching about a fact of life in a multi-gender force. Folks have sex, women get pregnant. The insinuation seems to be that women shouldn't serve. Or maybe shouldn't serve on ships? Or maybe shouldn't serve in combat roles? Or maybe shouldn't serve in front-line combat roles? Not sure, few of you will actually state, with detail, your vision of women in the military. You're all just picking at the edges - "women are different than men", "progressives just want equality at any cost", "pregnancy on a ship has a taxpayer cost"...
Well, pardon my French, but no shit! Quit beating around the bush and tell us part 2 of your point - you have a complaint, now what do we do about it?
Because if the insinuation is that women shouldn't serve on ships, I'd like to know how you intend to replace the 24+ THOUSAND non-pregnant women serving on ships as we speak (2015 numbers). Or at the very least, the metrics that lead to your belief that women serving on ships is a net negative to the force.
That's what I'm getting at about a meaningful comment. Just stating that something has a cost is not meaningful.
-
This is not a meaningful comment without elaboration. Pulling men from the ship for various reasons has a cost, and the taxpayer pays it.
I need go no further than pointing out the lower productivity of women in any other workforce. Women have all the same health issues as men PLUS pregnancy and childbirth. The net cost has got to be greater.
-
I'm completely serious.
In my opinion ya'll are just bitching about a fact of life in a multi-gender force. Folks have sex, women get pregnant. The insinuation seems to be that women shouldn't serve. Or maybe shouldn't serve on ships? Or maybe shouldn't serve in combat roles? Or maybe shouldn't serve in front-line combat roles? Not sure, few of you will actually state, with detail, your vision of women in the military. You're all just picking at the edges - "women are different than men", "progressives just want equality at any cost", "pregnancy on a ship has a taxpayer cost"...
Well, pardon my French, but no shit! Quit beating around the bush and tell us part 2 of your point - you have a complaint, now what do we do about it?
Because if the insinuation is that women shouldn't serve on ships, I'd like to know how you intend to replace the 24+ THOUSAND non-pregnant women serving on ships as we speak (2015 numbers). Or at the very least, the metrics that lead to your belief that women serving on ships is a net negative to the force.
That's what I'm getting at about a meaningful comment. Just stating that something has a cost is not meaningful.
In my opinion ya'll are just bitching about a fact of life in multi-gender bathrooms. Folks have sex, women get pregnant. The insinuation seems to be that women shouldn't shit in men’s bathrooms. Or maybe shouldn't shit in women’s bathrooms? Or maybe shouldn't worry about men in women’s bathrooms? Or maybe shouldn't drink so much coffee so they shouldn’t put themselves at risk of rape by peeing so much? Not sure, few of you will actually state, with detail, your vision of multi-gender bathrooms. You're all just picking at the edges - "women are different than men", "progressives just want equality at any cost", "pregnancy from a rape in a women’s bathroom has a taxpayer cost"...
See how idiotic your premise is when your starting point is AFTER the social experiment is already embedded, either in the military, or in my example, in society?
The social experiment of women in combat roles is in its early stages. But people like you don’t want to address the military readiness cost in it. Taking a woman off a combat vessel is different, and longer lasting, than taking a man off for an appendicitis surgery. That role must then be filled with someone from some other place. A ship is not like a 48-man roster football team with second and third replacements per starter.
-
I need go no further than pointing out the lower productivity of women in any other workforce. Women have all the same health issues as men PLUS pregnancy and childbirth. The net cost has got to be greater.
And yet, I assume you don't suggest we remove all women from the workforce? The question isn't whether women are on average less productive than men, but whether inclusion of women in the force is a net-negative to the force itself.
-
It’s not fair! _________ should have more RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES and access to ANYWHERE they want to be! Restrooms, ANY sports teams they prefer, hell, even the “Boy” Scouts!
Illegal aliens are just like everyone else
MS 13 gangs are filled with people just like everyone else
Gays are just like everybody else
Lesbians are just like everybody else
Trans folk are just like everyone else
Muslims are just like everyone else
Trump is Hitler
Kavanaugh is a brute
The 9/11 hijackers murdered thousands of Americans because we deserved it
White men are privileged brutes
Black men are victims of whitey
Black women are victims of whitey
Christians are evil, hating tyrants imposing their moral order! Our moral order is better!
Conservatives hate ... well, pretty much everyone! Plus they are raaacist!
Babies and fetuses aren’t humans
These are not the hallmarks of a sane society, but they are the general stands taken by Democrats.
Therefore, Dems are in NO position to be dictating military readiness requirements. They can’t get past the elevation of dark skin color, behavior, choices and beliefs to supreme considerations.
Sanity, not ephemeral ideas of “equality” based on identity, dictates this:
Serving in the United States military is voluntary but men must register.
Women can apply to serve.
People chosen to serve will be assigned according to where they can best serve according to mission readiness.
-
And yet, I assume you don't suggest we remove all women from the workforce? The question isn't whether women are on average less productive than men, but whether inclusion of women in the force is a net-negative to the force itself.
Of course remove all women from the workforce!
And we want dirty air and dirty water too! I love how libs argue in the ridiculous extremes. Always tells me they're losing the argument. We're sexist and racist too, right?
Why do I waste my time.
-
Of course remove all women from the workforce!
And we want dirty air and dirty water too! I love how libs argue in the ridiculous extremes. Always tells me they're losing the argument. We're sexist and racist too, right?
Why do I waste my time.
You and I aren't having an argument. You're just taking pot-shots without marrying your points with the subject.
-
Of course remove all women from the workforce!
And we want dirty air and dirty water too! I love how libs argue in the ridiculous extremes. Always tells me they're losing the argument. We're sexist and racist too, right?
Why do I waste my time.
Because we keep thinking liberals will one day open the magic door to understanding how the liberal way is actually better for human flourishing, and in this thread military readiness, than a reasonable conservative approach.
-
The social experiment of women in combat roles is in its early stages. But people like you don’t want to address the military readiness cost in it. Taking a woman off a combat vessel is different, and longer lasting, than taking a man off for an appendicitis surgery. That role must then be filled with someone from some other place. A ship is not like a 48-man roster football team with second and third replacements per starter.
Again, I ask what your point is. I'm not asking that in a snarky way, I'm asking you to complete your thought. You're right. Women getting pregnant is not conducive to the goals of the ship's commanders. Now what is the rest of your point? Do you believe we should pull all women from ships? If so, why do you believe that to be a net positive over the current scenario where nearly 30 thousand women serve on ships?
-
You and I aren't having an argument. You're just taking pot-shots without marrying your points with the subject.
Because you're so smart.
-
Because we keep thinking liberals will one day open the magic door to understanding how the liberal way is actually better for human flourishing, and in this thread military readiness, than a reasonable conservative approach.
Have you said anything substantive in this thread about military readiness vis-a-vis women serving on ships?
-
No one is saying women shouldn’t serve, but some venues present difficulties.
Obviously women enlist in large numbers and, as far as I know serve in every branch and in almost every capacity, if they meet physical and mental requirements.
This thread is about the obligation to register for the draft.
Women serving on ships and submarines is an interesting and useful discussion, but at the end of the day we have a lot of history with it, and there are problems putting males and females in close quarters for extended periods of time under high stress conditions with imminent danger.
It’s not prejudicial against either women or men to take into consideration the likely outcomes and base decision making upon them.
-
And yet, I assume you don't suggest we remove all women from the workforce? The question isn't whether women are on average less productive than men, but whether inclusion of women in the force is a net-negative to the force itself.
Remove all women from the workforce? Of course not. Just pay them their actual value, no more.
The original question is whether women should be subject to the draft. I have stated that I have no problem with women serving voluntarily. They self-select and are more likely to have personalities conducive to military service. The women I know who have served did very well.
We're talking about forced service, which opens it up to the average woman, who is much less fit for military duty than the average man. (Or at least was until America got so pussified.)
Here's the scenario you propose: Draft a bunch of women. They'll deliberately get pregnant to get out of combat or being sent overseas and will end up doing so much more than men will be able to come up with medical excuses, and hence yes it will be a very big net negative. Or is your solution to send them anyway, and leave baby with grandma and grandpa?
-
Have you said anything substantive in this thread about military readiness vis-a-vis women serving on ships?
I believe my post #54 pertains substantively to the issue of trying to force everyone to accept anyone, anywhere. It is dangerous to staff ANY critical function, be it military or otherwise, based on such.
My post #61 supports this position.
-
-
Great movie.
-
I am tired of paying for my government to social engineer especially for PC political points.
Our whole government IS a social experiment. Can a nation so conceived long endure? Women being in the military is not an experiment to see what happens, it is a natural consequence when all men are created equal. Inalienable freedom is endowed upon you by God, you can’t give it back. For better or worse, we are equal partners in this big social experiment called the United States.
The alternative is to go back 100 years, take your shoes off, make some sammiches and let the menfolk talk. I reject that myself. We are equal and it’s time we started behaving that way.
That is a liberal idea, perhaps THE liberal idea that is core to our country. It is also foreign to most Democrat leaders, which is why I call them leftists now.
-
Bullshit... the feminist movement was a manipulated construct come up with and used by by cigarette manufacturers to expand their customer base by convincing women that smoking would help prove they were equal to men.
Look up the marches in New York where the broads all marched and pulled up their skirts to show a pack of cigarettes in front of the reviewing stand.
The rest of the movement is about ugly women hating men for preceding well groomed, nice looking, convivial partners.
-
All men being created equal is bullshit? Or is the inalienable freedom and equal status of all men bullshit?
Or you’re just saying “bullshit, I don’t like you or your argument”.
-
All men being created equal is bullshit? Or is the inalienable freedom and equal status of all men bullshit?
Or you’re just saying “bullshit, I don’t like you or your argument”.
Men and women are not created equal. Women should never have been given the vote.
-
Ok, we have arrived at the core disagreement.
I don’t think that view is widely shared.
-
Ok, we have arrived at the core disagreement.
I don’t think that view is widely shared.
I think it is more widely accepted than you think. But it isn't widely "shared" because to do so would bring down incredible hostility.
-
I think women should be allowed to vote and have equal opportunity not be assured of equal outcome. Men and women are DIFFERENT.
-
Men and women are different.
I cannot think of many areas outside of sex, childbirth and lugging the M-60 where that should matter.