In 2021 there was an attempt to pass a bill that would include women in the mandate to register for selective service. How ever the conservative party blocked the bill preventing if from passing congress. Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who had slammed the proposal as “total, complete bullshit” on social media back in September.
In the spirit of gender equity do you think that women should have to register for the draft too?
Unquestionably, if the draft were reactivated, women would have to be eligible. In fact, given recent changes in civil rights laws and our understanding of the equal treatment of women, it would probably be unavoidable given the constitutional requirement for equal treatment under the laws.
In any event, it would be a revealing moment. Women cannot expect to be treated equally in law and then demand exemption from legal obligations.
Those in the women's movement who have been most vociferous about equal rights have been strangely silent on this issue - and by so being have undermined their own position. The argument is that women could not bear the physical demands, but this is belied by the fact that women already do serve in the military on a voluntary basis.
So, in that particular, it is like arguing with an earthquake. Saying that women cannot bear the requirements when they already do - and the military has set standards for such service - flies in the face of the obvious. Further, insofar as a woman would not be capable of serving because she could not meet the requirements, she would then be exempted as men are. Thus, the principle of equal treatment is upheld.
At the more fundamental of equal rights, the women's movement on this issue is very American. Ardent for rights, not so ardent for the responsibilities that attend those rights. Such responsibilities must, as they already do for men, mean a restriction on their freedoms in extremis.
My hunch - and it is only that - is that if the draft is reactivated (and not just registration as we now have) that it will be a crisis moment that splits the women's movement wide open. Bluffs will have been called, and women may come to see that for all the disadvantages that attended their social position, certain advantages also pertained.
In life as in politics, there are trade-offs to be made. You cannot call it principled if your aim is all of the rewards and none of the costs. Understandable perhaps, but not principled.
I think by all equal equal rights women deserve to play major sports like men. That includes being drafted to different teams throughout the sports. This is a movie that's one of my favorites called Juwanna Mann. Man got banned from playing professional basketball so he decided to become a woman and play women's professional basketball. Long story short, he understands that it wasn't about the money or the fame, it was about the bonding friendships among his female team players that caused them to win the championship and all the female players gave him a WNBA championship ring. There are five different leagues and five different sports that are major for women.
Those 5 sports leagues are: WFA aka Women's Football Alliance: Women's American Football (full contact) NPF aka National Pro Fastpitch: Fastpitch Baseball PHF aka Premier Hockey Federation: Hockey WNBA aka Women's National Basketball Association: Basketball NWSL aka National Women's Soccer League: Soccer
No disrespect, but women would have to literally trained their bodies and minds to take on major sports such as football, soccer, and basketball. Apparently on the Discovery Health Channel: Women also exhibited about 40 percent less upper-body strength and 33 percent less lower-body strength, on average, the study found. And a 2006 study in the same journal revealed that men had much stronger grips than women — the difference was so big that 90 percent of the women scored lower than 95 percent of the men. But as usual, they say action speaks louder than words.
Sure, no problem. But while this proposal may have failed, it was overshadowed by the ongoing question as to why we have a Selective Service in the first place. Our tax dollars are paying about $25M annually just to maintain a list as a contingency, the overwhelming majority of which goes to paying so that a small (and dormant) agency of government can sustain itself. The public just doesn't have the stomach for a draft, and even it felt the need to do so, it wouldn't have the ability to put all the working parts together and implement it in time to do any good. Since Vietnam, the nation has relied on volunteers and incentives (usually by throwing large signing bonuses as a carrot). As far as putting women on the list for Selective Service registration, sure, go right ahead. But be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. For both men and women, it isn't going to be la-di-da-de everybody, the services provide selective service with the numbers of vacancies they can't fill through voluntary enlistments. And where are the critical shortages going to be? In combat arms (primarily Infantry), where a large number of people don't want women. That's how military flesh-peddling works. The less risky service and support jobs will be the first specialties taken by volunteers.
That said, our draft system is outdated (though, of course, no one wants there to be another war to update it) and simply drafting all able-bodied people will cause domestic issues. Traditionally, men fought on the front lines while women cared for children and worked domestic jobs. I think that a new draft system should be in place that assigns different levels of physical capability to people regardless of gender or sex - level 1s would go to the front lines, level 2s would work domestic jobs, etc, and include exceptions for people already working in childcare sectors (but more oversight to prevent abuse). This way, all of the tasks carried out by men and women in historical war situations are still being tended to, but not on the basis of gender or sex. Hopefully, this will combat sexism and ableism as everyone will be able to help the nation.
(Do I think it's realistic to expect there to be no bias in assigning people to different levels of physical capability? No, but that's another issue entirely)
Basically I think if one gender is being drafted, all genders should be, but in a perfect world we should reform or remove the draft system altogether instead of tweaking it.
If we're gonna talk about the draft, it may help if people knew its historical context. Despite popular belief, most men couldn't vote (white landowners could, which was the minority) until 1918, when white non-landowners earned the right to vote with the requirement that all men ages 18-45 must register with Selective Service, which made them eligible to be drafted into the military. Women demanded equal voting rights and in 1920 were given a vote equal to men, except their voting right came with no requirement whatsoever and were even given exemption from being drafted for their protection (feminists like to spin this as oppression, as if anyone in their right mind would want to be drafted).
Men = voting right w/ national responsibility that could indeed be fatal. Women = voting right w/ no national (or any other) responsibility. Yet men and women had an equal vote. You sure about that? Well, it was according to the women of the time who marched for 'equal' voting rights it was. This is why some question womens' right to vote when discussions about the draft come up.
Thousands and thousands of men lost their lives over the course of three wars, all for that voting right.
What does that have to do with today? Well, men must still register with Selective Service when they turn eighteen, which makes them eligible for a military draft until the age of twenty-five, so that's seven years on the hook. Failure to do so makes them ineligible for federal benefits, and there are a lot of them. Also, there's a possible $250,000 fine and/or five years imprisonment.
Women turn eighteen and receive these same federal benefits automatically.
Sure, there hasn't been a draft since Vietnam, and sure, the draft was officially discontinued in 1973, but does this mean there won't be another some day? Who knows? That's why Selective Service exists... just in case.
And in case you're wondering if in my lifetime have I ever felt in danger of being drafted, the answer is yes. When the Gulf War began in 1991, I was a physically-fit twenty-one year old. My brother was sixteen, also physically fit. We had no idea how this war was gonna play out as far as severity and length, and the way it was being touted (at least by Saddam) as 'the mother of all wars'... yeah, I had some concerns. Let's just say my father, a Vietnam veteran of two tours between 1966-1969, wasn't glued to the news channels for weeks because he had two daughters. In fact, my generation (GenX) was the first since World War II not to have a draft.
Yes I do. Women wanted equality , and they need to be equal in every way that a man is. Including accountability for their actions. They need to be held to the same standards men are in both war and peacetime. Women can be very capable and tough war fighters. I train them to shoot all the time most are outstanding markswomen. It is hard to beat a powerful centered woman in loyalty. I love these types of women. I wish they were all so inclined. They face unique challenges pertaining to their gender. They have inserted themselves in every aspect of life. I want to see women start losing divorces , and their children when they leave a relationship because they got unhappy and decided they deserve better , just like what happens to men. I want to see women paying child support , and be held accountable just like men. I want to see women get the same prison time for the same crime. I want to see the courts become fair and not biased in favor of women. If they want equality let’s not half ass it. Let’s give it to them to try on for size. Powerful women will rise to this occasion. The weak ones will continue to mewl , and screech their double standards.
In theory it sounds great. But in practice it's a bad idea.
Firstly, most women can't pass the physical requirements, and in some cases those requirements have been lessened so women can join a fighting unit.
Then when it turns into a two-way shooting range, many women have a tendency to freak out. Granted there are women who can and would love to fight, but this is a small group of women.
With the last Iraq and Afghanistan deployments, it's wasn't unheard of for some women to get pregnant just before a deployment. This leaves her team that she trained with short when they went out.
And in a. battle, some men have a need to protect women at their expense, that could risks their mission and the whole safety of the platoon if men are being protective of their female friends.
So there are some extrodinary women soldiers out there that would be ever but as good, if not better than their male soliders. These women should be allowed to join and fight. Assuming all women are like these talented women is absurd.
And there is some men who would be really bad soldiers. Unfortunately unless a medical exemption, they will be sniper bait.
From what I have seen, the US draft really needs rewritten as it’s not really suitable for a modern conflict.
Yes women should be included, there are a huge number of jobs that pretty much any person with a brain is capable of. It’s not about generating front line (as if that exists all the time) troops, it’s about generating bodies so the military can move people around.
for example, pick any military camp on the US or overseas, it will have a guard force, it will have other support forces, these are trained military who would be better placed supporting the front and rear lines of any conflict.
Non experienced draft of both genders can be used to fill these spaces.
There would need to be higher levels of alert overseas, again the draft of both genders could be used to provide base protection and support, standing in a guard hut does not need a lot of strength or skill and is ideal for draft.
Ditto with a lot of internal security within the US to deal with internal attacks, ideal for draft of both guys n girls.
As far as I'm concerned, they must be recruited in forced form like males in the event of war and used in combat like men. We are no longer in a war system in which physical strength makes the difference, for at least a century firearms have been used that cancel physical strength. It was demonstrated by the Russians during WWI and WWII that women can serve in combat like men. The Kurds showed how women can be used like men in combat. Israelis have been showing this for decades. You also don't need a penis to be cannon fodder.
As for the minimum physical requirements, when there was conscription and I was drafted (in Italy) the requirements were extremely lower than they are today. Minimum height example was 1.50 m. Now the minimum height is 1.60m for women and 1.65m for men. There was no minimum strength requirement, now it's 40kg for men and 20kg for women. As there were no requirements for muscle mass or active metabolic mass that there are now. There was no minimum strength requirement, now it's 40kg for men and 20kg for women. As there were no requirements for muscle mass or active metabolic mass that there are now. The professional armies make selection, those of conscription do not. If there is cosscrizione the requirements collapse (I was rejected anyway, it was the last year of conscription).
The only good thing about being a female in the military is that you can sleep with some of those HUNKS some of those STUDS some of those CHADS, some of those ALPHAS. All while you get military benefits.
But other than that, as a female in the military you are to be belittled by the men. You are to be ridiculed by males, you are at risk of being violated and raped. You get yelled at every other day for no reason. You are forced to March like an idiot robot. If you don’t tie your hair the way they want it, they punish you for it. They punish you almost every single day for stupid sh! t. Some of those uniforms are beyond uncomfortable. The male soldiers are sexist as absolute f! You end up having a lot of drama with the females because they all want the same kind of males in there, and so they all cheat and sleep with each other. Make up is not allowed. Phones are not allowed. Once you enter you can’t get out until your contract ends.
(By the way I was never in the military. But I was in a little ROTC class in HighSchool , also I worked serious security jobs, and worked also alongside police officers, I have enough of an idea to know what it’s really like)
JROTC, not ROTC. ROTC is college. As for "serious security jobs, and worked also alongside police officers", that is NOT the same as being in the military. You are a civilian who knows nothing other than what the media puts out. JROTC does not mean shit. I was in the Young Marines AND JROTC before joining the military. First of all, JROTC is NOTHING like the real military. The Young Marines were closer than JROTC. Second, NEITHER one really gives you a great idea what the military is like. A security job (no matter what security job) is NOTHING like the military. Police Officers are the closest things to the military a civilian can ever get, but YOU were not a police officer. Basically, you have NO CREDIBILITY to claim you know what being in the military is like. Having an opinion about the military is one thing. Trying to list civilian jobs and a small amount of time in JROTC and using that as your credibility to try to claim you know what the military is like is another matter and VERY CLOSE to stolen valor territory.
@libsaretards sure can. So can I. I'm ARNGUS, but at least I've been through Army Basic Combat Training, Motor Transport AIT, and have done some training with RA soldiers. Your portrayal is not only grossly inaccurate, it paints a picture of you being part of the 10 per cent that takes up 90 per cent of a leader's time.
@SaoirseS I'm aware of your service. I served as well. I was pointing out that @emyywolf does not know as much as she claims to know. Simply working security and being around police officers does not make one an expert on the military. As for your comment about the 10% and 90%, not sure how that is related to anything I said.
@libsaretards It wasn't related to what you said, it was related to what she said. Quite a picture there, complaining about things that are extremely not difficult to do. Just do the job, it all falls in place, those who want to go through any form of service pushing on doors marked pull instantly become high maintenance and a leader's headache.
100%. Not equality if it doesn't happen. For people who say women shouldn't do it, pssh fuck off. It's not a right or left issue either so leave the political stupidity out. It's a question of basic logic, not dumb emotions. The military has many roles, especially these days, when tech may one day make actual human combat dramatically lower in terms of need. It's already taken place multiple times as drones AI and robots do things soldiers used to do and that won't slow down.
But anyways, if we want equality, then yah, women need to be in the draft. Not like it may happen too soon anyways, but ya never know. Meaning, you don't get picky who you take to send to fight. Why do you think the USSR and others beat the Nazis? Huge part of it was not caring as much who was drafted as putting so much effort into that takes time, money and resources that could be going towards winning. America, Britain, and the USSR all were more lenient on who could help in war efforts. Who won?
When it comes to war, take a lesson from Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood. “This is Briggs. No matter what happens, this territory must not fall. Every soldier here must be both strong and flexible. You must move as one cohesive unit, following me your leader in all things and at all times. In short, we do not have the luxury of discrimination here. The blood of several races flows within you, and with that comes varying strengths and values. You can see this country in a way that others cannot. I was born and raised in Amestris; in order to lead I need someone with your eyes. Now shut up and follow me, Miles! Understood?”
Now, this had to do more with race, but the point stands. From the Briggs top commander who's a female by the way.
I think people need to be less simple minded / stupid. Yes, it does sound good and fair right? Sure it does!! But there is just one problem:
Adding women to the military will only weaken our military. You need to understand how war works. Its not every man fighting for their own lives. A lot of teamwork is required. When you're a soldier, you need to be able to trust your fellow soldiers to back you up when you need it. Often times your life will be at the hands of your fellow comrades. If you can't trust your fellow soldier to back you up, you are just putting your own life at risk.
Female bodies are biologically not designed to fight. Women are designed to nest while men are designed to hunt. This is the truth regardless of if you like it or not. Female bodies are not designed to go to war or fight. They are typically weak, can't build muscle, lack muscle, reflexes are usually much slower than men's. I'd rather have a 16 yr old boy fight in the war than a 28 yr old woman. And if you have a female US soldier wrestling with a russian male solider, who do you think is likely going to win the fight?
Men have the innate ability to adapt / learn fighting faster than women simply because it is in the biological male nature to hunt. In other words, it comes more naturally to men than women.
Haha so what? Women go through painful births to continue the human population. You wouldn’t exist on earth without the work of females. So why should you deserve same rights?
Men don’t have to go through the painful birthing process. Men also do not do the overwhelming majority of the work raising the kids. So men shouldn’t get less rights than women. The world only exists due to the work of women. If women stopped their work birthing kids , you wouldn’t exist
im not from usa, but all i can say is that i think that for any role in the army- tests should be EXACTLY THE SAME. i know at least one state who has differnet tests for men and women for THE SAME UNIT. (in this case the tets for the women are generally easier, for example- you need to run X miles, in more time then the men). why is that stupid? coz if the men need to complete that distance faster, and if not, they will not be accepted to the unit, why would women be accepted? (i mean- in the end thats the same unit and the tasks are the same), so the test should be exactly the same and loiwering the minimun requirements (weather for men or women), will damdge the effectivness of the army. thats say, but its all in the name of fake euality. people forgot that the target of an army is to win wars, not to empower anyone (weather men or women). there are some things that in 90\95 percent of the cases) men does better then women, and there are some things that in 90\95 percent of the time women does better then men. thats how it is.
I’m sure terrorists would LOVE to take women as prisoners of war. You really don’t know what you’re asking for. War isn’t a fairy tale where everyone has equal rights. You need to be realistic when it comes to war, and the likely dangers women will face in the battle field. I wouldn’t want my daughter or niece going to war and possibly getting brutally gang raped and murdered by terrorists. Because that’s exactly what will happen whether you like it or not. That is war. Unless you are talking about intelligence and manual labor work only, then I have no problem. But putting women on the frontlines of battle would be a complete catastrophe. Studies have already shown men perform worse on the field when working with women. Women cannot keep up with the intense and rigorous training and combat scenarios. This goes back to basic biology. It’s the same argument with men in women’s sports. It’s not even a competition. The argument itself is dumb and all political bullshit.
The problem is that they've already been accepted into and are currently training in those roles. And it's unfortunate that you see your daughter or niece as more worthy of safety than, say, your son or nephew, who can also be just as brutally gang-raped and murdered by terrorists as women.
Woman in war is an oxymoron. They can supply the war. They can assist with cooking food, management, uptake, preparation. Maybe certain roles woman can take to prevent death.
Maybe in fairytale land. Unfortunately this is the real world. War is reality. Send a girl into the mma and see how that goes. They aren’t even trying to kill her.
@Screamsgutter thank God we have sane people who prevent dumb decisions from passing. Just look at Ukraine. The women left first with the men defending the country, and the women population vastly outnumber the men even before the invasion. They aren’t woke or dumb enough to not realize the obvious. Sorry, this isn’t Disney where we have Black Widows who speak 20 languages and acrobatically dominate and destroy everyone. Obviously you all haven’t stepped foot into any combat or even trained in any military format. Women can barely keep up with the worst men. It’s a complete joke. You would only be hurting the military by enlisting women in combat. Non-combat roles only.
Well, I assume the military's thirty thousand active duty female soldiers were tasked with defending the country just like the active duty male soldiers, however I can't say I've seen numbers on how many civilian women stayed behind.
Yes, if men go trough pregnancy/period pain too. Women and men are different. It is like expecting from fishes to fly. There are also many rape cases. American millitary is dangerous for women. You only would cause more rape cases since women would propably get raped at the war zones (by the enemy and by their own colleagues) I only would be ok if men go through birth/period pain and if the number of female rape victims are same as male rape victims. Equal rights, equal consequences. Men have an unfair biological advantage and millitary, drafting etc makes it equal
By the way the way I just made an irony. I personally think nobody should register for the draft and no man should be raped. I just show how men and women are different. They have physical differences. This is why men also get raped less since they are more likely to defend themself from women/men due to physical advantage.
This is an interesting one. As a veteran, I'm not sure. I honestly think that women should be barred from serving in combat roles for many good reasons. #1 of which is combat readiness and effectiveness takes a big hit with women in the unit. However, having them in other rolls is just fine. I guess i would be ok with them having to sign up for the draft. Not for "gender equality" reasons. Gender equality is a myth and lie. I would support it for "Gender equal opportunity" since opportunity is a real thing that can be achieved.
Back in 2003! War in Iraq (i am from Iraq) I worked with American troopers and there was two female soldiers, Monica and Jessie. They were strong, fast and funny and Jessie saved me from an IED once. They did as good as any other man did. Without her i wouldn't be here living a new live in Sweden all in one piece in peace
2
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
No. I dread the idea of childbirth, does that mean I can expect my partner to give birth to 50 percent of my future children. I dread bleeding every month. Can my partner also be expected to get a period. I have to take extra precautions for my safety due to females being at higher risks of assault and crime. No. So basically if females what equality you are saying they should have to do everything man does but there are many many many things a man doesn’t have to do physically that women do. shame on you,
Childbirth is optional as well as biological. Periods are biological and has nothing to do with men. Men are the victims of most violent crimes more than three times as often as women. For instance: 2020 male victims of homicide: 14,146. 2020 female victims of homicide: 3,573. Your arguments have nothing to do with equality.
@Screamsgutter you can’t get pregnant with out a man, and periods aren’t something you can just turn off, really the only way to get rid of them is to have a hysterectomy… and most doctors won’t even let young women who are childless and single get their tubes tied let alone having their whole uterus removed.
A lot of doctors won't let young men who are childless and single get a vasectomy. Some, but not all. Yeah, you need men for childbirth, but it's still optional regardless. It's not like women are required to partake in it even if they don't want to. As far as womens' menstrual cycle, all I can say is that it's part of nature and not a disability.
since the military in the US, for the most part is a business... rather than a service to the nation and it's people, I think that "duty" should be optional and also paid... regardless of gender as well
I mean I personally don’t think so because if it’s mandatory what if she’s pregnant or has kids who would take care of them? If everyone is fighting in a war what happens to the economy and businesses. Honestly women staying home during the war is what allowed us to be able to work in the first place.
Yes, there would need to be a quota concerning both men and women to register for the draft which would have to be met in order to satisfy gender equity. This is obviously not right; you would be a malicious fool if you argued it would be healthy for the individual or society. Gender equity is hysterically egregious and everyone advocating for it are losers. Although, there is always the chance that anyone who admits to supporting gender equity has failed to understand what it is, perhaps because they are mistaking equity as a synonym for equality.
Nobody should be required to enter What if someone hates or dislikes their country but they aren't gonna attack it they just don't wanna defend it if they can just go somewhere else like Canada or #1 rated place to live But especially young people You have to get a job when you are like 18-20 to get some money to move Cause moving isn't free But like whst if someone died in war that's like abuse from the government or something Like being forced to go somewhere and then die when you didn't wanna die That's just sad like I'd rather walk to go move somewhere else than be forced to go to war and dead
I wouldn't last in the battlefield. Though I wouldn't even fight, I would tell them that I refuse to fight/it's against my religion to kill people. They'll assign me to an easier less dangerous role. But to answer your question I don't think women should be drafted. We don't know what we are up against in war. Sadly, war is a place only for men.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
100%, yes. In the old days, we needed soldier with a lot of physical strength. It made a lot of sense to have male soldiers instead of female soldiers. Modern warfare still has a need for that, sure, but not nearly as much as it used to. Since most warfare is now waged online or with drones, there's really no excuse for women not to be up for the draft.
Yes! Absolutely yes! If for no other reason than to shut guys up when they try to pull that out as a reason “we will never be equal” it’s ridiculous! If there is a war, and they think my 5’1, 95lb ass belongs on the battlefield carrying a machine gun, and wearing 150lbs of body armor and supplies… FINE! My mother served in Afghanistan, and I have absolutely no problem serving my country after I graduate. I have no idea why we aren’t already signing up for selective service?
@Ryfyle I don’t care about the biological differences… do we both have trigger fingers? Look I’m on a college campus every day, and I see thousands of men, well “men”? Who are about the same size as me. If they can serv? Yes I’m aware that men have more dense muscle fibers, they have more fast-twitch muscle fibers. But do all those biological differences mean I can’t drive a truck? Drive a tank? Sit in the gunners seat on an attack helicopter? There are jobs for everyone in the service.
@Ryfyle then even more reason to have us in the ranks… politicians who send Americans to fight and die over shit that has nothing to do with us, maybe they’ll twice before sending us off to war?
@CrazyGirl2 apparently he's suggesting the womans gotta stay back and pop out babies (boys, obvi) so they can hurry up and fight the wars...
which is hilarious for at least a couple reasons. war ain't boots in the ground / in the trenches shiz like back in the day. and good god dang if our murican ladies are gonna reproduce in a way to keep up with china.
@nachosaresexy Yeah, I understood that. Which is why I suggested that with women in the service, in forward operating bases, and on front line combat, the politicians might just think twice and make a more sound diplomatic decision. Rather than risk a generation of women!
@CrazyGirl2 yup, makes sense. my own wild opinion is we stop fight decade long pointless wars but there's way too much money invested. murrrica has so much invested in weaponry, military gear/intelligence equipment/etc. that it's an immovable object at this point, so instead dumb murrrican civilians argue about who is best fitted to send into the next war.
@CrazyGirl2 whoa... victim complex, slow down. read back through the last few comments and you'll see nothing was directed at you, unless indirectly because my opinions differ from your own about the way murrrica has been fighting pointless wars for literal decades.
... if you think middle east wars during our lifetimes were warranted/productive, then yeah i'd say that's dumb, and the "pro-murrrica" jingoism that supports that trash is definitely super dumb. so maybe you're reading it right.
@nachosaresexy “ so instead dumb murrrican civilians argue about who is best fitted to send into the next war.” In my case I say women in equal number, so politicians stop and think! And the other guy disagreed… seems pretty much you precisely aimed that comment (at least 50% of it) at me. As for Victim Complex, you might want to understand just exactly what a person has been through in their life, and how they handle that every day before you label them with a something like victim complex, for merely accurately spotting an insulting phrase w/in ur post.
@nachosaresexy You are the biggest fucking moron on this site and it is painfully you clear do not know jack fuck what you are talking about. @CrazyGirl2 "then even more reason to have us in the ranks… politicians who send Americans to fight and die over shit that has nothing to do with us, maybe they’ll twice before sending us off to war?"
They won't think twice due in part that War makes money. Nothing you say and do will stop that. I have seen this shit going on before you were born and the Military Industrial Complex is fuck King of Congress. You fucking Zoomers are the most braindead morons ever to walk the earth.
@nachosaresexy Wars are all about holding ground and you can't do that with Drones in the sky. Secondly, China is currently a toxic cesspit with far too many men then women and they can thank the one child policy for that one. They are one war or civil disaster away from breaking apart into a warring states scenario. A Unified China never lasts, they always breakdown into warring kingdoms eventualy. Biden's puppeteers are really fucking itching for a war with Russia right now, it's 2003 all over again but without the fun.
@Ryfyle not sure how i'm supposed to respond to "boots on the ground" vs. "drones in the sky" guy as some sort of analysis of international conflict. you're a deep thinker.
... admittedly that was a lazy last comment. my point from beginning is murrrica has long shifted away from war as a form of sovereignty / holding ground / etc etc to a massive homegrown war machine that funds parasitic war companies, rinse & repeat.
@Ryfyle the beautiful thing about the MURRRICAN WAR MACHINE™ is that repubs & dems will perpetually finger point so that nothing productive might ever happen.
... all the while, the ones at the top of both parties laughing all the way to the bank, while idiot minions clinging to a political ideology are the the boots on the ground, right at home.
on another tangent, Donny J is a complete tool but his tactic of "bone spurs!" while faced with going to war and then his 2nd hand QB take of "yeah i told y'all the middle east wars were bad, very baaaad" ... it's faker than his orange face but his chutzpah to put that garbage out there with a straight face AND to get peeps to buy into it... embarrassingly impressive work by the goofy fella.
No. Definitely not. Our bodies are not made for combat. I’m a weightlifter and I have a lot of muscle but is truffle lifting a 50lb bag and I can’t to a pull up. Some women can get pretty strong but they need constant protein intake, restricted calories, and constant weightlifting. We don’t build muscle and strength like men since we lack the testosterone. Caregivers shouldn’t be fighters
Your brains also aren't meant for leadership then. You don't deserve the same rights as men if you don't have the same responsibilities. Crazy how sexist and idiotic you women behave. It's just pathetic. Little kid.
I do not think anybody should be drafted. If not enough people will volunteer to fight a war it is not a war we should fight. People say "well what if we were invaded" if that happened everybody would volunteer.
However I will say, I do not think fighting in a war is good for me or that I would be good for doing it, I think it would be better for everybody if I did something else instead like maybe worked in a factory making airplanes or whatever.
Yeah I think so, too. Guys have to register to have the right to vote and women don't. I'd call that legally-codified inequality. Like socially-generated inequality is one thing. Having it written into law is using politics to actively pursue inequality.
Mind you, some of the roles we would be drafted into would probably be different. But like if it does come to a draft, I really don't think we'd be nitpicking about who is doing what.
Actually you are talking about gender equality. Gender equity would favour them not being drafted due to them having a psychology and brain wiring that is more inclined to domestic affairs. Men are built for war due to the ability to compartmentalize emotions and downright supress them when needed and it not having a disastrous effect on their psyches. So in the name of gender EQUITY no, they should not be required to register in the draft.
Not have disastrous effects on their psyches... do you live under a rock or have you just never heard of VA or PTSD? Women have the ability to be excellent marksmen, make great police officers, stay cool under pressure, be fantastic pilots, have higher pain tolerance than men and are better at multitasking. Women have been fighting in wars for thousands of years. Limiting half the population because they have a vagina is ludicrous.
@Subarugirl Women having higher pain tolerance than men isn't true. Men have both higher pain tolerance and a higher pain threshold. Also no one disputed women being good marksmen nor good police officers.
This is a very political question, but I would try to answer it properly. If women think that they are equal to men (NOT) Women are Great in certain things that men completely suck at and incapable of doing, while men are Great in other things that women suck at and incapable of doing. So, if men and women are equal, it is only right and fair to go to war and die together, no matter how horrible and painful that death would be.
Because despite what beer-chuggin, MAGA hat rocking yee-haws would have you believe.. the military has no desire to spend any time on people who don't WANT to be there.
Thanks for reminding me of that. I suspect my dad signed me up for it when I was a teenager without my consent so I'mma look into remedying that right now.
No. There is no place for women outside of supply, transport, nursing and communication roles well back from the front. Women are physically and psychologically incapable of performing combat roles. If women are set to war, they and anyone with them will die. (former officer, Australian Army Armoured Corps)
If the US would ever be invaded. It would not like having the men go fight the enemy like a nine to five job. Then come home to their wives that took care of the children and had dinner prepared. So if anyone is abled bodied. Boot camp would be a good experience for everyone!
No shit... if the next draft was anything like the least, Single people with out children would be drafted first, then married people without children. More likely than not it would probably look like one adult per household
The average age for an American to get married is really close to about 26 years old. Also the average age for women having her first child is about 26 in the united states. That leaves the majority of Americans ages 18 to 25 unmarried and childless... which is probably why men with in that age range are required to register for selective service...
Actually the ages 18-25 haven't changed since the 1973 dissolution of the then-active draft, back when people were getting married and having kids much earlier than 26 years old, so people between those ages being unmarried and childless today is a coincidence.
Yep, but married men who didn't have children weren't, at least after August 1965. Prior to then, married men with or without children were exempt. I mean, getting married and starting families as early as eighteen was easily more common than today. Needless to say, however, life didn't work out that way for everyone. The number of men drafted for Vietnam shows that there was a surplus of men who weren't exempt i. e. married with children.
In 1966, my parents were a couple, but weren't married yet. Prior to Aug. 1965, they could've gotten married and he'd have been exempt, but the drafting parameters had changed by then.
- While pertinent to the topic only in a peripheral sense, here's an optional read on how the war affected my parents' lives: With the draft then-currently active, my 'ol man, at the time twenty and childless, saw the writing on the wall and enlisted before he could be drafted, which allowed him at least some sort of choice in his military destination, which for him was the CBs, or Construction Battalion. His strengths were in construction/building (as a future heavy equipment operator, it's what he did afterward until he retired) as well as automotive (he was a mechanic working for his father when he enlisted). He came home in early 1968, married my mother, and was sent back for a second tour, which he returned from in May 1969, luckily in one physical/mental piece. And to celebrate their second reunion, they... well, let's just say I was born in Feb. 1970. :)
I don't think anyone should be forced to register for the draft regardless of gender. However, if women want to voluntarily register for the draft then they should be given that opportunity.
To volunteer is to enlist. Drafting is involuntary and the military doesn't care if you agree to it or not. They'll see which draftees can be exempt due to medical/physical conditions/disabilities and send those who pass to bootcamp. Remember, women have lowered/alternate physical requirements so they can pass much easier, and don't think they can't spot freeloaders.
In the scenario's end, however, men will still have little-to-no choice while women will receive their luxury of 'opportunity'. Ladies, what's your secret? How do you convince yourselves with a clear conscious that we - men and women - are somehow equal citizens with an equal vote in this country?
Sometimes I'll ask women this question should this topic arise: if you had a son and daughter that were to turn eighteen in, say, the next year or two (it works way better if they actually do have a son and daughter old enough and close in age), how would you explain to your son that when he turns eighteen he''ll have to register for military draft eligibility lasting until his 26th birthday in order to receive federal benefits and, depending on the state, possibly to vote, attend college and/or get a driver's license, then turn to your daughter and explain to her when she turns eighteen she'll receive those same federal benefits, rights and privileges automatically while registering for nothing? Then tell them that they're equal citizens.
@Screamsgutter You know they tried to pass a bill that would require women to register for selective service as well but the democratic party blocked it from passing. This should be all or nothing, every US citizen between the ages of 18 and 25 should be requited to register for selective service, or no one should. So once the conservative party decides to get on board with that this shouldn't be an issue. The reality of this though is that there is no draft, and there hasn't been since 1973 which was a year before women gained the legal right to obtain their own line of credit regardless of sex. Selective service registration is not the same as a draft, it's paperwork that takes about 15 minuets to fill out, and currently only about 90% of boys between the ages of 18 and 25 even register to begin with.
Yes, it should be all or nothing. Unfortunately, to advocate for nothing i. e. abolishing Selective Service Registration/the draft is advocating for eliminating what boils down to the country's last line of 'emergency defense', which is reserved in the event that our current non-wartime volunteer/enlistment method falls short - honestly, it's a ludicrous idea/solution considering where the US ranks on the global influence/immersion food chain.
The less popular 'all' scenario would only mean that women, like men, would register at 18 years old with Selective Service, and this only makes them ELIGIBLE to be drafted until they're 25 - the same civic duty/responsibility that men can't wait to sign up for. Just gotta hope that a conflict large enough to warrant the draft's reenactment doesn't arise... ever.
Do you know why women applying for their own credit line back then were denied? Blame it on the vast commonplace of single-income households where men/husbands were sole providers for the family (which was still very prevalent going into the early-mid '80s). Now, why would a credit company give a line of credit to an applicant who can't claim any reportable personal income? A woman's income was her husband's income, who himself likely had a credit line established and if she had a credit card, it was a duplicate of his. By the way, no one in the US has a 'right' to a line of credit - it's a privilege allowed by private credit companies that can be modified or cancelled at their discretion. Privileges have a tendency to be mistaken for rights often.
Only 90% of boys are registering to begin with. Only 90%? Sigh. Here we have the vast majority of men continually signing up for a duty none of them want anything to do with, yet it's phrased like the opposite is happening, as if 90% of men are instead refusing to sign up. Guys... nothing we do is good enough.
Yep, I begrudgingly completed that paperwork once upon a time, and shortly afterward as a receipt I received in the mail my lovely 'notice of registration', which is the folded, laminated sheet of paper sitting in front of me as we speak telling me my ass isn't entirely mine for the next seven years.
@Screamsgutter and have you ever been drafted? No? The take a seat and stop whining. You had to sign a piece of people and can’t tell the difference between registration and an actual draft.
But you never had to worry about it... ever. Yet me and a shit load of other guys between the ages of 18-25 sure did come 1991 when The Gulf War rolled around - sure, we pretty much knew it depended on the magnitude of the conflict if the draft would be reenacted, but who knew? Obviously it was all the news stations focused on. Saddam was touting the stupid thing as the 'mother of all wars' and was all happy about his Republican Guard. Meanwhile in our minds, considering the men of every generation since WW2 had gotten stuck with an active draft, the possibility of another didn't seem like such a longshot.
Yeah, it became apparent over time that the conflict ultimately wasn't going to and didn't warrant a draft... but it's a time span I could've done without. My father could've spent that time better as well, and if he had two daughters he likely would have, but since he had two sons in basic age range (me = 21. My bro = 16 and only two years from aging right into the war should it escalate/last), it was hard for him to relax since he'd already been there and done that. My mother? She becomes a nervous wreck when I mention I have a dentist appointment.
Yeah, I had to skip on down to the post office specifically to lob myself onto the seven-year hook that is Selective Service registration - we just called it signing up for the draft - to claim my federal benefits and whatever other allowances that would've been withheld if I hadn't. I told the lady behind the counter what I was there for. She couldn't have summed up my mood any better when she let out a sigh and murmured 'lucky you'.
So, what was your experience having not to register for anything to automatically receive your federal benefits and other allowances that were in no danger of being withheld from you?
Did you even read my post? No, I haven't, but I had to sign up at eighteen to receive federal benefits that you as a women received automatically without registering for anything when you turned eighteen. That's my point.
Also, if a woman hasn't given/can't give birth for whatever reason, I don't discount her opinions about childbirth because of it.
Yeah, probably because the male politicians have wives, daughters and other female family members/friends who (at the least) wouldn't be too happy and (at the most) would ostracize the guy if he supported it, especially if his daughters/family members were close to eighteen.
On top of that, there are two million more women in the US than men, which to a politician is a possible two million votes that he'd likely lose if he ran it as part of his platform for reelection. Do you think alienating the majority voting group - women - would be wise?
It's not even just male politicians. It's highly doubtful a female politician would support it either.
@Gutterscream Yet it was the men of the conservative party who blocked the bill... Everyone or no one should have to register selective service. Then again there hasn't been a draft in 70 years, so it really sounds like you are complaining about 15 minutes of paperwork and then justify why women aren't required to fill it out. Which side are you on, do you want women to have to register too or not?
No, I'm complaining about one group of people (men) having stipulations and requirements attached to being eligible for certain benefits which become available when they reach adult age as citizens while the second group (women) gets those same benefits when they, a citizens, reach adult age and automatically without any stipulations or requirements whatsoever.
Yes, register. Just as a lot of people like to assume, the likeliness of a draft happening is improbable to say the least, so if that's that case, what's the harm in registering? Isn't that what men are told when we bitch about it?
@Gutterscream Well they tried to set it up so that women would have to register as well, the democrats blocked the bill. It's not right, just like taking medical autonomy away from women isn't right, but there are people on both sides trying to correct the issue. Then again there are plenty of men who think it is totally fine and take pride is doing their part for their country.
It's not about pride. It's about fairness as 'equal' citizens, both legally and socially.
Just like I said somewhere earlier, tell one group that to receive certain rights and/or privileges, they are required to bear responsibilities that could possibly put them in harm's way for a certain length of time, then tell another group they aren't required to bear the same (or any) responsibilities that the other group does, yet will receive those same rights and/or privileges anyway.
Then tell them they're equal citizens. They're not.
@Gutterscream Exactly, and both sexes face inequities. It's going to take more than 10 years to get the US military on the same page, after hundreds of years of segregation. At this point women cannot register for selective service even if they want to.
Sigh. In this thread, we're talking about this particular inequality, not several inequalities that both sexes face. Instead of just answering yes or no when asked if they think it's fair or not, women almost always try countering the argument with one or more inequalities they face (top counter: childbirth, which doesn't compare since it isn't a legislature-backed civic duty/responsibility, is optional/a choice, and is without legal consequence should they choose not to have children). It's like pulling teeth to get them to simply admit it's unfair and/or unequal, if they ever do.
The fact the argument always seems to get set up to make women think their missing out (i. e. 'poor women can't sign up to be drafted') and are being deprived of a 'privilege' that men have 'enjoyed' for the last hundred or so years is so disingenuous and absurd it's actually an insult. It basically implies that women are stupid enough to actually believe they are victims i. e. being oppressed in this scenario.
Let's face it. Women easily say they want equality among the sexes as US citizens, and when they feel something is unequal against them, you can bet your bottom dollar everyone's gonna hear about it. However, when an unequal scenario instead benefits women, notice they won't make a sound about it and hate when it's brought up. I know this from experience.
No man will tell you it's a privilege to have to register, and a draft reenactment would be a nightmare-come-true. Really, how many women in this country do you think would be willing to register, especially those between 18-25 or younger? I haven't met one yet. But if women had to register and men didn't, men would never. hear. the. end. of. it.
@Gutterscream Right and with this particular inequity, that has been in place for about 250 years is going to take more than just 10 years to change, and people are trying to change it. In fact people did try to change it. And you are forgetting that for millions of women there are legal consequences if they decide they do not want to have a child. Between 2006 and 2020, there have been more than 1,300 cases in which women were arrested, detained or prosecuted in legal actions related to their pregnancies.
Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who had slammed the proposal as “total, complete bullshit” on social media back in September...
hmm i was thinking of maybe having it required for women to work in the military not necessarily as a soldier, but to at least be beneficial in some way (for example they could be nurses or something like that)
I don’t believe there should be a draft in the first place, but with a draft sure, both men and women. But only one parent per family with children should be drafted- someone needs to stay and take care of the kids. I suppose a grandparent could raise them during a war, but suppose both parents died in combat…poor kids. 🥺
@RandomDude2111412 I guess when they desperately need service members then kids can stay with the grandparents. Older people can stay behind to keep the country running, I don't know, what do you suggest?
@RandomDude2111412 😳I have never had an abortion and I never would do that. Why would you assume that just because I said one parent should stay with their kid or perhaps grandparents if possible? It was just an idea, I don’t have any answers, I thought this was a discussion. Also maybe if a family doesn’t have kids yet then both parents should go, because why not?
@grega239 Most likely. But what do you suggest for families with children? Should the kids be sent to an boarding school type place? The only thing I can think of are grandparents, but if you don’t have any around then I don’t know where the kids go when both parents are gone.
In my opinion women shouldn't have too, in fact neither should me. Neither men nor woman should have to fight in a rich man's war. If the draft is really has to stay, then it needs to be limited to congress members children, then maybe they won't be so quick to start another war.
They should, and be sent in combat too, same as men. If you want equality, you can't pick and choose, it's the whole package, including what you don't like. It's funny that I see so many women saying, now that we're talking about drafting them too, that "no one should be drafted", when none of them were saying a thing when only men had to register for it.
Because the one who will actually make it a law, and make women register, will be vilified and cursed until the end of times. No one wants to do it, despite it being obviously against the equality brandished 10 times a day.
Okay then, are you going to give birth, get a period, be at high risk of assault and dangerous crime and have to adjust where you live and your lifestyle to accommodate that. I could keep going on. Females wanting equality is about not being treated as inferior, it’s not about, you need to take on all the crap men have to take on, but men don’t have to take on the crap females take on.
@Explorer91 Childbirth is optional and not required of women. Women have been managing their periods throughout time despite some pretty horrid conditions, so it's nothing new. It's also not a disability. Men are almost four times more likely to be victims of most assault and dangerous crimes than women: 2020 male victims of homicide: 14,146. 2020 female victims of homicide: 3,573. So what other crap to women have to take on?
100% yes. And until they do this gender equality stuff is all jusf a joke in my eyes. Sure men and women deserve the same rights go be paid the same etc. But if we aren't both signing up to be drafted. We ain't equal. Plain and simple.
I know they've blocked quite a few that had popular support. My question is, is making the draft mandatory for women the same way it is for men? Is that a popular bill?
Yeah and the bill didn't pass. Is that motion popular among women? You for example. Are you excited about being equal to men in that at the age of 18 it would be mandatory for you to register with selective services. And if you don't it can get you into legal trouble?
Its refreshing that you feel that way. Something tells me a lot of other women don't agree with you though. It would be great if they did. I just am not very optimistic about it.
I think it would be good. However most people in the country would be in service (in tems of having a lot of people in it and less people in their homes taking care of their family or their resources.). So I would change a little bit the way of service duty for women and men
equity is a flawed concept. i think the left is pushing equity because equal opportunity didn't work. Are we going to have short slow men in the NBA? We can never have equity when some people have more talent and try harder than others. It seems totally asinine to me.
What's not fair? Both men and women can join the military, there's no discrimination. Men can be subject to a draft because the draft is to get soldiers ready for combat, which the military still has some limitations on for women in combat.
we already have children in the military... when was the last time you talked to an 18 or 19 year old. These kids can't even buy a drink yet bet signing 4 years of their lives away to the military, and there are plenty of older people in the military already.
Sure, why not? Aren't we pushing for equality? Well, equality isn't always pretty, there are good things and bad things about equality. In the unlikely case a war starts, the US has already a huge military, the country will be fine at the beginning.
Either make it mandatory for both genders or abolish the draft altogether, it's unfair the current system.
Hell no. Women soldiers are a waste. Why do we need female soldiers? Men fight wars. Male athletes destroy women in every athletic event. Why would you want female soldiers fighting men to defend the country? Dumbest idea ever.
Yes, and they are a waste. A political thing. We have to house them separately, train them separately, lower the performance standards... more barracks to house them... hey, slower, weaker, less explosive, smaller, lighter soldiers... what a great idea.
To your point... let's draft them so we have more of them. Let's add more estrogen, emotional, 5'3"...5'5"...110 pound...140 pound... soldiers that suck at all the physical requirements... can hardly do normal pushups... cannot do any or hardly do any pushups... let's fill our ranks with those against 5'8"...6'3"...170 pound...210 pound, testosterone filled soldiers who are fast, powerful, can do hundreds of push ups, gobs of pull ups, they can defeat other soldiers in hand to hand combat, can carry each other off the field... etc.
Let's WEAKEN the army and marines by adding more LADY soldiers. I know all the Hollywood movies have girl soldiers beating up a room full of men (Black Widow... etc.) but in the real world... in reality. 1,000 men vs 1,000 women in close quarter fighting... even hand to hand fighting for your life... the women will be destroyed.
It is politics and has zero to do with making the best possible lethal force that can defend the country.
By your remarks... you believe more in meaningless, political gestures than you do creating and maintaining the best possible force. If you believe you can add thousands of girl soldiers to the army/marines and have the extra cost of housing them separately and lowering all the standards for them and not weaken our military than your goals and agenda differ with the purpose of the military. To defend us and keep us safe.
This is like saying that every time there is a home invasion... the wife should go fight the intruder instead of the husband... and the results will be the same or better than if the husband went.
Yes with modern weapons you don't need the male strength. We will soon only have robotic warfare so who is sitting behind the monitors doesn't really matter.
The answer is simple YES , if there is to be a draft , all in the required age group must enter , no ifs no buts , unless medically discharged , gender has nothing to do with it.
yeah any war that occurs from now till January of 2025 when Biden withdraws (cause I doubt he's gonna get reelected) should be fought by women alright since women made up his popular votes and therefore should suffer the consequences of their vote
I've always said that since there are approx. two million more women than men in this country, women could vote for a total warmonger to be elect, who would likely/could declare war and possibly reinstate the all-male draft, and do this knowing full well it won't be them being drafted to fight for the country, a responsibility that men are required to shoulder and women are exempt from.
@Screamsgutter indeed! also a lot of women claim that they are the stronger sex just because supposedly they have to endure a lot of pain when they're giving birth.
but hell if that's the case then taking a bullet should be nothing to them
That argument isn't new, nor is the fact that until men can give birth, it'll never be quantifiable. Kinda like the chances of women experiencing testicular cancer. Biology keeps secrets from both genders.
There is no draft where I live, and that's the way it should stay. No one should be forced into joining an organisation the primary purpose of which is to kill others. That's wrong.
@Frauensindobjekte Australia does not have conscription. That's just a fact, and I know this because I grew up here, I've been here my entire life, and no one I've ever known was ever drafted, so "Lol" yourself!
Women will only weaker the army majorly and looks like America's the only one who's stupid and sensitive enough to draft women in the army so it's a win-win anyway.
There have already been 2 women soldiers who have declared ready but their physical teats were lowered so damn low that male boys can beat those female adults yet they are now part of the army because "equality" lmao you women are a joke.
Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who had slammed the proposal as “total, complete bullshit” on social media back in September.
A) do you think a currently-elected male politician is gonna give the thumbs up to a bill that forces young women to register to be drafted when it will in all likelihood ostracize him from his own female family members/friends who aren't the least bit thrilled with the idea?
B) Do I have to go out on much of a limb to assume that, y'know, the majority of women wouldn't likely perceive legislature that advocates making young women draftable into the military as something to improve their lives. Now, women outnumber men in this country by about two million, which to a politician is a possible two million more votes. That being said, what male politician would willfully support such a bill and not be absolutely aware that he's committing political suicide by seriously alienating the majority vote?
@Gutterscream the point i'm making is not that we should draft women into military. the point i'm making is that men and women are different and should have different rights and obligations that fit their differences instead of perpetuating the delusion that women and men are equal.
I agree with you, I was just explaining the logic as to why male politicians would block such a bill. I give the same argument for voting rights. Yes, men gave most women the right to vote without the same (or any) responsibility that men were burdened with for the same right. Most male politicians, especially back in 1920, were, y'know, married and probably had daughters. So they were between a rock and a hard place:
- don't give women the vote and never hear the end of it from their own female family members and friends. - give them the vote with the same responsibility as men and never hear the end of it from the same. - just give them the vote to make them happy while ensuring for the time being his life doesn't become a living hell.
Well, they went with door number three.
So much for all those courageous women fighting for 'equal' voting rights to men. "Hey, we got the vote without the lousy responsibility men got stuck with. Sounds equal, right? Go us".
@Subarugirl Oh yeah... I am retired military and I served with a lot of tremendous women. Some of my very best bosses where women, and I would not of progressed without out their mentorship, leadership and support.
So I firmly believe at women are fully capability, have a lot to offer, and their contributions have made the military a stronger and more capable fighting force.
I'm not for that, but I have heard suggestions about mandatory "government service" of some kind being suggested. That's problematic too, especially with our government! LOL
No, because that would make the US Army weak. We're the best Army in the world for a reason. Equality doesn't matter when we're talking about defending ourselves.
It’s against my religious beliefs. There’s a lot of Christians that don’t believe the wars started in America are biblical. It has to be last result and power and greed have to have no influence in it.
No, I will meet any official who tries to kidnapp my wife, child, mother, sister, cousin... Whoever with a blast a musket as to cause permanent and irreversible international damage.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
