Drafting Women Not Only Harms and Endangers Women, But Also Men and Society

[Anonymous]

According to polls on here, most men are very eager to include women in any potential draft. What most men don't realize is that it is men who will largely be harmed by any inclusion of women in a draft. Doing this will do nothing but come back and bite them. Big time.

- - -

How Drafting Women Harms Male Conscripts

Only 14% of women (but 97% of men) who were already in the military passed combat standards; imagine how much lower it’d be for the general population. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/21/few-proud-physically-fit.html

This means that most drafted women would be put into noncombat roles, thus pushing into combat other men who could've been in noncombat roles.

Not only this, but if you draft women (even into noncombat roles), it’ll take a lot more time, millions of dollars more money, and energy to gather enough soldiers, which will be bad for the male conscripts, because that money, time, & energy could’ve been used on things that would have actually helped male conscripts’ well-being, livelihood, and likelihood of survival.

So now, not only are male conscripts now much more likely to be put into combat, they're much more likely not to survive in combat.

- - -

Women in Combat, Even Voluntarily, Is Harmful & Dangerous to Male Soldiers in General

Most male soldiers oppose allowing women into combat. https://www.voanews.com/a/mht-special-operators-oppose-women-in-units/3098999.html

And rightfully so, considering military studies show that troops with women are less effective than troops with men. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439190586/marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units Women in combat therefore puts male soldiers in danger.

From the survey linked above: "One respondent said he weighs 280 pounds when in full gear and expects that anyone on his team could drag him from a combat zone. "A 130-pound female could not do it, I don't care how much time she spends in the gym... Do we expect wounded men to bleed out because a female soldier could not drag him to cover?""

Indeed, it is impossible for a woman to gain that much physical strength. Studies show that not only are most of the strongest women still weaker than most of the weakest men,[1] even trained women are weaker than untrained men.[2]

[1] https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/men-are-from-mars-earth-women-are-from-venus-earth/

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7253873

Expecting a woman to gain as much physical strength as a man, is like expecting a woman to grow a penis, or a man to give birth. Physical strength is an aspect of sexual dimorphism. This doesn't make women inferior to men any more than men are inferior to women because they can't breastfeed or give birth. Men and women simply have different functions.

Moreover, 17% of male soldiers said that they'd quit their jobs if women were allowed into combat, and 22% said they'd quit their jobs if women were forced into combat. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/marines-survey-women_n_2600382.html This will lose us a number of perfectly good soldiers.

Even Female-Only Troops Would Be Harmful to Male Soldiers

Making female-only troops would cost a lot of money for separate facilities.

Once in the battlefield, female soldiers cost the military more than male soldiers do. This goes beyond women costing the military in regards to gynecological aspects: Female soldiers experience injury at 6x the rate as male soldiers: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/military/sdut-marines-women-in-combat-task-force-results-2015sep10-htmlstory.html

That's tons of money, that could've been used to ensure male soldiers' well-being and safety and training, that's going down the drain.

- - -

"Women Should Be Allowed in Combat Because Of Equality!"

There's "equality", and there's complete idiocy. Disabled, elderly people, and children aren't allowed into combat for a reason: they'd decrease military efficiency & be a harm to the soldiers around them. The same is true for women.

- - -

How Drafted Women Harms Male Civilians

Since drafting women weakens our military, it makes our country more vulnerable to attack and annihilation, which is harmful to male civilians for obvious reasons.

But there's an even more long-lasting negative impact that people don't tend to think about.

Since women already have PTSD (10%) at 2.5x the rate of men (4%)[1], drafting them would be a societal disaster as a sizable % of the next generation will then be raised by mentally ill mothers, & mothers' mental illness has a detrimental effect on child's behavior & emotional wellbeing, but fathers' doesn't.[2]

[1] https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treatment/women/women-trauma-ptsd.asp

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15289242

Guess what this will cause? Much more violence.

Guess who is most often the victims of violence? Men. Men make up 3 of 4 murder victims, for instance.

The drafting of women will result in civilian men being at a higher chance of being attacked.

^If you draft women, then if you're not dead due to the decreased protection of our country, then by the time the next generation rolls around, there's a higher likelihood that THIS will be YOU.

- - -

Regarding Places Like Israel

People often bring up Israel as being "one of the strongest militaries" yet conscripting women.

Let's ignore, for a moment, that even Israel doesn't draft women into combat roles.

Yes, Israel is one of the strongest militaries. Do you know what military is even stronger? The US[1], which comes in at #1 as opposed to Israel's measly #14, and according to US military studies, women in combat decreases military efficiency.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries-ranked-2015-9

- - -

So, what should we do?

Overall it'd be better that women utilize their talents in other areas of society to support the war effort.

- - -

"Why should women have the right to vote for draft laws that won’t put their own body in danger?”

Well, why should men have the right to vote for anti-contraceptive and/or anti-abortion laws that won’t put their own bodies in danger, even in the case of rape and/or potential death?

Anyway, what about elderly people? Disabled people? Do they not deserve equal rights?

The fact is that if you want to win a war with the fewest amount of casualties possible, you send your strongest fighters. That's mainly young able-bodied men.

[Anonymous]

No, women should shoulder their fair share of the burdens in society. As it is, men do the vast majority of the dangerous and dirty work, necessary if unsavory jobs like garbage collector, plumber, and infantry soldier. The tough job that women once inevitably faced in life was child rearing, but so many women are opting out of having kids nowadays that they don't even bear that burden.

So basically women want all the benefits of equality while holding none of the responsibility. You see why many men are so cynical about this now?

[myTake Owner]

82% of women give birth to children.

[myTake Owner]

Studies show that women are way more stressed than men

[myTake Owner]

www.marketingcharts.com/.../ only 18% of women don't give birth.

So 82% of women experience pregnancy and birth. 2 is the average.

What % of men do dirty dangerous work? Only 1% of men ever go to combat, and less than 20% of men have jobs that aren't sedentary.

Therefore men are UNDERrepresented in dirty dangerous work/hard labor (childbirth is called labor for a reason)

[QooLipBite]

@mistix These women obviously have the choice to give birth because for them, creating life is rewarding. No women ever goes like "oh I want to have a child because I want to suffer through the pain again".

If childbirth is called 'labour' for a reason, why do women choose to do so?

Less than 20% of men have jobs that aren't sedentary? What's statistics are you using? What's with you and hating men? You bitter? You sour?

[myTake Owner]

@QooLipBite they choose to do it for the reason you said: to have kids. Yet men don't have to go through childbirth to have kids.

if manual labor is called labor for a reason, then why do men choose hard labor jobs? Is the equivalent to what you're asking.

They choose to do hard labor jobs because they want the result. Same for childbearing. Women choose to give birth because they want kids, like you said, and do it in spite of all the pain, similar to how men want money and thus work in spite of pain and stress.

And it's what statistics show unless you can provide evidence that more than a significant minority of men don't have sedentary jobs

[QooLipBite]

@mistixs

You're acting as if childbirth is the only thing that determines the under/representation of men and women.

Do you realize that the law and constitution combined with society's expectation of what a man should do, compensates for women and childbirth?

You are so delusional and confined to one point of view and that just shows how messed up and biased you are.

Just simple things such as paid maternity leave, guarenteed custody, the expectation and pressure the husbands have to supply their families and wives financially, modern science and technology making pregnancy easier and much more bearable. In fact; some Women find JOY in pregnancies and creating lives, PEOPLE DONT GENERALLY FIND JOY IN JOBS AND WORKING. Comparing earning money to creating life is something irrational.

You even stated in your earlier argument that 'it's just what statistics show, unless you're providing evidence'. Are you retarded? Where's youe evidence or statistics to show that

[QooLipBite]

@mistixs

- to show that less than 20% of jobs aren't sedentary? THE AMOUNT OF SEDENTARY LABOUR THAT IS REQUIRED TO KEEP THE COUNTRY'S INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMY IS SO MUCH MORE THAN 20%. The MINORITY of the labour forces are the further educated ones, such as engineering, accounting, business etc. You are obviously delusional and blind. Use your commons sense.

And to say "studies show that women are more stressed than men" and immediately concluding that it's due to society or nature raining plagues upon them is stupid. Everyone well knows that women naturally get more emotional and worked up over situations more easily. Men would just sit there and not give a shit. This is mostly based on brain composition and basic biological composition of the brain. If men were as vulnerable to stress and emotional shit as women, this wouldn't even be an argument.

[myTake Owner]

@QooLipBite

[myTake Owner]

@QooLipBite www.heart.org/.../...tivity_UCM_307974_Article.jsp "physically active jobs make up less than 20% of the workforce"

"The MINORITY of the labour forces are the further educated ones"

Yeah, that's why it's practically required to go to college to get a decent paying job these days.../s

[QooLipBite]

Are you fucking kidding me.

What percentage of population does the U. S make may I ask? Is that even significant compared to the world population?

Do you understand that this is a first world country, thus having a less percentage of workforce in sedentary and physical jobs? All the other poorer countries have a WAYYYYYY more unstable ratio between physical and jon physical jobs.

"Oh, I'll just ignore everything and select the best fragment of a piece of information to form my whole argument and come to a whole rounded conclusion because it suits me and makes me right."

K. Fuck off. If you're talking about men and women in general, why are you confining certain parts of your 'statistics' from USA to speak and represent for ALL men and women?

Again. I proved your inability to open your mind.

[myTake Owner]

@QooLipBite I'm talking about the US because this entire MyTake was about an issue in the US

[QooLipBite]

Are you saying that now because I made you look like an idiot?

Then first of all, why hadn't you stated specifically "men and women, and society in the USA".

Second, if it was solely for the USA, why the fuck are you including Iran in it?

Third, what's the point of even arguing for women if you're just gonna confine it to the U. S?

[myTake Owner]

@QooLipBite I included Iran because people keep using that as an example of why we should draft women in the US.

This MyTake was based on the recent debate on drafting women in the USA.

[myTake Owner]

@QooLipBite --- Then first of all, why hadn't you stated specifically "men and women, and society in the USA". ---

I figured people would be smart enough to realize I was talking about the USA, because that's where the recent debate on female conscription is.

[QooLipBite]

I don't even give a shit about your drafting gender issue bullshit. The argument isn't even about that. I'm point out the way you select only such small fragments of information from small environment pools to form an argument and conclusion that speaks for, and represents that all men are under-represented.

You're not even justifying yourself properly. You don't even come to realize how much society and laws bend in favour for women, ESPECIALLY IN AMERICA. As I have stated in my previous responses, and obviously you don't show acknowledgement for any of that, all you say to counter is "82% of women go through childbirth". And THAT shows your sense of entitlement and delusional thinking.

You use 'statistics' and then create an argument through your own interpretation of situations and then creating a conclusion. You know you are Bias and through evidence of showing your delusional bias, one can be assured that the stuff you say can NOT be fully accurate at all.

[QooLipBite]

So Put your pacifier back on and stop crying. Because if nature were to take away the power for women to give birth and gave it to men, I can ASSURE you NOW, that women WILL retaliate. Childbirth is a gift, not a burden. TO TAKE AWAY YOUR ABILITY TO GIVE BIRTH ROBS YOU. Otherwise, what use would you be? So I don't know WHAT THE FUCK you are arguing for.

[madhatters4]

well a simple factor would be is that even in a draft only those who are deemed fit for combat see combat. so they aren't going to sent unfit people on to the battle fields

the draft doesn't men every person who is drafted goes to battle. it simply means they go to get evaluated for potential service. you can be disqualified for physical and mental reasons and that should disqualify any unfit women

[astrOnaut01]

Spot on, man.

[krash2002]

Very good point.

[myTake Owner]

Of course, but that costs tons of time money and energy that could've been spent on the well being and safety of male conscripts. Thereby harming and endangering male conscripts

[madhatters4]

it doesn't. it just doesn't. they would already do these fitness tests for male draftees anyway so the money and time is already being spent

[myTake Owner]

But a decent amount of male draftees are capable for combat roles.

Whereas if you add women, almost all women aren't capable

[madhatters4]

you have some research on this? i studied vietnam in college. the majority of men drafted people during vietnam were rejected or relegated to a reserve pool by selective services. regardless if there are more men that are capable there are still plenty of women who would be. it would be up to selective services to make that decision, not you or i who have no clue about what it really takes to be in the military

[VerbalWN]

mistixs They don't have to go into combat roles. There are plenty of support jobs in the rear that would still need to filled as well.

[myTake Owner]

@VerbalWN yes but you still need to acquire the same number of soldiers as before, and it'll take much more money time and resources to do that

[madhatters4]

selective services is not under the wing of the military or even under the same budget. so it wouldn't take any time or money from the military for women to be drafted and screened like men

[krash2002]

@mistixs Actually it doesn't cost more. My friends a recruiter for the army, and there's plenty of non-combat roles. Every person signed into the military has to go through basic training. This training statistically based off my friends own stats. Has seen an equal amount of men quit basic as women. The remaining women who are fit for combat duty. Are assigned to other positions, and therefore the military doesn't spend anything extra on men. No offense, but you're wrong about your stats. I've gone directly to the source and the sources say you're wrong.

[Waffles731]

You mightn not realize just how disgraceful and frankly tasteless your use of the third picture is,
The Woman on the Right was Named Lori Piestewa
Specialist Lori Ann Piestewa (/paɪˈɛstəwɑː/ py-ess-tə-wah;[3] December 14, 1979 – March 23, 2003) was a U. S. Army Quartermaster Corps soldier killed during the same Iraqi Army attack in which fellow soldiers Shoshana Johnson and Jessica Lynch sustained injuries. A member of the Hopi tribe, Piestewa was the first Native American woman in history to die in combat while serving with the U. S. military and the first woman in the U. S. armed forces killed in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[2] Arizona's Piestewa Peak is named in her honor.
Piestewa was a member of the US Army's 507th Maintenance Company, a support unit of maintenance and repair personnel. Her company was traveling in a convoy through the desert and was meant to bypass Nasiriyah, in southern Iraq, during the opening days of the war; but the convoy got lost and ran into an ambush in Nasiriyah on March 23, 2003.

As Piestewa came under "a tor**** of fire" (in the words of an Army investigation of the battle) she drove at high speed, evading enemy fire until a rocket-propelled grenade hit her Humvee.[11] The explosion sent her vehicle into the rear of a disabled tractor-trailer.[11] Piestewa, Johnson, and Lynch all survived the crash with injuries, while three other soldiers in the Humvee died. They were taken prisoner along with four others, with Piestewa dying of her wounds soon after. A video of some of the American prisoners of war, including Piestewa (filmed shortly before she died in an Iraqi hospital), was later shown around the world on Al Jazeera television.[12] According to Jessica Lynch's book—I'm a Soldier, Too: The Jessica Lynch Story—Piestewa was wounded in the head, and it was impossible to perform delicate neurosurgery in an Iraqi civilian hospital in wartime conditions (such as intermittent electric power).
Piestewa was awarded the Purple Heart and Prisoner of War Medal. The US Army posthumously promoted her from Private First Class to Specialist.
Jessica Lynch has repeatedly said that Piestewa is the true hero of the ambush and named her daughter Dakota Ann in honor of her fallen comrade. In addition, many entities have honored her memory with memorials. Arizona's state government renamed Squaw Peak in the Phoenix Mountains near Phoenix as Piestewa Peak and this was codified by the US Board on Geographic Names on April 10, 2008

[Waffles731]

"Her death led to a rare joint prayer gathering between members of the Hopi and Navajo tribes, which have had a centuries-old rivalry.[16]"
Centuries old Rivarly doesn't cover it,
These are two neighboring tribes that HATE EACH OTHER.
Till the 19th century and early 20th century, they were still constanty trying to kill each other.
Even today, you will find people from the tribes who if you told that a member of the other had been brutally murdered would respond with something along the lines ot 'too baad it was only one of them"
So yeah.
Leave that woman out of your promotion of inequality and cowardice

[Waffles731]

But yeah good job on using a decease single mother who was killed in action in Iraq as a way to further your own agenda about not wanting women in combat cause you know that's totally something she would have supported and its totally not an insult to her kids and totally not a an asshole move.

[myTake Owner]

I didn't include the picture, the editors put it there.

[Waffles731]

Your an editor, you can take it out.

[myTake Owner]

I will

[Waffles731]

@Fathoms77
I just wanted you to know all this, I know you probably didn't know who she was but its use was really not okay

[Gommers]

@Waffles731 You realize that she still died in combat right?

[Waffles731]

@Gommers
Which is exactly her use is tasteless,
She was a soldier plain and simple and here is someone saying women can't be soldiers blah blah blah

[Gommers]

I don't know man.

[Waffles731]

@Gommers
You don't know,
She enlisted as a soldier
She Trained as a Soldier
She fought as a Soldier
She died in combat as a Soldier
Her Gender doesn't goddamn matter she was a fucking soldier.
My mother is ex-military, I. E also a goddamn soldier

[Gommers]

And?

[JohnDoe3000]

The answer is so ridiculously easy: draft everyone, then take the fittest x% to meet the military's quota. Have the same standards for everyone and assign people to roles that fit them best. This will mean a higher percentage of men in the infantry but there will be some strong women chosen over weak men. Women would then mostly end up in support roles but they're still serving, taking some risks (a base or ship behind the front lines can still be hit and planes with female pilots can get shot down) and have to put up with the stress and being away from home for long periods. This is simply equality. In the emergency case of a total war (the only time there's ever going to be a draft) a country cannot afford to have half its able-bodied population sitting on its ass and an additional 0.5% of the population ending up with PTSD isn't going to be a primary concern at a time like that.

And please, where does this myth come from that every male soldier can carry 280 pounds plus his own equipment like it's nothing (or that this was the case in Vietnam, Korea and WW2)? There's plenty of scrawny guys in the military who would lose an arm wrestling match to Serena Williams. I mean if that was a real requirement for a modern military to function then where the hell would the Chinese military get recruits to meet that standard?

To win a total war you don't just send your strongest men: you send everything you've got (that's how the Soviets turned the tide against Nazi Germany): you may not think a scrawny 18-year old girl with a rifle, a pilot stick, or a bullet-making press in her hand makes a difference, but when there's a million of them...

[Anonymous]

I think that if war is severe enough on a global scale or something again, they won't care what your gender is and they will draft you into military service. Things are never going to change, as long as there are people there will always be war. The people in power calls all the shots when it comes to wars, they're not going to give a flying fuck about any potential harms or endangerment that war and conscription will cause to society, all they really care about is themselves and what they can profit and benefit from wars. Chances are the people related to and have the strong ties and connections to those in power are the only ones that will never have to be on the battlefield risking their lives and limbs unlike everyone else that do not.

Depending on where you are in the world. I remember reading something about US Senate had a bill passed this year that women turning 18 on or after January 1, 2018, would be forced to register for Selective Service.

And if they don't register, then they will lose various forms of federal aid, including Pell grants, a penalty that men already face. Because the policy would not apply to women who turned 18 before 2018, it would not affect current aid arrangements.

So if you're not a girl that had already turned 18 before 2018, then you really wouldn't should not have anything to really worry about. But if you haven't and you are in poverty, then there goes another whole bunch of odds stacked against you, because you may be conscripted to fight a war in the future, a war that you may not agree with.

Otherwise, try moving to another country or something if you do not agree with these policies and regulations on requiring you to register for Selective Service just to receive federal aid, in particular financial aid for school.

[anonman32]

the female troops of Kurdistan seem to be doing fine, but i agree they are not a military but a paramilitary, they dont use infantry for the same reasons, they mainly deploy guerrilla warfare strategies.

however, women would be helpful in special forces because they also have to carry out diplomatic missions not including violence. sometimes females shun male special forces soldiers and dont want to be helped because of them due to cultural reasons. this is also the reason why male SAS soldiers used to grow beards, because it allowed them better relationships with the locals as beards were/are seen as a status symbol in the middle east. women would be useful for specific purposes for special forces. special forces and guerrilla warfare are unconventional warfare. there would be no need to carry a lot of equipment there, many special forces all over the world allow female enlistment if they pass the tests.

and men are not safe from rape during war. men in war are often raped to stress them into giving up information. nobody is safe from rape.

[DooMguy]

"Since women already have PTSD"

blueollie.files.wordpress.com/.../...dyhemsley.jpg

https://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/feminist_ptsd.jpg

img.ifcdn.com/.../...8f480afd123830748e8580d_1.jpg

www.blazingcatfur.ca/.../chanty.png

media.giphy.com/media/QDK1pCI43lGhO/giphy.gif

#Triggered (literally triggered)

[Riggers]

fucking brilliant, 😂

[DooMguy]

@Riggers 'They see me rolling, they hating'. Look at that pink downvote though, they need to deal with it

www.picgifs.com/.../...fs-deal-with-it-2311009.gif

Who ever gave me that DV probably got PTSD from reading this. If woman get PTSD from something like this how are they supposed to survive on a battlefield?

38.media.tumblr.com/...lzhoxanqSD1qfqzs8o1_500.gif

Most of them wouldn't last five minutes

[Riggers]

Haha. Aye, agree bud. 😂😂😂

[Waffles731]

Holy crap, that image of the the monster from pan's labyrinth made me laugh

[DooMguy]

@Riggers check out this gem

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CtXthS2WcAA2bcm.jpg

Women get PTSD from talking to men, what's going to happen when a man shoots at them?

https://ci.memecdn.com/335/7363335.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-25-2015/13HaVj.gif

@Waffles731 I only found it by chance, it's one of my top 3 now. Good find eh?

[VikingAfro]

"Most male soldiers oppose allowing women into combat." - This is misleading. The article talks about how most male soldiers in *special forces* oppose women joining *special forces*.

"Only 14% of women (but 97% of men) who were already in the military passed combat standards;" - Again, you are being a bit misleading. The article you cited is talking about the Marines. Which, in my opinion, shouldn't allow female applicants anyway but that is a whole other thing.

"Moreover, 17% of male soldiers said that they'd quit their jobs if women were allowed into combat, and 22% said they'd quit their jobs if women were forced into combat." - Again, the article you cited here is talking about the marines (i. e. special forces). I'm starting to notice a pattern here.

"There's "equality", and there's complete idiocy. Disabled, elderly people, and children aren't allowed into combat for a reason: they'd decrease military efficiency & be a harm to the soldiers around them. The same is true for women." - I can agree with this up to a certain point. Not allowing women into SPECIAL FORCES, yeah, I can agree because special force units are called special forces for a reason. They are the apex of the military. But infantry, for example, has wiggle room. It's not uncommon to see a slightly overweight person in an infantry unit, or someone who wears glasses.

[gotc147]

Marines are not special forces, not even close.

[JRICHARDS1996]

I absolutely agree

... which is precisely why women should abandon feminism and return to traditional gender roles.

After all, if women do not have to adhere to their gender's traditional obligations and s standards, then neither do men such as going off to war.

If women want for men to continue protecting them, then they can abandon feminism. Because as it is, I refuse to go off to war and fight for some "strong, independent" woman who burned her bra and feels no obligation to behave in the way a woman is traditionally supposed to behave.

[myTake Owner]

What are women's roles that you want them to revert to?

[Ryan_killop]

Probably bend to his will to give him a taste of masculinity because he can't get a sliver without picking on those "lower" than him.

[JRICHARDS1996]

Motherhood, managing the home, being a good housewife, submitting to my authority, saving her virginity until marriage, letting me take care of her, making an effort to look good, being a good shoulder to cry on, and not being afraid to actually please me.

As it is, too many women still want for us men to treat them like princesses yet they refuse to reciprocate and make it worth our whiles.

[myTake Owner]

I want to know why it's women who must submit to men's authority rather than vice versa. Women bear the children, do all the unpaid labor, emotional labor etc

[hellionthesage]

Because its the men who do all the work then hand over the money to the woman. Its because your to weak and helpless to fight in a battle so its men who have to step up and take responsibility. Its them who slave, its them who die not women. If you want to sit back and be passive then obviously that requires some one to step up and clearly it ain't you or any other woman. But thank you for finally admitting your sexism, at least where getting some where on that front.

[hellionthesage]

@JRICHARDS1996 That was my argument as well. Either where equals or where not, you can only pick one.

[myTake Owner]

@hellionthesage it's only fair that men have jobs to pay women back for all that women do for them (give birth to them and their children, emotional labor, unpaid labor etc)

And yeah I guess I'm sexist because in this day & age, even admitting men and women are different is considered sexist

[JRICHARDS1996]

Because men are the ones who have to go off to war and die for you. The least women could do is submit and make it worth our while. Furthermore patriarchy is a part of nature, from our anatomy to the way our brains are wired and the fact that virtually every society across every part of the world has been patriarchal until 20th century liberalism.

I'm not saying you cannot have equality. Only, that if you want equality, you must also accept the downsides of it as well. One of them is no longer being a protected class that men will fight for you. You now have to fight for yourself, otherwise it is not equality.

I refuse to take a bullet for a liberal feminist who insists upon "equality" but still expects for my sex to protect her.

[JRICHARDS1996]

I agree completely. But it also only fair that women do all of the unpaid labor like managing the household among the other things you listed. I have no problem with traditional gender roles, and fighting for a woman who abides by them. My only problem is with liberal feminist women who insist upon "equality" and yet still want to be a protected class. They want to be able to completely ignore their gender's own traditional obligations yet they expect for men to still adhere to ours.

[myTake Owner]

Women risk their lives for men too. More women have died in childbirth throughout history than men have died in combat.

[JRICHARDS1996]

I very much doubt that. More men probably died in the two world wars alone that women have from childbirth throughout history. Even so, with modern medical technology, the amount of women who die from childbirth today is very low, with the exception of African nations. Either way, these feminists are the same women who do not want to be mothers and have children anyway, so why should men be expected to die for them if they have neglected their traditional obligations? Equality goes both ways.

[Your_secret_nerd]

Why should a woman save her virginity for you for marriage yet you shouldn't do the same for her? That's dumb

[myTake Owner]

I give sources that more women died in childbirth than men in combat throughout history, and even that US childbirth deaths outnumbered male combat deaths in WWI, here. uteropolis.tumblr.com/.../proof-that-american-childbirth-deaths-were-higher

And I give evidence that many more US women have died in childbirth since 2000 than men in combat. uteropolis.tumblr.com/.../another-gem-for-the-folks-who-say-if-women-want

[myTake Owner]

@Your_secret_nerd well there are differences between the sexes. I can see why it's more important for a girl to save her virginity than a guy. I don't think a woman should be shamed for not saving it. However I think it's a fair price for being protected from combat.

[Your_secret_nerd]

I think it's just double standards tbh. There are plenty of guys who don't serve and protect but still expect a woman to be a virgin for him

[JRICHARDS1996]

@Your_secret_nerd I never said I would not. I am a virgin.

[JRICHARDS1996]

The methodology is faulty, particularly the presumption that you can multiply the data from one single year so that it is the same for every year.

Even then, no one is forcing women to bear children. Until the state mandatorily forces you to register for childbirth at the age of 18 like we do for the draft, you are in no position to complain.

[Screamsgutter]

Women are under no obligation to have children, nor is it some patriotic duty to their country, so acting like it's some mandatory burden that's on par with men being forced to fight in war is not only absurd, but insulting. What the hell is emotional labor? What does that even mean? Unpaid labor? So you're one of those who thinks housework is on par with some guy working on a construction site or some pain in the ass white collar job. If you were living alone you'd be cleaning your own house anyway, so don't act like it's because of marriage that your burdened with it. As far as having to take care of the kids, if you have any that is, how does everyone forget that kids go to school for like seven hours a day from six years old 'til they're 18? So the whole 'watch the kids' argument is only viable for the first five years. Breastfeeding? Now you're really reaching.

Women are currently serving in combat positions. All positions. But you argue they shouldn't serve because they'd be a detriment to men. So because it's peacetime they can fill these roles, but during wartime they suddenly can't? Because it's dangerous? Are they currently just play acting?

by the way, honestly I don't like language like 'submitting to my authority' - it just sounds archaic and demeaning for either person in the relationship (sorry JRICHARDS1996). Nor do I expect a woman to be a virgin until marriage... I mean, please... that's something my grandfather may have expected, but I'm not 95 years old like he is (WW2 navy vet).

Many years ago I asked my mother why she never got into feminism and womens' lib-type stuff and she rolled her eyes and said 'now what sort of idiot would I have to be to bellyache about stuff like equality when your father got stuck doing two tours in Viet Nam, but I was exempt from because I'm a woman? Yeah, sure.'

[somebodysaycheese]

i think the most logical explanation is that women today get discharged medically 10x higher rates than men. Women cost the US more money than men. Women also suffer from infertility at higher rates.
VA is broken , completely broken.
I talked to my dad about this. And he said women shouldn't be in combat roles they cost too much money. Also, we talked about transpeople being in the military he also said they will only allow them in so long and eventually ban them because they cause too much money.
We can't lower standards for women , and the US already cut the hell out of military funds thousand of soldiers have been kicked out.
Problem all these civilians have so much to say but they know nothing of military life. Its not going to work.

[myTake Owner]

Yeah. And then people compare it to, "by that logic should we keep women out of workplaces"? And it's like, does the inclusion of women literally risk lives & our entire country?

[somebodysaycheese]

oh girl stop making so much sense! lol
Yea, we are a very consciously stupid society.

[Anonymous]

Tough shit, cupcakes. It's time you EARN those privileges that you get from living in a western society. We've been carrying you for millenia, you can walk on your own.

We keep hearing how "Strong, Empowered, and Independent" you all are... prove it.

Since you're the only ones that benefit from this society, the only ones it gives a damn about, it's only fair that YOU be the ones fighting, bleeding, dying, getting limbs blown off, coming home with traumatic brain injuries or PTSD, or being vaporized by an explosion so there isn't even enough left of you to bury in a box larger than a Copenhagen can.

I agree that women are basically useless in the military, I saw that firsthand too many times. But enough men have been sacrificed on the altars of 'equality' and hatepigism, it's time for you all to take a turn.

Lean in, cupcakes. Lean in.

[myTake Owner]

Even more men will be sacrificed this way, too, though.

There's a reason why male soldiers don't want women in combat. Even allowing women in combat, nevermind drafting them, puts their (i. e. men's) lives in danger

[Opinion Owner]

So reduce the number of men in combat. And increase the number of women to make up for the men that aren't there.

We throw enough women at the enemy, eventually they'll overwhelm them and win, even if they are vastly inferior in pretty much every way. Ask the Soviets from WWII how that Quantity vs Quality thing works. Hell, ask American tank crews. I think it was Stalin himself that said "Quantity has a quality all its own" but apparently Teh Interwebz has some doubt about that. Sure, we'll take ungodly amounts of casualties, but that's a price I'm willing to pay. It's a price WOMEN should be willing to pay, too, because equality.

[myTake Owner]

So you're willing to have many more human deaths just so more women die?

I'm sure that when there's a major scarcity of women due to throwing them all in combat, & that's worse than having a scarcity of men (100 women & 1 man can have 100 kids at a time; 100 men & 1 woman can only have 1 kid at a time), we can make it so that men are able to give birth too, right? If we can figure out a way to land on the moon, we can figure out a way to implant fertile uteri into men so that they can be the ones to experience childbirth, for ~EQUALITY~

[Opinion Owner]

Yes.

You don't really care about the men that might be harmed. That was only brought up to get men on board with keeping women exempt from having to bleed for this society. No one gives a damn about men except MAYBE other men. Those guys in. mil, the only people who give a fuck about them are their brothers right next to them.

There's already a shortage. The majority of women are fat, thus useless except to pussybegging simps. They don't do anything except gorge themselves and create the next generation of welfare recipients. And the few that aren't fat STILL aren't good for having a relationship or children with. Might as well get some use out of them.

There's already a small minority of men getting those 100 women. Remember the 80/20 rule. As more and more of the 80% of men are figuring out just how pointless it is to try to have relations with women, they are also withdrawing from work and. mil, choosing instead to live a life of leisure. And good on them, I say.
.

[myTake Owner]

More women than men are against conscription (even of men).

"And the few that aren't fat STILL aren't good for having a relationship or children with."

Most men would adamantly disagree with you on that. Most men still want relationships and children.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

I don't think it would push more men out to combat roles, It would push the one's who willing joined out first then there's like a dozen non combat roles that all the drafted people would fill just to get that one volunteer on the battlefield with all their equipment. I think it would be fine. Even if it did push more men out, then it sucks but it still makes sense, we needed the people right? Someone had to do it, that's why they would be drafting people.

In my opinon there' should be no draft or it should be optional, possibly with benefits. But if you're going to make it mandatory for men then there should definitely be benefits. Yes, I'm saying we should privilege men if that's what you want. If you want to be a protected class then you need to give resources and power to your servants so they can protect you. Just don't then complain about privileges others have, your privilege is that you don't have to do this job or be responsible for protecting people etc etc.

[myTake Owner]

". If you want to be a protected class then you need to give resources and power to your servants so they can protect you." What privileges do you think?

[AllThatSweetJazz]

Well, I think it varied from culture to culture in the past but it was the right to vote among other things (not exactly true since most men couldn't vote either and there were women that could, but it was associated with the draft. in discussions surrounding suffrage at the time). But I don't think that's right to take away women's vote. I was thinking tax exemptions or government financial support for this and that, like assistance with medical coverage for example. Things like that. After all it's kinda of in the countries best interested to ensure the pool of people it would have to draw on be healthy, capable, happy, better fit for duty as it were.

[myTake Owner]

True, good points :)

[Screamsgutter]

The responsibility to make ourselves available to fight for the country was the price men agreed to in order to receive the right to vote. Women weren't burdened with this responsibility and were given exemption from Selective Service, which makes one eligible for the draft (so much for the oppressive patriarchy). Also, if men do not sign up for Selective Service upon turning 18, they are ineligible for a host of government-funded privileges. Women get them upon turning 18 and sign up for nothing. See any inequality here?

[Anonymous]

If they arn't as good as men then just send in more. If you can vote for wars and politicians who send people to war, you can bloody well get killed like the rest of us.

Quit screaming about equality if you refuse to step up to being equal.

[myTake Owner]

"If they arn't as good as men then just send in more." Thereby wasting tons of money and energy that could've been spent on male conscripts well being and safety. Thus harming men.

"If you can vote for wars and politicians who send people to war,"

You're right! Women shouldn't be able to vote for wars if their bodies aren't being directly endangered by possibility of a draft!

Likewise, men shouldn't be able to vote anti-abortion laws & vote in anti-abortion politicians, because their bodies won't be directly endangered by it!

Therefore men shouldn't have the right to vote! /sarcasm

[Opinion Owner]

I agree men have no right to vote on laws concerning a woman's body.
If women endanger men in combat, deploy them separately.
If you can help start wars, you can go die in them.

[myTake Owner]

I will quote myself

"Making female-only troops would cost the military a lot of money for separate facilities.

Once in the battlefield, female soldiers cost the military more than male soldiers do. This goes beyond women costing the military in regards to gynecological aspects: Female soldiers experience injury at 6x the rate as male soldiers:https://www. sandiegouniontribune. com/military/sdut-marines-women-in-combat-task-force-results-2015sep10-htmlstory. html

That costs tons of money to the military, that could've been used to ensure male soldiers' well-being and safety and training, that's going down the drain. This harms and endangers male conscripts."

[myTake Owner]

"I agree men have no right to vote on laws concerning a woman's body."

But they do, though. They can vote for anti abortion politicians who outlaw abortion.

We would have to take away men's right to vote entirely.

[Opinion Owner]

You don't need to take away men's right to vote entirely; just re-organize things so that women solely govern themselves on matters pertaining to their own bodies. Your a throw out the baby with the bath water type huh?

Costs more to train women? So what. More incentive not to start wars.

Anybody not willing to go fight wars themselves have no place making decisions on war. That includes women, the elderly, the rich, clergy, and politicians.

[Screamsgutter]

Because that thing in a woman's stomach was created by two people, not just the woman.

[ChickenJo]

It should be everyone or no one. Sounds like someone doesn't want to register for fear of being drafted. If that's the case then suck it up. I don't want to and plenty of other men don't want to but we have to. A lot of this article is saying mixed groups won't work, such as how women can't move a 230 lb. man. Just have all female and all male groups. And if you're saying that women will get desk jobs you could easily change the training for women so that it's more fit to them being fit. Just my thoughts no need for hate.

[Anonymous]

Some good points above.

However there is one huge positive about having women in combat when it comes to Islamic terrorism. The Kurds understand this:

www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...d-Kurdish-fighters.html

Jihadist radicals believe they will not reach heaven if they are killed by a woman. I believe having a special female combat unit would be a very powerful psychological weapon to combat ISIS and related terrorist organizations.

The military should focus on effectiveness and safety first. It is no place for social engineering and political correctness. However in some situations (women fighting isis) it is well worth it.

[Only_Women_Bleed]

Good take. Of course women shouldn't be drafted to go into combat. This should be common sense for everyone.

The only reason some men say they should is because they're sticking it to all the women who cry for equality. They don't really think women should be drafted.

Men and women are not equal. We are different.

[TuMeManques]

Thank you!

[mikemx55]

You're looking at it with a completely wrong view of things. You tried to turn it around, like it's bad for us?

Here is your a real title for you:

"Drafting Men Not Only Harms and Endangers Men, But Also Women and Society", since they lose fathers, brothers, husbands, and families grow heart broken, etc, etc.

[cheapshotbob]

you know i think America has the only country where women are afraid to fight for there country. and im not even sure how that happens because i know enough abut history and old storys to know woman are just as skilled in combat and they never have to be asked or forced to join. they g where they mate goes. its called evotion thouhg by the looks of this topic women are trying t say there mate can go die alone because there not worth dieing for in return.

[Pyrofox]

They can still be in the military as not everything there is shooting the enemy. Also it would finally give those women who want respect a chance to earn it rather than keep blathering. There isn't much better way to gain respect from guys than to do better at our jobs than we do ourselves. Cause you can bet everthing that we will do the rest of the damage if you can just keep up or out do the standards.

[gotc147]

You are a sexist, mysoginistic, transphobic bigot!

How dare you say women are less capable than men! A woman can do anything a man can do! You're a sex - traitor and need to be locked up with the men you so obviously love so much!

God, GAG is supposed to be a safe space, how is Haye speech like this tolerated?

[Jan1ssary_]

Stupidest idea I have ever seen, women must stay at home and look after their kids and must be busy with raising them, they can ofcourse have a job and work too but not things like which requires pysiqual strenght.

Thats man's job to protect their homeland and do things which requires strenght.

[myTake Owner]

I actually agree.

[Bobbyhill1]

ever since feminism gender roles has died out, if you want gender roles to come back then you won't be to happy I guarantee that

[myTake Owner]

@Bobbyhill1 I agree with some gender roles and disagree with others

[Bobbyhill1]

explain

[Jan1ssary_]

@Bobbyhill1 The thing is world always had gender roles and it will still have. Both genders have diffrent abilities so thats how they should work with eachother. Men was always been symbol of strenght thats why it was always the man who did things which requires strenght it was even like that with homosaphiens, men were hunters and struggling with strong animals and they were supposed to bring food to their homes, while women were supposed to be at home and look after their kids, raise them and feed them.

You can't expect a creature which is pysiqually weaker than you to fight in the army.. its ridicilious. It will be just waste of time and will be bad for military aswell. The other reason is men and women are both like powder&fire you can't expect to have both of them in the serious place like Military it will cause a lot of problems.

[Anonymous]

"Drafting Women Not Only Harms & Endangers Women, But Also Men & Society As A Whole" some feminist bullshit in the title, and the whole article for that matter.

[myTake Owner]

Most male soldiers oppose allowing women into combat. www.voanews.com/.../3098999.html

But I guess those male soldiers are just a bunch of feminists.

[ClassicRocker]

Those are only special forces soliders... That's like 3% of soldiers lol