Hopefully this will be stopped. But knowing the tyrannical nature of our court system, this has the potential to deal quite the blow to the male only draft system.
Sadly, I agree it’s unlikely to be overturned. With only one of the 16 GOP 2016 Presidential candidates opposing women in combat, I doubt anyone will even try. Not to mention, the fact that it was a so called “men’s rights” group involved with the lawsuit, shows the sad view of men as protectors.
This is one I don’t think we have the option to cave to.
“Men’s Rights Activism” is just another flavor of feminism.
Women might get drafted. Zero women will unwillingly go into combat.
Yep. Precisely the same presuppositions.
I’m having trouble working up much indignation over this. I’m against women being drafted or fighting in combat, but it is no surprise it has come to this. Decades ago I remember feminism being sold to women as a matter of choice – if a woman wanted to sign onto the new system and use the force of law and judicial decisions to horn her way into any and all historically male occupations, she could do so, but if instead she wanted to stay under the old system with men caring for her and protecting her, then she had that choice, too, and in fact, women were offered the option of switching back and forth between systems as desired to gain the maximum benefit. Well, now we see all that talk about choice was a lie. If you insist on becoming captain of the ship, then no lifeboats for you when it hits an iceberg. Women were foolish to think that it could have turned out any other way.
But practically speaking, the U.S. will never draft women to fight a serious war because women are ineffective soldiers. Even the Israeli military doesn’t put women into real combat situations. The only reason we have women in combat now is because the U.S. is just playing at war. Our nation is under no real threat, so we can afford to use the military to engage in all kinds of social engineering, ideological crusading, and funneling money to crony contractors with no concern for actually defeating the enemy.
This is only one of what will probably be hundreds of reasons that will be found to exclude drafted women from genuine combat roles. Everyone knows that essentially zero women can meet even basic combat fitness and endurance tests. If real combat is a likelihood, they will just flunk women for those roles and go back to making them supply clerks and such.
You may be right, but people’s ideologies affect their actions, and many ineffective beliefs about warfare or war situations have had horrible effects. For example, Hitler broke Germany’s truce with Russia, against the advice of his generals, because of his ideology, which had disastrous consequences. I’m not convinced secular progressives wouldn’t do the same by drafting wo.en into combat. After all, they’ve already degraded the fighting force by putting women in combat positions, no matter the consequences.
@josiah.alldredge As the father of 4 girls, I definitely pray we don’t cave.
This example is inapposite because Hitler had previously gone against the advice of his generals and achieved astounding success. Furthermore, it’s been argued that Moscow could have been captured before the coming of winter had Army Group Center not diverted forces to complete the encirclement of Kiev.
Yes, it’s true that the secular progressives have degraded the fighting force by putting women into combat positions, but as I said above, that’s because we aren’t fighting to win so they don’t care about the consequences. But in a serious war, there’s no substitute for victory, and it will quickly become apparent that women in combat forces are a big negative.
The point is that those actions were driven by ideology, not practicality. Some succeeded, some did not. Those actions that didn’t succeed couldn’t be backed away from (i.e. Stalingrad) because to do so would be to admit the ideology was wrong in the first place. This seems to be true with secular progressive ideology as well. No matter the actual, practical, real time consequences, “progess” (heavy on the scare quotes) can’t be walked back. They only blame others, double down, and carry on. Actual defeat is probably the only thing that would work to make them admit they were wrong, and even then I have my doubts.
By this do you mean that lots of women will die, pregnant and all, and men will die who otherwise won’t have to? If so, that’s to hard a lesson to learn. I believe we should fight this beginning in the pulpit.
Zero pregnant women will be sent into combat. Pregnancy is the simplest way for female members of the military to avoid deployment today, even in very much non-combat jobs. When I plug “how to avoid deployment” into my search engine, the second hit is a link titled, “i need to get pregnant right now to avoid deployment”. The thread is enlightening and depressing. Have no doubt: in the event that a woman makes it all the way to the front lines, all she will have to do in order to opt out will be to get knocked up.
But if women are made to register for the draft, my prediction is that a draft will never be called.
You all seem to forget the description of the women warriors of the king that captured Cudjo Lewis.
Dey got de women soldiers too and dey run wid de big knife and dey ketch people and saw de neck wid de knife den dey twist de head so it come off de neck. Oh Lor’, Lor’! I see de people gittee kill so fast!
Akia’on say to de Dahomey king, “Why don’t you fight lak men? Why you doan come in de daytime so dat we could meet face to face?”
De king of Dahomey doan say no mo’. One woman soldier step up wid de machete and chop off de head of de king, and pick it off de ground and hand it to de king of Dahomey.
When you have an effeminate, immoral power, with overwhelming force, women make very effective psychological weapons.
As I’m sure you know, there’s a period between when women get pregnant and when they realize they’re pregnant. Considering what happens when you put large groups of men and women together, this means there would be more than a few pregnant women fighting at any given time in this scenario.
Sadly, you’re right. And it’s already happening.
The article refers to at least 3 women who had miscarriages caused by being deployed pregnant.
If you have daughters or are a woman of draftable age, make sure you’re in a church/denomination that has a clear statement about women serving in the military so you at least can make a plausible claim to religious exemption.
Let’s think about this sensibly. Practically speaking, everything I’ve read on the matter indicates that women simply don’t have the physical ability to bear the load of the combat soldier, and that 1 in 10,000 woman who can bear the load isn’t worth incorporating into a unit because her presence degrades morale and unity. This is indisputable to any officer not seeking to curry favor with the politicians. But if this is so indisputable, why do we have women in the military? It’s because our society (and a large part of the church included) has decided to indulge the fantasy of certain women (and many more women through vicarious pleasure) that they can play soldier. And why would we do this? It’s because we don’t really care about winning wars, and in fact, we don’t need to win any wars that we are fighting right now. So it will only be a small number of women dying, and that at their own hand, though unfortunately taking a small number of men with them. There will never be lots of women dying because that would only occur in a war that would be necessary to win, and if winning the war actually matters, they’re not going to send women into combat – it would be more effective to send in 16-year-old boys or a fifty-something man like myself.
By all means, fight it in the pulpit, but really you should have started decades ago. There’s been a lot of simple-minded chest-thumping around the internet the past couple of days regarding the cowardice of men, and it just goes to show the immense inability of traditionalist Christians to think sensibly about any matters regarding women (some on this forum excepted). The truth is that the battle against drafting women was lost at the precise moment when women were integrated into the regular military units. Everything since then has just been mopping up by the victors. The distinction between combat and non-combat positions is artificial, especially in this era of fourth-generation warfare, and really, the proper word for non-combatant is “civilian”. So as soon as it was decided that women no longer held absolute civilian status, drafting them into combat was inevitable. After all, the feminist egalitarian logic that drove the former also compels the latter. It was foolish for any traditionalist Christian to think there was any defensible stopping point in between the two.
Quite right, Joel. I agree with your whole post.
We are at a point where the idea of “tradition” is basically a null set in our culture. When “conservatives” are hard at work conserving second-wave feminism and “LGBT rights” then it’s pretty clear that there’s nothing left to conserve. (Or are we supposed to be conserving third-wave feminism? I’ve lost track. The 19th Amendment is sacred writ, though, surely.)
We have a lot of work in front of us to build something functional out of the ashes of what’s been burned. Beginning the process by rejecting our enemies’ moral framework is probably a good start.