A WW I or II is almost impossible. Even a Korea where we back one side and another super-power openly backs another with troops in the field is unlikely. Anything like that is just bound to go nuclear. What we have in front of us is a never ending sequence of Vietnams and Bosnia. Those may be harder or easier to maintain a standing army for; time will tell. But women clearly have the same basic combat abilities for that type of “war” and its time to let them try.
Just like they made the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell work. Remember how gays serving openly was going to ruin unit cohesion or something?
I don’t think you understand. Girls can’t serve in combat because they might get their makeup mussed and who would make the coffee!? Also, they can’t shoot right because of boobs. And if they were surrounded by angry Koreans they’d probably just cry.
Or something.
O, woe betide the US Armed Forces!
Think of a woman with PMS and a machine gun. A platoon of them could probably overrun North Korea before Oprah comes on TV.
A PMS joke? How inventive.
I’m genuinely curious, because I have seen this retort (minus any comment about the actual issue at hand), a number of times now.
What specifically about combat eligibility should change women’s requirement to register for selective service? They’ve already been in the military for decades in many capacities, so what specifically about this policy change is important?
I keep being told how “they should go hand in hand” but frankly I don’t see it. I could see it more when women started being accepted into the military, but this seems like a change designed to allow women to get career advancement credit for things they’d already been unofficially doing, rather than drastically changing the way the military operates in any real sense.
The American government has been raping and murdering POWs at Bagram and Gitmo for quite some time. So take the beam from thine own eye first.
As for women, look back to Iraq and see what happened when Pfc Lynch was taken by the Iraqis. She was taken to a hospital for proper medical care, the put in an ambulance to be taken back to the Americans. Who machine-gunned the ambulance, so she was taken back to hospital just in time for the cinematic helicopter arrival of American commandos to bust her out of her hellish imprisonment in a private hospital room.
For the draft, I’m sure women will never have to sign up for it. In the first world war it was an obligation that went with being part of political society, which is to say having the vote, so women weren’t obliged. Although men who couldn’t vote were. Then when women got the vote they still weren’t drafted, and so now the rationale is that it’s because women aren’t allowed to serve in combat-roles. Or that was the case, until now. So now there will simply be another legal case, and another bullshit reason to keep requiring more from men than women.
I’m fascinated by how equal rights means “political correctness”. Truly, truly fascinated.
What’s important is that the Supreme Court used this as their reason for not allowing equality in this area, men not being drafted or women being drafted. Therefore it should now be time to require women to register with the Selective Service board. Not that I expect it to happen, but that’s why it’s seen as going hand in hand.
The Amazons supposedly cut off one boob so they could fire a bow. So its a solvable problem.
Or eliminate Selective Service altogether. As a well-known men’s rights activist, why aren’t you pushing for this?
They’re sending women into combat with bows!? Ok, I take it back, this really is one fucked up plan.
Women who are working for military contract companies also get abused and raped by the men around them, both in the contract companies and military members, and these problems are covered up. I don’t know whether the men who work for these companies also get their fair share of rape and abuse.
I think the problem is that it seems to be more common to cover up this abuse, rather than prosecute the people who are doing this shit. The ability to rape and abuse people seems to be regarded as a perk, not a crime.
If women have to pass the same tests and face the same conditions, no prob.
In their hair!
The Pentagon thinks every female is now Katniss.
Equal rights or equal privilege? If you see service in the military, a specific branch of the military, and a specific specialty within that branch as a right then the term doesn’t apply.
If you see service as a privilege that, simply put, isn’t promised to everyone then the term could well apply depending in this context. You seem to use “right” in place of “Privilege/opportunity” or some similar word which is in itself fascinating.
I can’t speak to other branches but the army has always allowed a certain amount of “understanding” with the tests. My Dad was left-handed and left eye dominant - which made his scores with the trusty old O3-A3 — wonky. During his time he was expressly forbidden from shooting left handed until it came to qualification day. At that point, most times, he got a wink and a nod and shifted shoulders. Times when he didn’t get the nod, he didn’t qualify. But since he already had a track record as a hell of a good combat soldier ----------. Once the Air Force was formed and absorbed him, it was just as bad – but his time ended with Korea.
More than the tests themselves I’ll be curious to see the results. I think, based on what we’ve seen in police and fire as well as what has been demonstrated in other countries, that we could be in for a major surprise and women turn out to be superior in many (what are today) combat positions.
No, I used right where right belongs. As in the “right to serve in a combat role regardless of gender”.
Could you show me where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that right is detailed? My Google-fu failed me terribly.