Be Careful What You Ask For . . .
. . . you just might get it.
House committee votes to require women to register for draft
About damn time. This should have been law years ago.
No, this doesn’t mean that women should be drafted into the combat arms. Just because someone gets drafted doesn’t automatically mean they end up Infantry (or in one of the other combat arms branches).
The military should still assign specialties based on known physical norms and needs of the service. If a given group in general cannot meet the qualifications of a specific specialty, they can – and should – be excluded from assignment to that specialty. It’s the same rationale that generally excludes those requiring corrective lenses (or not meeting other seemingly-irrelevant physical requirements) from flight school: the impact of such a physical shortcoming is deemed significant enough to preclude such an assignment to members of that group, even though certain individuals within that group may well make excellent pilots. The courts have recognized the military’s need to do this; the fact that gender may be such a factor for a select few specialties is irrelevant.
However, if passed this will correct a significant injustice. If passed, both males and females will now be subject to draft registration requirements – and, if a draft is required, to being drafted.
Enjoy, SJWs. You’re largely responsible for this.
Category: Legal, Military issues
Oh, hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Ex-PH2 falls off chair, laughing, startles cat.)
About DAME time! Hey, bitches – you want to be the same as the guys, this is what you get for it! Don’t come whining to me about it because I, and thousands of other women, have already put our time in VOLUNTARILY, because we gave a damn.
Enjoy your time registering for Selective Service.
Hondo, does this mean those of us who didn’t have six full years AD may have to go man phones and a desk to make up the difference? I’m two days and 4 months shy of a full 6. I don’t mind. I could use the money to redo the kitchen.
(chuckling) Probably not. You were almost certainly technically in the USNR after your first stint. That also counts as time towards the (at that time) 6 year total military service obligation.
But when it comes to policy set by the 5-sided asylum, you never know. (smile)
Laughter is good for the soul and the cardiovascular system, too.
I am going to spend the entire day laughing about this, Hondo.
If all your kitchen needs can be paid for in 4 months of pay, you are just doing minor repairs.
Oh, no, David, it involves taking down a small portion of one wall, adding more base cabinets, replacing some existing cabinets and cupboards and new countertops in one of those stonelike laminates. New appliances can come from a place that takes the showroom floor stuff and sells it at 1/3 the big box store price. That would take about two months worth of paychecks, and cost less if I buy unfinished stock and paint it. I already have the kitchen and utility floor tiled.
The vote was 32-30, which makes me wonder whether 30 critters know that once combat arms were open to women, the legal grounds for exempting women from selective service registration were lost. It would take a highly creative Sup Ct to shelve the measure as unconstitutional if ever the amendment were to survive and become law. Hell, even the bill’s sponsor, Duncan, voted against his own amendment. Strange brew.
As with most Bills, it probably had some unrelated rider attached…maybe even the Combat Boot study referenced in another of today’s stories.
These riders are the reason a lot of these high profile Bills get voted against (much to the delight (PR purposes) of the opposing side.
The recent story of ‘Republicans vote against Veterans!’ comes to mind.
Don’t think that was the case here. The HASC was voting on an amendment to the upcoming Defense Authorization Act. I’m pretty sure that was a single-purpose amendment crafted solely to require both men and women to register with Selective Service.
The bill’s author voted against it because he opposes females in combat billets entirely and wrote the amendment only to point out the flaws in opening all combat positions to women.
Rep. Hunter CA, who wrote the bill, voted against it because he “doesn’t support drafting women into combat and he’s opposed to opening infantry and special operations positions to women.” He believes it is up to the Congress not the Executive branch to make the determination on assignment and the draft.
CORRECTION. The amendment was not Duncan’s but Duncan Hunter’s. Thanks to 77 11C20 for the alert.
Oh, this is great!
All you wymyn, SJWs, “equality NOW”, feminists, feminazis.
You who want “equal pay”, “equal opportunity”, well, now the FedGov is leading the way, and giving you what you asked for. It may not be what you want, it may not be given to you the way you imagined, all nice and easy and wrapped in pink tissue and ribbons. But yer gonna get it anyway.
And you’d better learn all about it. For if you want to go on strike and NOT register, I would imagine that the same punishments will as apply to the guys that don’t register – not being able to apply for certain types of grants and loans, including college loans; not be eligible for certain jobs. I’m sure there are others out there who can add more details, just to twist the knife a little deeper.
And for all you young ladies of the more conservative persuasion, who did not ask for or want any part of this, well, you’re getting it anyway. Sorry for you. Blame your FemiNazi SJW sisters. And next time the FemiNazi SJWs speak up about something, anything, strike back against them. Speak up, let YOUR voice be heard as counterprotest. Don’t let THEM run YOUR life into the ground.
BW, some of those conservative ladies will be far more likely to step up and serve than the SJWs who want everything to be same-same.
Ex,
You’re right. The Conservative Ladies will more likely step to the plate and to the responsible thing “under the law” (but, as Shakespeare said, “the law is an ass”).
Part of my point is that it sucks that they will do what the Feminazi SJWs have forced on them, when otherwise they would be more likely to go about their lives quietly.
Indeed they will. Though conservatives may not agree with a particular law, my experience is that they’re generally more likely to obey a law with which they disagree than those with a more “progressive” political orientation.
This one has me all conflicted. The side that is tired of the Lars’ of this world welcomes it with open arms. The father side isn’t so happy about it. I’ve never pushed for this. I don’t believe in women being forced into it. Those who want to be in the military should be allowed to do the jobs that they’re realistically capable of doing without compromising the ability of our military to put bad guys in the dirt. But I don’t want my daughter to pay for Lars’ fucked up way of seeing the world. The military would be a very bad thing for her. Call me whatever, I don’t care anymore, but I’m going to protect my daughter with the last dying beat of my heart to keep her from having to pay for the Lars’ of this world.
I’d be on your side of your daughter wasn’t able to vote. But if she can vote to send my son to war then she needs to go herself.
I’m in support of this.
Welcome to the bigs rookie…if you have what it takes you can stay, if not get ready for a quick trip back to the minors.
Equality is all shits and giggles until, you have to go register and be ready to be called up or be denied school loans and such. Then it ain’t so funny is it. Welcome to boot camp ladies. “You have exactly 10 seconds to get your sorry asses off this bus and form up on the line! God help the last one off!”
Equal opportunity often carries equal responsibility. I always like hearing how I had it lucky because I started my own business and it worked out for me…I always ask how I was lucky and the reply is usually something on the order of, “well you get to come and go as you please and you only answer to yourself”…
They almost never like my response, because I point out that they too could have this glorious adventure of risking their family’s life savings and financial well being for the joys of making less than some of your employees in the beginning all the while working 70-80 hours to make sure you don’t disappoint anyone.
Yep. Everyone seems to think that a senior executive – in government, the military, or the commercial world – lives a life of leisure. In reality, those folks often work a killer schedule that runs 12-14 hours a day (sometimes longer), every day – weekends and holidays often included. And they often have less control over their schedules than the people working for them.
I happened to be near General Shinseki back in 2000 during some major exercise that I can’t recall the name of. Anyway, one of his aides told me that the general literally has bathroom breaks on his schedule. Also, I arrived at my first unit in December and had Bn staff duty detail every 3 days or so and I remember the commander, S3, and csm coming in every single day and working full shifts while 80% of the unit was on leave.
In my personal similar, but lesser, experience I was told that I had it too easy in college because my tuition was “free.”
Can you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth yet?
I hear it. It’s a wonderful, calming sound, much like soothing white noise.
How long before the SJW twinks frame this as an example of the Republican War On Women? Wait for it in 3 – 2 – 1 – BOOM!
I’m been mean these past couple of days (and I understand where you are coming from Animal) but I wish they would change the Registration age of 18-25 to 18-40.
We are living longer now. Social Security age benefits have changed because of longer lifespan.
Why not the Selective Service Registration Age rules?
Hope this really goes thru and becomes a law. Do you think BHO might try to prevent it because of his offsprings?
Or do you think others will try an exception, i.e. if you are an unwed Mother with numerous Daddy’s for the children,you don’t have to register?
Yep, be careful what you wish for. Especially those supporters who have daughters or even those who push for this. The ones who are getting close to 40 years old.
Or do you think others will try an exception, i.e. if you are an unwed Mother with numerous Daddy’s for the children,you don’t have to register? ”
You will have a lot of these as a fallout.
Just watch.
My instincts tell me the kids of politicians (or their grandkids) will find a way to be exempt. I guess we’ll have to sit back and watch how this all plays out.
You guys make me laugh. Bitch and moan, gripe and complain…but look who’s the proudest when your little girl grows up and joins the Army!
Well, of course they do, PN! If they can’t crank out boys, who else will fill Daddy’s shoes?
Either way, boy OR girl, I think it’s because their heart is back in uniform again.
As I stated in the past, this might be a nice question to pose to Hillary in the next debate or news interview.
Yeah, good luck with that, GT.
…Sadly, I think the only real effect here will be an EO to stand down the Selective Service. No way will Our Elected Betters ever allow a single woman to sign a draft registration card.
Mike
Well, if it’s The Law, then they have to.
Really? Like they did when they signed the Iran Nuclear Deal in contravention of existing Federal law? Or when they ransomed Bergdahl from his captors without giving Congress notice as required by law? Or when they knowingly watched weapons unlawfully purchased go across the Mexican border during “Fast and Furious”?
This Administration treats Federal law as a “mere inconvenience” when it is contrary to what they want to do. They routinely ignore the law.
Oh, you know what I meant. Don’t be so literal.
Ace over at Ace of Spades HQ likes to point out how Democrats never get the sort of gotcha questions that Republicans seem to get all the time.
For instance, Hillary Clinton claims to be a believing Christian, but she is never asked whether or not she believes that the creation story as related in the Bible is true. The wrong answer one way or the other might hurt her with one part of her constituency (secular white liberals vs. more religious blacks, for example). So she never has to answer such questions-what a lucky coincidence.
Meant in response to Green Thumb above.
There IS no wrong answer, because none of us was there. The ‘wrong’ answer is the answer that the politician attempts to sit on the fence with and gets caught doing the balancing act. If they would just say, “Here’s what I believe…” and ACTUALLY STICK WITH IT, I don’t think anybody would care, or at least, would respect them for adhering to what they actually do believe.
We do that all the time. Why can’t they?
I’m surprised Lars isn’t spilling the beans here about why this isn’t right
????????
My guess is that he’s discussing it with his acquaintances first, so that he doesn’t inadvertently say something contrary to the accepted and approved “Berkeley Progressive Talking Points”.
Logically, based on his past statements here he should be 100% in favor. But consistency has never been his strong suit, and I suspect he’s may be getting an earful from many of his female acquaintances right now about how this proposed legal change is so “unfair to womyn”.
I’m fine with the quiet.
I am too, NR Pax. But I’m still curious.
Word ????
He’s probably at some “safe space” with a triple soy decaf with a twist espresso leaning about white privilege or transgendered Lithuanian authors of the neoclassical romance period from 1747-1752
BHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Me and da boss had a run in with a bunch of rich white kids with black lives matter signs, ?????
the fruit loops got ther ass handed to them by da boss and then she toke off after them to get a F$&@ live
??????
The Miss’s can get a little crazy sometimes I just step out of the way Lol
You know nothing good ever happens on 4th Avenue!
Transportation museum downtown damn close though ?
I won’t speak for Lars, but most liberals I know are fine with this. Mind you, they’re of varying opinions, often negative, on the draft itself, and on the nature of many of our recent military engagements,… but women being treated equally under the draft? It’s considered a positive step.
SJW’s never think about that 800lb Gorilla in the room called CONSEQUENCES whenever they “fight” for some right… and that gorilla usually doesn’t show them any mercy.
Yes, but, Senior Chief, now they have to think about it whether they like it or not. Equal means equal all the time, not just when you want something.
Negative, Ex-PH2. To a “progressive”, the term “equality” really means, “Treat me equally when that suits me, and treat me as a member of a ‘protected class’ whenever that gives me an advantage.”
Don’t believe me? Then explain why “progressives” are in favor of “affirmative action” (AKA ace-based quota systems) in university admissions at elite schools vice strictly colorblind competition. Or why they’re in favor of “progressive taxation” schemes. Or any number of other schemes that by design treat different groups of people differently, always to the benefit of those that the “progressives” feel should get extra benefits.
Equality my ass. They don’t give a crap about equality or justice. They just want “the game of life” rigged in their and their political allies’ favor.
I think the word ‘equality’ gets thrown around too easily without people thinking about the nature of it. Specifically, are we as a society aiming for equality of outcome or equality of opportunity?
The first actively discriminates against people in the majority in order to balance things ‘right away’, and I’m personally against that. The latter says we shouldn’t discriminate based on sex, race, whatever, and over time is likely to statistically balance under-represented people in a given group. This, to me, is perfectly fine.
You will, of course, have people who will use any loophole to their advantage and just pay lip-service to concepts of equality or justice, but I think you paint iwth too broad a brush when you label ‘progressives’ as a whole this way.
“Equality of outcome” is a perfect example of Orwellian doublespeak. In truth, it is NOT equality at all, nor is it just. As you point out, it is in fact discrimination against the competent and outstanding in order to spare the incompetent and below-average the rightful consequences of their behavior. I largely agree with you about the obove. I disagree on two other points. The first is the fact that you used – hopefully unknowingly – a term intentionally crafted based on lies to mask the true crime being perpetrated. The term “equality of outcome” is a lie. It is nothing but blatant, repulsive discrimination masquerading as a form of “equality”. The real world does not exhibit “equality of outcome” anywhere except in a welfare state. And the so-called “equality of outcome” of a welfare state is that of the lowest common denominator – except for the state’s rulers, who are “more equal than others”. For an example, see the Soviet Union. My second exception is your assertion that I am painting with “too broad a brush”. No, I am not painting with too broad a brush when I say progressives support “rigging the game” through supporting the falsehood called “equality of outcome” in place of actual equality. They do so through supporting and/or advocating precisely the things I noted above – all of which are discrimination masquerading as equality. And they do so by calling, incessantly, for the government to “do more to help people” in areas where the government has no freaking business intruding, and in situations where people are fully capable of doing those exact things for themselves. They may well do so unknowingly or out of ignorance – but if so, they remain culpable for the damage caused by their ignorance. And a large proportion do realize that what they support is not objectively “fair” – but justify it through some bizarre and false concept of “ancestral guilt” for “past injustice”. I can grudgingly respect a committed Communist or Socialist, who openly advocates his/her position, even though I find such schemes abhorrent and evil. However, I… Read more »
I think we’re largely in agreement on ‘equality of outcome’ – a phrase I’ve used not because of some Orwellian connection but because, to me, it seems the simplest way to characterize that form of equality as opposed to the equality of opportunity. In theory, if opportunity is equal, then over time the outcome will reflect a (more or less) equal distribution.
The problem happens when you try to jump to that end state without the slow, gradual process of time. Interestingly, there are studies (of which I remain uncertain of their veracity) which show, for example, that more diverse companies -eg, women in leadership roles, minorities in key positions, etc.- do better in business. Of course, this could simply be that when you’re hiring specifically for diversity you hire well, because it’s being watched carefully, as opposed to simply sticking a friend in the mix. My point is, I’ll consider the notion that diversity can have an unexpected effect on overall performance of a group of people… but I fundamentally disagree with actively discriminating against majority people simply because of their majority status. Get the best people for the job. There are historical considerations and systemic issues but frankly I consider them less important than the principle of fairness in the moment.
As for why I say you’re painting with too broad a brush – well, perhaps we’re arguing semantics, as often happens here. When you say ‘progressives’, I hear that as ‘liberals/progressives’, and I’m a fairly liberal person and I’m against affirmative action. And I’m hardly alone in that. It isn’t a linchpin of liberal ideology, though maybe it seems that way from the outside at times. Point of fact: I, as a (fairy) liberal sort, oppose it, so when you say liberals are for it, you’re painting with too broad a brush.
Well, there’s equality via perception, and equality via law.
One is reality, the other is fantasy.
Guess which one is which?
My point (as you know) was that real equality means you pay your dues, regardless, instead of acting like a spoiled prince(ss).
This is as it should be. I would add that we should be screening for cognitive (aptitude), physical, and non cognitive (grit, determination)
This is, bar none, the best gift I’ve ever been given. I can’t wait to see the boo-boo faces