Men's RightsSenate passes Bill requiring women to register for the draft (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by Jester2552

Disclaimer: 9 month lurker but first post here and on reddit so I apologize for if the formatting is shit.

Body: Yesterday the Senate passed a bill which is requiring women who turn 18 on or after January 2018 to register for the draft. Frankly it is about time. While I may or may not agree with the draft itself even though I am a military member myself equality is equality. And this is a small step in the right direction for once.  

Senator John McCain was quoted saying "The fact is every single leader in this country, both men and women, members of the military leadership, believe that it’s fair since we opened up all aspects of the military to women that they would also be registering for Selective Services." And while it's pretty cut and dry that this was something that needed to happen it is absolutely hilarious sifting through some of these comments from women and men alike. Some of my favorites I've seen so far are as follows.


Let me get this right??? The govt wants to force women to sign up for a possible draft so they can be sent to a country against their will to defend a group of people that treat women worse than a dog. FAT CHANCE!!!!


Right because it's completely okay for men to be forced to do that but women should be allowed to pick and choose.


This is insanity! Women are meant to stay at home and nurture the family not fight half a world away!


This is what happens when you continue to cry about equality. You get both the good and the bad.


The other comments are a mixture of idiots thinking this means the draft will actually be implemented soon and that it's a big government conspiracy.

Lessons learned: All this does is further reinforce TRP theory that women really don't want true equality just in the "cool" stuff. As a member of the military I do not really believe there is a place for women in the actual war fighting MOS's but fair is fair and there are plenty of behind the lines type jobs they can fill.


Edit: I do not agree with the draft. last time it was used the correct way was WW2. But I think that this is the first step in its abolishment. Because once pretty little girls are at risk of being sent off to war more people will care and call for the end of the draft.

[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (1 child)

Everyone calm your tits. This still has to pass the House and be signed by the President. It's still a long way from being official.

And since we're on the topic:


[–][deleted] 140 points141 points  (48 children)

About. FUCKING. TIME. You want GI JANE? Well guess what now you women can be equally sent to the front lines as cannon fodder.

[–]sigma272 75 points76 points  (30 children)

I don't think so. They'll push women into management roles because it'll be proven that combat isn't safe for them (and it would be horribly sexist to make them cooks and nurses!). Women are already given much shorter prison sentences by that logic, so it'll extend to combat no problem. We'll have women deciding whether men live or die. Nice.

[–]Jester2552[S] 35 points36 points  (20 children)

Honestly that's a good thing. Tons of good men will die if we let women who can't meet standards into combat.

[–]Toolman890 47 points48 points  (11 children)

Tonnes of men will still die if women are in communications. Women simply follow the rules. If your team is surrounded and you call in for an airstrike, but the female communications officer can't reach her superior for authorisation, do you think she will make a personal call and take the risk? No, she'll just let your team die because the blame will be on her superior for not being available when he should've been.

[–]1RPAlternate42 20 points21 points  (8 children)

but the female communications officer can't reach her superior for authorisation,

This is not how this works. If Air assets are a part of the deployed package in the theater, then there will always be a member of command on station to deal with that. There is no, "I'm going out for some smokes... be back in an hour."

Someone is always there.

[–]Toolman890 6 points7 points  (7 children)

Fair enough, I was just trying to make a quick example, but I've seen plenty examples through documentaries and stories of someone having to make a call or a decision, and also the lack of a decision due to being unable to reach a superior. Usually they're higher up you hear about, e.g Germany reacting slowly to the Dday invasion because Hitler was asleep or something, or other diplomatic things, but there are tonnes and tonnes of first-hand accounts of soldiers talking shit about their superior for not making a decision asap because they're afraid of the blame from higher up. This would multiply a thousand-fold with women due to their natural tendency to always avoid blame and accountability. A serious war can be chaotic and highly unpredictable at times and not at all like the wars in iraq or afghan.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (6 children)

The process is made idiot proof. Both because historically, the grunts used to be the guys who couldn't get ajob elsewhere, and partially, because stress impedes comple decision making.

i guarantee that things are designed to be competently handled by the dumbest man out there.

doesn't mean that you being better doesn't have better outcomes, but it's always the 'lowest common denominator'

[–]Endorsed ContributorObio1 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Women can not only not carry injured male soldiers, most weren't able to carry even injured female soldiers a mere 100 meters. And remember, in a draft you're not getting athletic and in-shape women. You're getting American land whales, lazy tv watchers and sloths.

They are not fit for combat. Many men will die if this is attempted.

If it is to be attempted there must be all-female units.

[–]TheInevitableHulk 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Human wave tactics with Human whales?

[–]alpha_n3rd 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Operation get behind the fatties

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Strap them to the outside of the tanks they can be reactive armor.

[–]Klokinator 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"General Jioshinma! Our bullets have no effect! They are bouncing right off their soldiers! Their tanks have some sort of shield wrapped around the outside!"

"My god... they've weaponized blubber..."

[–]icecow 12 points13 points  (5 children)

Men will die when women are put in logistic positions because the military wants to make it clear they don't discriminate, too.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 17 points18 points  (4 children)

Girls are already in logistics, but of course the heavy lifting is done by the men in those jobs.

I know first hand, I was air cargo. Girls got in the way and slowed us down. A couple could operate equipment, but most are about half as useful as the average man, and prone to having emotional episodes and down rating subordinate males.

[–]bluedrygrass 10 points11 points  (1 child)

and prone to having emotional episodes

In times of peace, no less

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any time, if pushed too hard they just shut down and start crying.

[–]1james-watson 2 points3 points  (1 child)

What a fucking terrifying prospect. It is no coincidence that every government institution is feminizing at a rapid pace. Classic male occupations such as solider and scientist have been fully castrated by the feminist infiltrators of the state, making it impossible to have a rewarding career as a man employed by the state.

The state, in its final form, will be a surveillance tool used by women and apex alphas to control the masses of men, while providing make work, high salary positions to females.

This is already happening rapidly. Education, science, healthcare and now the military are being rapidly feminized. From highly effective institutions, they are becoming a glorified welfare program for females. Their costs are going up, and their capabilities are going down.

Fascinating times indeed.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We can still have a rewarding career, as long as we appear to think as others do, and don't wear a shirt with bikini clad girls on it when we talk about space exploration.

[–]slay_it_forward 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily. Send them to the front lines together first, then the men will follow. They might take out a couple guys and reduce the ammo of the enemy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They'll also die from goofy women being put in management roles. We've seen how well that works everywhere else.

[–]manwhowouldbeking 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Combat tends not to be safe for most people.

[–]slay_it_forward 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Women are not even close to as athletic or coordinated as men so of course they will die, but the point is that this is part of the equality package. Equality isn't a buffet where women get to pick and choose roles and responsibilities that are advantageous to them whilst heaping even more of the burdensome jobs on men.

[–]truthyego 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Actually, picture this: women do get sent to the front lines. Then when they are dying and being injured in disproportionate numbers, the femnazis will start howling that the reason is because of all the sexism and patriarchy in the military.

[–]aanarchist 6 points7 points  (1 child)

pretty much this, replace men in non combat roles to get more cannon fodder. kinda like how they replaced men in jobs to get more....whatever it is they got more of.

[–]Jung_Wheats 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Doubling the workforce in order to drive down wages and increase competition between workers, for the benefit of the 'job creators.'

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I've been told by people in the military that part of the reason they avoid putting women in combat is moral. Imagine a group of men seeing women next to them dying. BP or not, that will fuck with their heads more than seeing fellow men die - that's what I was told

[–]slay_it_forward 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't feel any worse. You reap what you sow.

[–]XtremePeace 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hell I would be glad to watch that carnage.

[–]cxj 16 points17 points  (8 children)

Lmao, they get drafted into combat roles once the days of true cannon fodder are over. Figures

[–]Endorsed ContributorObio1 8 points9 points  (7 children)

Those days will be back. If anyone thinks we've put war behind us they don't understand humanity, politics and more importantly economics (which is the basis of all war).

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (3 children)

I think he's saying that technology has changed to the point where you wouldn't expect wholesale meat grinders like WW1 trench warfare

[–]1PantsonFire1234 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Until they invent power armor!

[–]NietzscheExplosion 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Only because of nuclear weapons. (real)War is now a somewhat feudalistic affair performed by Joint SPOC ventures with a mix of units, all "special" forces. Regular forces come in and occupy after and just try to not get killed by partisans.

[–]aanarchist 15 points16 points  (2 children)

all the fat women would make lovely fodder for cannons

[–]Firespit 2 points3 points  (1 child)

3 soldiers could use 1 fatty as meat shield.

[–]aanarchist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

once upon a time a well made shield would stop the strongest of longswords. now we have triggles stopping atomic blasts.

[–]papersupplier 2 points3 points  (0 children)

More chicks to bang in the field too.

[–]fuckin_retard 3 points3 points [recovered]

In the next 20 years, our military will have developed such unbelievable drone and robotics technology that we will drastically reduce our need for human soldiers in the first place. I mean just look at what citizens are pulling off with drones these days - unbelievable feats of mobility and speed, at pretty low costs, mind you. You don't think in a decade, the military isn't going to have developed a highly armored, super agile drone that is armed with a slew of different weapons and camera systems? It's going to happen, and these machines are going to be able to absolutely clobber the shit out of human soldiers. They will have auto-aim capability, the ability to move up, down, side to side, swivel and spin, you fucking name it. Shit's going to get ridiculous. First the Western (US, UK, Australia, etc) countries will probably employ these machines to destroy Islamic terrorists in the middle east, and then we'll realize that we don't need human soldiers at all.

Also think about this situation. Three drones vs. three ISIS goat-fuckers. The drones are closing in, 100 feet away. One of these middle eastern dudes fires his 20-year old RPG-7 at the middle drone to take it out. Before the rocket is even half-way there, all three drones have moved up and over to avoid the rocket, if not shooting it to detonate it. After they handle this situation like cake, they proceed to obliterate the enemy.

This was one of my biggest reasons for not signing up for the military. After contemplating it for a couple years, I realized that in my lifetime, soldiers will be obsolete, at least as they are now. I decided that I'm not going to be cannon fodder in the last generation of young men that dies on the front lines for statist agendas. It's completely absurd if you ask me.

I don't think its a coincidence that the requirement that women register for draft is only being implemented a decade or so before actual human infantry will be rendered nearly obsolete.

[–]1PantsonFire1234 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sounds like the sentinels from the Matrix. Although I do believe special operations will remain in importance, as will security. But normal infantry will indeed take a backseat.

[–]TheReformist94 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Women will be put in management to send men to the slaughter. However,having them slaughtered like that opening scene in saving private Ryan at Omaha beach,will be true equality

[–]1TonyLaRocca 84 points85 points  (2 children)

My favorite is the women on Facebook posting something like "You want the draft, fine, we want equal pay."

Like my father's sixty years of PTSD after being drafted into Korea is equal to your fucking imaginary statistic.

[–]its-iceman 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Psssh I bet your grandpappy doesn't even read Jezebel. What a shitlord.

[–]evileddy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

"You want equal pay, do equal work.. put on your coal mining gear and jump on down in the pit with the men"

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 166 points167 points  (40 children)

Female draft = instant female pregnancy... and the rest will just claim sexual harassment and get discharged.

[–]Endorsed Contributorvandaalen 76 points77 points  (20 children)

Be thankful. Who'd actually want to fight besides a female?

Somebody who is emotionally unstable, behaves solely based on her feelings and doesn't possess the physical power to pull you out of the line of fire if you are injured?

[–]Sike25 46 points47 points  (15 children)

I actually feel like their would be a benefit to doing a draft.

Just imagine taking some 18 year old girl and completely destroy every bullshit belief she has been taught by some swoll monkey silver back looking drill sergeant that will not put up with it. Don't get me wrong with women they are right nown I definitely wouldn't want to be in a life or death or situation, but after meeting some military women, I find their the best material for a relationship and much more enjoyable than some spoiled ass girl who is way out of touch with reality.

Just my 2 cents.

[–]lost_lurker 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I find their the best material for a relationship and much more enjoyable than some spoiled ass girl who is way out of touch with reality.

Meh it's mixed. While I find the girls I work with (navy) aren't as entitled as normal girls a lot of them have crazy baggage. Rule of thumb, normal girls don't join the military.

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (7 children)

Eh, most military females I've known have lots of issues, don't act very feminine and/or ride the CC like crazy. Wouldn't LTR one but I have plated one. I will admit they're usually better company than spoiled ass civilian females however.

[–]Overzealous_BlackGuy 8 points9 points  (1 child)

MIL women irk me because they act a lot tougher than they need to be, and they look stupid. Its so cringey, and to top it off they are swarmed by men who give them more than sexual validation so they walk around acting like bitches

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yup. But I must admit it's nice to be able to shoot the shit with some of them. I go to school with an army gal. Been in for over 10 years, short hair, tats, benches over 200 lbs but acts and dresses very feminine at times which I find kind of adorable. We talk shit to each other a lot and spar in Jiu Jitsu. Much better company than some sorority girl who just goes out and gets sloshed every weekend.

According to my navy friends and AF plate, military women are usually followed around by 4 or so guys at all times, especially right after basic. Egos go through the roof.

[–]1lurkingtacopiller 11 points12 points  (4 children)

Yeah, same. You'd think maybe they'd be better adjusted, they're actually somehow worse. They usually don't give you as much shit, but 9 times out of ten they're fucked in the head.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Yeah, my AF plate is crazy. Goes to therapy, and told me she was raped by the same AF guy twice at her tech school. She apparently agreed to go on a run with him after the first time he raped her (wtf), during which he pushed her into some bushes and raped her again. Quite obviously bullshit, all of it. But anything for sympathy I suppose.

[–]ItsCold_ItsCold 16 points17 points  (1 child)

If she went on a run with him again after he "raped" her, she's probably full of shit.

[–]pantsoffire 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, I don't posses a vag but I think running around afterwards might aggravate any injuries. Still, if this actually happened I hoped she learned not hang out with guys that rape her.

[–]nonanon111 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just a tip, but consider that if she makes absurd rape claims about other guys for attention, she might eventually make absurd rape claims about you.

[–]Oftowerbroleaning 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was with you till what you said about military women. they're the worst emotionally wrecked hamsters I've ever seen

[–]ItsCold_ItsCold 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You think that's worth the increased casualties?

Sidenote: Having been surrounded by top 10% alpha warriors almost everyday, their N counts are more than likely colossal. I wouldn't be surprised if a great many women enlist almost solely for access to that. They probably had some fun with captured enemies as well. We all know how women like that outgroup aggressive invader cock.

[–]Mohandor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. The sergeants will change.

[–]Drogba006 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Dude if you think a military chick is good for a relationship then you're fucked up. Big time.

[–]Theophagist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find their the best material for a relationship

Their likelihood of having pulled a few trains is pretty fucking high. N count galore.

[–]snorkelbagel 4 points5 points  (0 children)


Casual lurker here, but female draft is problematic for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, our military fitness practices are centered around male physique, and testosterone is one hell of a drug. Females simply don't have the bone density and muscle allocation in the areas that matter for current combat criteria. Are there exceptions? Obviously. The world is a wide and beautiful place, but this is biology and applies to the majority of the population.

Secondly, lift weight. If female marines are no longer tied to the same fitness requirements as males, it seems reasonable this will trickle down to other branches of service over time. Were I hypothetically drafted to combat and wounded, do I want the burly alabama male or some 110lb of nothing girl dragging my bloody near-carcass from enemy fire? The choice is obvious.

Next, we have military discipline. The best fighting forces are all ideologically united and the simplest way to enforce that is monoculture. This is why the drill sergeant trope exists. You hammer out individual differences until you have a mentally cohesive unit. Throw a set of mammaries in that and you bring out lizard brain competitiveness, which is a short step from envy and sabotage.

How can this be resolved? You can address carry capacity and the strength divide with female only battalions. You can ease some of the potential sexual harassment that way as well, but then you leave yourself open to Huff Post editorials about how we, a civilized nation, are throwing young girls into the line of fire. It is a no-win scenario, but given the choice, I'd sooner have a revival of rosie the riveter than give lib rags more vitriol to spew.

[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Realistically they won't be sent to infantry units. They'd backfill admin jobs and men would be sent to the front lines by and large. Only a tiny percentage of women would be drafted into combat units, if at all.

[–]1Halfjor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I expect the draft would work similar to the Israeli military. If shit hit the fan and we got into World War 3 the vast majority of soldiers would be men. They'd probably draft women to push papers, work communications, works as armorers, etc. in an effort to free up more men to fight.

That's actually good enough for me. Men are far better at fighting, but women should be forced to serve just the same as men. Even if it's working behind the front lines.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

well, that should make neoreactionary happy. More white babies to stave off the new world order lol.

[–]1Original_Dankster 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Good way to raise a below-replacement birthrate, albeit indirectly.

[–]Walksaway 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just like all the females in your unit who get pregnant before or during deployment.

[–]drallcom3 6 points6 points [recovered]

Female draft = instant female pregnancy

which is their best way to serve in a war

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but it's hardly the draft

[–]RedEyesBlueShades 19 points20 points  (2 children)

Wonderful news!!!

Looking forward for the feminazi hamstring. Really wanna know how are they gonna rationalise that women should not be sent away.

Also, isn't

This is insanity! Women are meant to stay at home and nurture the family not fight half a world away!

a sexist comment??? Womyn, stay at home or career??? Make up your minds!!!

[–]icecow 25 points26 points  (1 child)

Women don't believe they should stay home and cook.

Women believe they should stay home and eat yogurt.

[–]Tyrone_Shekelstein 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Women believe they should stay home and spend their husband's money and ride the cock carousel while her husband is in some shithole like Fallujah.

[–]blimp11 20 points21 points  (9 children)

fuck this man. I understand people are cheering for real equality or whatever, but alls thats gonna happen is this is going to put our real soldiers lives at greater risk. Military action relies on a solid functioning unit adding women to this creates weak leaks in the chain. I mean Im sure there are some women equal to some men, but obviously over the large scale you are taking the highest skilled women, and they become comparable to the lowest skilled men. This is stupid, and dangerous.

[–]Jester2552[S] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Completely agree. But them signing up for the draft won't mess that up. Lowering standards will. Standards for combat spots should NOT change just because its a woman

[–]NuclearMisogynyist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Key word should not, but they already have reduced standards for non special forces positions.

[–]smokebloom 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Agreed. Women should have no part in any combat role.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Women should be in combat zone with women only.

[–]1james-watson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Women shouldn't fucking vote either, but here we are. The only way to roll back the clock is to fully expose the nature of women by allowing them into the most critical occupations.

This is happening rapidly and the results are hilarious. Do you know why healthcare is suddenly costing every developed country huge amounts of money? Because female doctors, who are now the large majority of all doctors, don't do any fucking work. They get married, and retire shortly after graduating. So 20+ years of training and a very valuable residency position just got wasted.

Same in Education, where credentialism reigns supreme and actual results mean nothing. So the quality of research and development goes down the shitter when you have status seeking females doing nothing but playing make belief at whatever field has struck their fancy.

And now, finally, the military is succumbing. You know what'll be funny? When Russia invades Europe, and suddenly we find that NATO is fucking incapable of doing anything about it because they're staffed by 50%+ females! They'll all throw tantrums at the same time and there goes your military capabilities.

Sometimes, experience is the best teacher. All of this is being recorded by the internet, so in a hundred years our descendants will have an excellent case study for why females weren't allowed to vote or work in previously successful societies.

[–]Flaming_DragonMan 23 points24 points  (11 children)

I feel conflicted about this one. On one hand I think it's hilarious that women are finally being forced to take the bad parts of equality along with the good parts, but I don't particularly want more women in the military. As someone who's in the process of putting together an OCS application, the thought of having to bump into women in the service seems obnoxious and a waste of time.

On that note: does this mean that women will finally have to take the same physical fitness test as men and be held to identical physical standards?

[–]Jester2552[S] 15 points16 points  (4 children)

On that note: does this mean that women will finally have to take the same physical fitness test as men and be held to identical physical standards?

I highly doubt it. I know with all the women that just recently failed out of Infantry school and Navy Seal BUDs one of the chiefs of staffs wanted a full report as to why the standards were so high and why they can't lower them for women. So looking grim for that to happen.

[–]GuitarHero07 2 points3 points  (2 children)

We might see lawsuits filed in the near future arguing that the current standards are discriminatory towards women. In order to address get another "gap" they would lower the standards so that more women could compete.

[–]Jester2552[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't see how. Women's standards are already laughably lower then the mens standards in fitness

[–]Trey64 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't like the idea of the Navy SEALs lowering standards just to make it more "fair" for another gender. You can either get the job done or you can't. The SEALs are supposed to be elite - and since its inauguration, it's always been extremely difficult to get in to. And that's the point. It's not supposed to be for everyone, and I certainly wouldn't want below-excellent candidates getting pulled through just because they have a vagina and our society's on this equality binge

[–]bokehnikon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

does this mean that women will finally have to take the same physical fitness test as men and be held to identical physical standards?

Don't you know that the enemy bullets will fly slower for a woman soldier? And if a wounded soldier needs to be dragged out of harm's way, he'll be the skinny and featherweight guy?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Look at the bright side. biggest killer in the military today? suicide. Second biggest? Equipment failure.

enemy action isn't the defining factor anymore

[–]wanderer779 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is how I feel. I've never been in the military but I used to work in a male dominated field. Every now and then a girl came around, usually started bitching about everything and trying to order around people who weren't subordinates, and often started making false accusations of harassment. They are getting rid of the few fields that are left to escape the madness.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]jtrees100 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You sound like a female officer.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The establishment wants this to prevent Trump from using this during a debate with her. A woman president in a country not requiring women to be drafted in war is quite a political blow. Watching all the MSM the past few years, especially this past year, it's obvious they're pushing this girl power kick more than ever. It's all political, folks.

[–]pilledwillingly 6 points7 points  (1 child)

You know, along these lines, I've always wanted to go to an equality protest with a sign that gives super mixed messages and see who calls me out.

What do we want? Equal pay.

Equal rights.

Equal workplace injuries.

Equal parental leave

Equal Combat fatalities.

Equal bodily autonomy.

Equal custody.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 17 points18 points  (10 children)

I see a lot of comments in this thread about how this decision will lead to ending the draft after women are shocked and horrified by war. These comments have a lot of support but make absolutely no coherent argument.

There is no debate about ending selective service. Women registering with Selective Service, or even being drafted, won't lead to some great epiphany about citizenship and the responsibility to defend your country, or that women really aren't capable to go into combat. People aren't interested in wisdom and logic. Bad decisions will compound with further bad decisions.

If anything, this will lead people to further double-down on their irrational religion of equality.

Let's look at some countries that have women in great proportions in their militaries:

Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, New Zealand, Norway

These are not countries to look up to. Some of these countries are in the process of committing suicide by Islamic invasion, while others are just irrelevant matriarchies with negative growth rates. The more women are allowed to takeover masculine roles the more the ship starts to list to one side. At some point it will take on water and sink to the bottom.

One might argue that conscription made sense historically because men had political power and therefore could be expected to defend their political entity, especially in a representative democracy where the People "are" the government. Even after women's suffrage in 1920 in the USA one could still argue that men (especially white men) held de facto power and therefore the draft made sense. White men had to fight to protect their country. Emphasis on 'their' -- the country was their property.

Today men don't really own the country. Instead, as happens in matriarchies, the State comes to own you. Male and female alike have become the children belonging to their Mother, the state. She decides what is best, what words we can and can not use, emotionally manipulate us into this or that outrage, stunt our potential, turn us against our friends, or whatever.

The fact that this is happening now is just a sign of how advanced the cancer has spread. The more that women inhabit the armed forces, the more we can expect that institution to weaken and fail, first in small ways. Lower standards, power point presentations on safe words and spaces instead of weapons training and drills. After the rot has gone deep we can expect astounding failures (at the general and admiral level) that threaten the ability of the country to even defend itself or carry out its functions.

Know this: you can do absolutely nothing about it. Seek to divest and protect yourself.

[–]Bathes_In_The_Styx 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Where do you plan on jumping ship to when the time comes? China might have some RP but they're also Authoritarian. I'm thinking Thailand, it's just far enough off the radar that no one will give enough of a shit to fuck with it, yet it still values masculinity to some degree.

[–]Endorsed ContributorFLFTW16 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I lived in Thailand for 4.5 years. It's a great place. I highly recommend it.

[–]Trey64 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I was in Phuket myself - couldn't handle the humidity but the country is certainly beautiful.

[–]1james-watson 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A naturally ZFG country. War in Eurasia? Phuket!

[–]jtrees100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about corruption and police over there fucking with farangs? From what I've watched and read it seems like you could get locked up for life just bc they want to lock you up for life.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We are getting totally CUCKED by the gov't here. A mixed unit is a less effective fighting force.

[–]Trey64 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Isn't there a reason women aren't snipers in the military? Typically, snipers operate behind enemy lines and when caught, are usually tortured as they hold the most intel, no? So in the case of a woman, she would be raped unimaginably I assume so if we're still on this equality talk, we're either gonna let them apply for ALL positions, or they can't do ANY of them. There shouldn't be an in between and we shouldn't have to be sitting here trying to spend (waste) time determining what they would be. We're just getting distracted now and so focused on pleasing everyone and it's starting to take away from more important matters at hand

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Russians had women snipers and they were quite effective. Of course, Stalin ran WWII like a meat grinder, so take from that what you will. I'm not saying women should not be in the military but that they should be in all female units.

[–]TheInevitableHulk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Females in the military is not the reason that Canada has 1/10th the population of the US and a birthrate that only just covers replacement ... It's the reason that the vast majority of canadian live next to the US (weather ranges from cold to less cold)

[–]1OneRedYear 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Women shouldn't be in the military in the first place.

[–]PheromoneVoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pretty much.

That said, mandatory conscription itself is an archaic, anti-TRP concept, we should be against such a procedure for anyone.

[–]Troll_Name 6 points7 points  (2 children)

You cannot force women to serve. At least, not until you abolish the pussy pass.

What will probably happen is nothing. What would happen, were this system put to the test, is that women will gobble up every single desk job regardless of qualifications or past history. Old men and disabled heroes will be shoved back to the front lines while rookies with the woman card are the ones signing off on their supply deliveries.

Lightweight jobs meant to rest worn-out men to recovery will become permanent hammocks for women, depriving active units of their ability to aid in the recuperation of people who have been damaged by excessive service. Then they'll get pregnant and go home mid-commitment with the same honors as a man who gave 250% from start to finish. Shell shock and deadly mistakes will become a hundred times worse due to the officers losing their resources for taking care of hurt men who earned their time in the rear echelon.

Most importantly of all: the matter will never be settled, as the goalposts will never stop moving. Next they'll demand female leaders of male platoons, then female generals, then female joint chiefs. Just look at the female candidate for president; they find the worst option possible then tell us we're all soggyknees unless we select someone SOLELY on the basis of vagina between legs.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hell yeah! We are getting CUCKED by Uncle Sam!

[–]Jester2552[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not wrong in any of your points and they already are demanding more women leaders. Because suddenly you aren't diverse if you don't have women. The Air Force in fact just appointment a Woman as Secretary of the Air Force

[–]getRedPill 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Congratulations Socialists and Social Justice™ Warriors, there's your equality, your equality in slavery

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I say we draft Trigglypuff first and catapult her behind enemy lines. War over.

[–]Booksarefun666 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Conscripts are terrible soldiers and I hope we do not get a draft happen again in the first place. Still, it's nice to see them backpedaling from equality.

Who knows? Maybe now that it actually has the potential to affect women people will start caring and repeal it.

[–]HardShadow 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sexual harassment claims and pregnancies are going to soar to unbelievable numbers.

If we get into a war where the draft needs to be utilized, we're fucked.

[–]2popthatpill 2 points3 points  (1 child)


"Passing the ERA? Yes. More women in government? Yes. Signing up for draft? No. Not equality #feminism #women #draft"

[–]idahar[🍰] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It's strange how their first thoughts go to being sent into the front lines. Now that the government isn't dancing to their tune for this particular instance, they've gone mushy-brained and all they can think is "I'm going to be forced into fighting overseas."

Unless World War III starts anytime soon and the standing/reserve forces of the U.S. are annihilated, chances are, none of these bumbling fucknuts are going to see so much as a letter from the army.

Do note that everyone's comments have become "No one should be forced into the draft", because they can't state expressly that THEY don't want to be drafted. After all, who gave a fuck about men being forced to sign up?

At this point, I don't even get angry over them whining about the loss of double standards. It just disgusts me to see them try to backtrack and try to find a new avenue for blame. And as it stands, I'd rather not have the generation of women raised by Kim Kardashian and Anita Sarkeesian responsible for defending the country should it come to that.

[–]pantsoffire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, at last we will have Front Line Selfies (F.L.S.) to look forward to. I wonder how many burpies they'll end up having to do each time they get caught facebooking while tank driving?

[–]icecow 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Lessons learned: All this does is further reinforce TRP theory that women really don't want true equality just in the "cool" stuff. As a member of the military I do not really believe there is a place for women in the actual war fighting MOS's but fair is fair and there are plenty of behind the lines type jobs they can fill.

Don't know why women can't be on front line. Why should women be spared the roles of a bleak, disposable existence just because they are a whole notch less effective. Their presence would emphasize the absurdity of war and these unicorns would be brought down from their pedestals and become mere human beings that can appreciate things like plumbing and running water.

[–]Jester2552[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because if we let women who cannot uphold certain PT and aptitude standards but are let in anyway good men will die. Very few women can pass infantry standards as it is. Shit very few men can.

[–]snorted_the_red_pill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bill Burr talks about women picking and choosing for equality like a buffet. (Currently can't get a link)

[–]Walksaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think a woman is going to be strong enough to hump a SAW or 240? You think she is going to be able to throw 75lbs in her ruck and walk 12 miles to an objective. Then when we take contact on the objective, be able to pull me out of the fight while I am wearing full kit? A majority of men can't do that, much less a female who can't pass the 60% male standard PT test.

[–]russo392 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's interesting how the only time the idea of a military draft being stupid get real attention is when women are forced to draft aswell, even though men all over the world has been dealing with this bullshit for decades.

[–]2popthatpill 1 point2 points  (0 children)

last time it was used the correct way was WW2

(What could that possibly mean?)

But I think that this is the first step in its abolishment. Because once pretty little girls are at risk of being sent off to war more people will care and call for the end of the draft.

Women intuitively view the draft as a form of, or at least sign of, male duty to women. They're not going to draft women (regardless of what the law actually says, even if a draft occurs, they're going to find some excuse to not draft women), and they're not going to repeal the draft for men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

It's a pragmatic step.

Set aside the politics for a moment.

Most young men are too out of shape for military service. If we have to fight a Big Country in a traditional war bad enough to need a draft,getting enough fit bodies is gonna mean reaping from both genders .

In practice this means more women will get knocked up to dodge being sent , and the remainder will suck the Chief Petty Officer's dick to get admin assignments.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, too fat to fight. the policy driver that got us drones.

Reflexes of a 25 year old fighter pilot. Physical attributes of a 60 year old smoker.


[–]satanicpriest13 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Makes sense. Today we have these bull dykes and then the nu males who can barely wear a decent pair of shoes. I think these strong muh independent women, could do a way better job than the beta males white knighting for them. Think about it, when it comes to war, which group would you rather have protecting you?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm against this. If we all know men and women are NOT equal, then this is just furthering a trend on feel-based equality that we should actually want to see reversed.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

IF women are to be sent to war, which I have my doubts about (when ISIS gets a hold of em it's gonna be a lot more...drawn out than what happens to male soldiers) they for damn sure should be in all female units. Women working with men destroys unit cohesion in the military and is dangerous for them...war pumps up testosterone.

[–]BoyWhoreWithASword 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly I'm not quite sure if this is a victory for men.

Enjoy the decline I guess.

[–]pantsoffire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Awesome news. It'll never happen in Aus, seriously. Bitches have got it made here. But good news for the Yanks. But also terrible news, the guys I know in/ formerly in the military said NO ONE wanted a chick in their squad. Constant issues, constant dramas, extra duties and punishments for their squad. Females gunna female.

[–]NuclearMisogynyist 1 point2 points  (18 children)

This is one of those things like where you assassinate the foreign dictator without looking at possible successors. What do we gain by pushing women into the draft? Equality, but do we really?

The average woman is far less combat ready than the feeblest of men. If we were to use the draft, albeit unlikely, it'll be due to a shortage of combat troops. So one of two things will happen when a woman is drafted.

1) She is drafted directly into a combat position to fight along side a man who now has to rely on her to do her job in order for him to come home in one piece.

I know, someone's gonna make the argument "but women perform now in combat roles and some do great!". Yea, some do great. Those that actually signed up and want to be there. Draftees aren't going to have that desire. There's a reason why the military is the biggest sausage fest on the planet.

2) More likely, woman is drafted, takes enlisted mans non combat position, man who's served for years has his stateside / shore rotation cut short to go to combat. Woman "serves" two years to allow a man to do back to back deployments.

On the surface this is a good thing, but in reality it's just a dog and pony show for equality. Most female draftees will probably get pregnant anyways.

[–]Future_Alpha[🍰] 0 points1 point  (16 children)

If I am given the chance, I known precisely how to prevent women from dodging the draft and increasing the amount of people the military can use to fight.

Taken from a WW2 Manual.

Since most women are currently fat, they can be enlisted provided they do not have physical disabilities. Next, they can be put into 'training centers' run by the army. The sole purpose of this training camp would be weightloss. How you ask? Never ending obstacle courses, carrying of weights,exercise and borderline starvation. No emotional breakdowns allowed. Emotional breakdwons would be punished with MORE exercise. This applies to obese men as well.

Pregnancy can be prevented in two ways: 1. Any women who gets pregnant AFTER recieving her draft letter will have to serve until hindered by her baby, then take leave. She WILL carry her baby to term and then forced to return to active duty. The baby will be cared for either by closest non-serving relatives (grandparents) or will be cared for by the army, but she loses her rights to the kid and the kid is trained from birth to be a soldier. 2. Those obese men and women mentioned earlier will also recieve testosterone injections to increase fat loss. This will help to prevent pregnancies from occurding too.

Women should alsp be put i to combat roles kn mixed units. Let everyone die in meat grinders, until people realize this equality thing is a farce and deman that women stop recieving equality.

No more feminists. Problem solved.

[–]NuclearMisogynyist 2 points3 points  (6 children)

You just might be retarded. Do you think that any of that would be remotely enforceable? The government can maintain an army but they can't control what you eat and make you lose weight. You have got to be trolling. No one is really this stupid.

[–]Future_Alpha[🍰] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

They can't? Really? Actually it is quite simple to control how people eat. 1. Implement tariffs on buying food products that are processed. 2. Refuse to treat people with complications resulting from obesity - even more possible now with trends towards socialized medicine. 3. If instituting a draft put obese people through rigorous training camps to lose weight. That is what my post was about.

Clearly you have problems with reading comprehension. What I wrote previously was in reference to the military where this is easy to enforce. This post is about society in general.

[–]NuclearMisogynyist 1 point2 points  (4 children)

You weren't talking about just the military, you were taking about the general population being drafted into the military. You obviously never served otherwise you'd know, that's not how it works. Especially now when soldiers are issued time out cards in boot camp if they get over stressed.

Tariffs will make people stop doing unhealthy things? How's that working with smoking and alcohol?

Stop treating people? How in the living hell did you justify to yourself that that was an intelligent thing to say? Get off red pill and go get some sun light. The constant circle jerking yourself is taking you away from reality.

[–]Future_Alpha[🍰] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Yes I was talking about drafting people to the military. The reason why the military is going to shit in America is that now the military is pandering to feelingz. What I suggest is reasonable, its just that people feelz take precedence over getting the job done.

Its working well. Tabacco has become more expensive and thats why fewer people than ever before are smoking (also anti-snoking campaigns play a role). Alcohol is also expensive and is responsible for a.decline in the levelsof alcoholism in America.

Obviously you know nothing of medicine and how it works. Alcoholics can be denied treatment for alcoholism related complications. For example alcoholics are not eligible for liver transplants. Same with smokers. Smoking related complications are not treated. Go educate yourself and stop pretending to be oh-so-intelligent. Refusing to treat obesity (which is considered a public health issue on the level of smoking and alcoholism) will help alleviate this problem. How do you justify not refusing treatment for obesity as an intelligent thing to say? Get off the red pill and go get some education. The constant circle jerking is ptaking you away from learning about reality.

[–]NuclearMisogynyist 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Your analogy looks good on the surface but when you engage the brain it doesn't hold water. Telling someone to eat right or they'll be denied treatment for their diabetes (via medicine, a nearly infinite resource) is not the same as prioritizing a finite resource. When we can grow organs in Petri dishes (and it's closer than you think) alcoholics won't be denied a new liver, or treatment that repairs the damaged cells.

For smokers, if someone quits they are NEVER successful if their reason to quit is financial. Lifetime smokers reduced to fixed incomes reduce the costs of living so that they can afford to smoke. Go to any section 8 housing complex , you'll be astonished at how many people smoke, but these are supposed to be poor people?

How do I justify refusal of treatment as being unintelligent? Easy, I've read the constitution, multiple times. You're crafting policy that contradicts the foundation of the United States and would never be enforceable. You think you have good ideas but no one important will ever agree with you and it will never so much as make it to any congressional floor, thus its pointless and your "solution" is pointless. I have an education and military service but thanks for the advice.

[–]Future_Alpha[🍰] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Medicine is not an infinite resource. In Ontario more than 68% of the Healthcare budget goes towards management of diabetes. Over 80% of the budget goes towards management of obesity related complications. This is similar for all provinces. In Canada (like the US), obesity is a public health catastrophe. Obesity does not have a simple treatment like alcoholism where growing organs will solve the issue. Obesity affects EVERY system in the body and the only effective treatment is lifestyle changes (that includes eating and exercise).

You are using anecdotal evidence. Sure some people in sector eight housing smoke and poor people will give up parts of their life to smoke. It doesn't change the fact that amongst all age groups amd socio-economic levels, smoking has declined due to increases in tariffs on cigarettes.

Your logic makes no sense for the simple reason that percieved limitations on choice have already been enacted in congress on alcohol and tobacco. There is nothing to stop it from being enacted for obesity,especially if we consider that other 'democracies' like Britain have already enacted a 'sugar tax' that has had many positive results. Moreover, your vaunted Constitution is not working and needs to be updated to find the balance between choice, and doing whats good for society. As there is precedent in a close US ally, sharing a similar history and political system to the US my solution is not pointless. One must simply ignore feels, and watch the health situation improve. Don't expect it to happen overnight though, it will take a decade to see any population wide changes. There are no 'quick fix' solutions to this problem, and my solution is the only one that works.

[–]12_f_taiwan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is so backwards and against nature

[–]Apexk9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If there was a war and women were drafted that be a lot of deserters and a lot of rapes.

[–]garlicextract 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would gladly give up 23% of my salary not to go to war and get shot at. I'd do it with a gracious smile and a big 'thank you'.

[–]BaconBeard 2 points3 points  (6 children)

I don't support the draft for men or women, so I'm not really thrilled about this decision.

[–]ozymodeus 48 points49 points  (5 children)

Im thrilled because this is the first step to ending the draft. We have admitted its sexist to do it to men only. Next because of instinctive sympathy for women it will be undone. But they cant undo it for women only without having a very uncomfortable conversation about why.

[–]Jester2552[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Was just about to say this exact thing

[–]BaconBeard 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's an interesting take on it. I hadn't thought about it that way.

[–]wanderer779 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I don't think that will happen but we'll see. I've always been of the opinion that if you can't get volunteers, it's probably because the war isn't worth fighting or you've been treating your people like shit and they don't want to fight for you.

[–]ozymodeus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I dont think they are opening it up to women because they dont have enough volunteers. I think they are doing it because they have MORE than enough volunteers. Its been fifty years since we needed a draft and they are assuming we wont need one again. But if we ever do they are going to be panicking, tripping all over themselves to try and excuse women from it, and I think the obvious unfairness of that might wake a lot of men up.

[–]NeoreactionSafe 5 points6 points  (31 children)

Why are you cheering on the State as it further enslaves the people?

Ever heard of the Second Amendment?

What the Second Amendmemt does is establish that everyone has the right to defend themselves and their own Freedom.

If the people wish to rise up together and battle some foreign mafia (like the Bank of England during revolutionary times) then the ability to build armies was protected by the laws.

The State should not have a draft... for anyone.

Registration should not be required for anyone.

Do Not Use The Blue Pill language

...so avoid references to things like "gender fluids" or "equality".


[–]Uptonogood 4 points5 points  (18 children)

I agree with you. But it is funny as hell seeing them backtrack from their "equality" bullshit.

You can't have privileges without responsibilities. That's what they are unwilling to accept.

[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself 11 points12 points  (8 children)

Nothing triggers a feminist more than having to inherit responsibilities with their opportunities. This could be a step closer to ending the draft completely if feminists can't hamster their way out of being registered

[–]Jester2552[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Don't agree with the draft because its a bit archaic but this is the first step towards its abolishment. Once pretty little girls are at risk of being sent off to war more people will start to care

[–]darkrood 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or they get to be in safer role to claim the credit

[–]Endorsed ContributorMentORPHEUS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BRB moving to Oregon or Nevada to join a "free" militia.

[–]wanderer779 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A couple points: One, feminists are for this. They want to have to sign up for SS because they think that they are taking equal responsibility. Of course they aren't and men will still be doing the fighting and dying.

Two, this is all out of your hands. The takeaway from this is this: if there is a draft, you can bet your ass women are going to be trying everything they can to get pregnant. So be extra wary of this if it ever comes to it.

Also, if you are in the military, I'm very sorry you have to deal with this on top of all the other shit.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

guys, lets be real here. Is forcibly sending women to war en masse going to be productive? fuck no. This is stupid.

Maybe I'm old fashioned

[–]ScarletFever82 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Women will be forced into labor/support rolls, much like they were during WWI. They are not going to draft female combatants, period.

"Officer, when you are done sewing that patch, make me a sammich!"

[–]TheFoxxi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Women in combat is actually a very bad thing for both of men and women. Equality bullshit aside, this is very troubling.

[–]vagbutters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Holy shit, this is like a dream come to life-- I was just wondering why the fuck this was still the case, and cucks were justifying it left/right. Now if shit goes down, we'll have pussies on the field, though I imagine they'll be too concerned about their nails or with getting pregnant to avoid the draft in the first place.

[–]DennisReynoldsAMA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha thanks feminism and equality

[–]lrph00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would like to know if they will suffer the same consequences for not signing up for the selective service and dodging the draft? Example not qualifying for federal student loans to name one.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

This is a good thing. not because they get it as shitty as a man does now. but because the female imperative means that life will generally get better for servicemen, and potential draft boys.

This is how you avoid another vietnam.

[–]mistixs 0 points1 point  (1 child)

How will life get better for servicemen?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When women were finally allowed in the navy e. G. They finally implemented something called quality of life, for sailors, back in the mid 90s.

Ride the coattails of the female. Imperative

[–]Moldy_Gecko 0 points1 point  (3 children)

About WW2, when else was the draft used? WW1?

[–]Jester2552[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Civil war, WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam

[–]Moldy_Gecko 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Thought the draft wasn't law until after WW1

[–]Jester2552[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That draft that we know today (selective service) was implemented in 1917. The majority of civil war soldiers were volunteers but roughly 2% of the forces were draftees. I forget what it was actually called back then though

[–]michael_wilkins 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think Feminists care because they know that it's a tiny chance that the Draft will be implemented and if it ever is, Women won't actually be doing the fighting.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm totally down for a female draft in our current political/religious climate.

Isis/boko haram believe they won't to heaven if they're killed by a woman, can't even begin to imagine the demoralization that would occur if all female units started mowing them down. Shit'd be hilarious

[–]nuesuh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel bad for the men that has to go on the frontline with women as their buddy.

Not saying women suited for battle doesn't exist, but I doubt any men, under live fire, is thinking "damn, good thing there's a woman in my patrol group."

[–]captainzoomer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hopefully this will create a backlash from women towards the feminists that "worked so hard" to create equality. However, the feminists will spin this into "politicians are misogynistic pigs" rhetoric. It's so easy to manipulate women if you hit them in the feels.

[–]1PantsonFire1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is why you don't listen to women. They whine about equality and wanting to work 'like men'. Now they get confronted with a nasty reality and suddenly they are 'simply' women meant to nurture the family. Women are fucking stupid and you shouldn't respond to their shit tests govt.

[–]linearprogramming 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's funny how they complained that they wanted women in combat, and now that they got this they complain that this is unfair.

What did they expect? That only a few women go to boot camp and come back saying how proud they are for helping their country?

[–]MelodyMyst 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Israeli women serve in the military. I've met a few and they were bbadass and didn't seem fucked in the head.

What's makes Israeli women different than others women? Culture? Being graphically surrounded by the enemy? Religion?

[–]WilliamBott 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ex-military here. I'm against the draft, but if you whine and cry about equality, you reap what you sow.

[–]NewYooserMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is completely symbolic. If a draft were required, there is no way females would be sent to the front lines to die. They would be given female-specific supportive jobs.

[–]fuggahmo_mofuhgga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This just means we're gearing up for some really real shit in the near future.

load more comments (8 replies)