Congress won’t draft women
Bobo sends us a link to The Hill which reports that Congress has stripped out a provision of the Defense Bill which would have required women to register for the draft. Apparently, drafting women would be “unnecessary culture-warring”;
The provision had been included in the House version, but was stripped when it came to the House floor. Instead, the House-passed version required a review of the Selective Service System to see if it is still necessary.
Conservatives pushed House and Senate negotiators to drop the provision, arguing that requiring women to register was putting “culture wars” above national security.
Um, no, it’s called “equality”. If the draft was a good idea when only men were sent into combat, its a good idea when women can be sent, too. The Social Justice Warriors should be all over this.
Category: Congress sucks
May I volunteer to join the committee which compiles the list of things which also cause “unnecessary culture-warring?”
I am triggered and offended by this! Report to human resources immediately.
hypocrites
If they didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.
Oh. Wait…
WHAAAAAAATTTT!!!!!
Fucking chickenshit asswipe morons. You wanted equality, bitches. Equality means you serve your time, too, like it or not.
Culture warring????? What a load of bullshit.
I know horse stables that have huge loads of horse manure from stall cleaning. How much does it cost to hire a dumptruck, load it up, and dump it on the steps of the Capitol?
I put my time in. So did the rest of us WOMEN. The rest of these silly bitches can put their time in, too. Fair is fair, equal is equal, period.
Exctly. True equality means sharing privileges AND burdens. I am all for women being draftable, they’ve proven their worth in the past and are an asset to our military. Having ovaries doesn’t preclude you from service to your country. It’s sad that certain conservatives still don’t see it that way. Guess someone’s gotta protect them little wimmins, gotta make sure they stay in their kitchens and raise the kids.
“It’s sad that certain conservatives still don’t see it that way. Guess someone’s gotta protect them little wimmins, gotta make sure they stay in their kitchens and raise the kids.”
I thought the conservatives were waging a war on women? Who threw up the white flag?
Honestly, I don’t know much about a war on women, but making special rules for them and not treating them equally would certainly fit that narrative.
“Honestly, I don’t know much about a war on women….”
It has been on the mainstream news for years. Seriously, you have not heard about the left screaming about it?
I certainly agree that women should be treated equal and be required to register for the draft.
Sorry for the rough language, but I consider this a real slap in the equal rights category.
Equal rights also means equal responsibilities. If you don’t want the responsibilities, then don’t squawk about your rights.
No, no, NO! That concept went out sometime in the mid-70’s. Rights now are just what every spoiled sparkle pony claims just because they want it. Now. And you had better give it too them. Just because they are so special. Earn it? No need. Pay for it? No need. In fact, need has naught to do with any of it – all that matters is what they want. And when do they want it? NOW!
OWB, you could post a spew alert! Hot tea!!!
She wasn’t making a joke, Ex-PH2. She was merely summarizing the left’s positions re: gender/racial/other equality over the last decade or two.
I’m not joking.
I believe there is still an ongoing case in the Courts that contest the unequal treatment between men and women when it comes to SS registration.
I guess is that registration will go away entirely.
I’d like to see that case keep moving as one of the requirements for Federal school loans is registering for the draft. So far that rule only affects males….
What in hell was wrong with WAC, WAF, WAVE, BAM corps? Those ladies served an important mission, made rank, had careers, etc. If we remove the SJW from the equation, there remains no valid reason to discontinue those branches.
A bit late to worry about that, Frankie. Those branches were discontinued around 1970 or so. Not gonna change.
Not “worrying about it”, but noting it. This was one of the early decisions, brought about by the SJWs before they were recognized as such. My comment stands:
“If we remove the SJW from the equation, there remains no valid reason to discontinue those branches.” And with that first step, we have arrived at where we are today.
I think the WAC was discontinued in 1978, OWB.
The SJW howler monkeys (thank you, Nicki!) don’t like it when equality means you have to take the unpleasant parts too. It’s just not fair to hold people accountable for the equality they seek. Actually, it’s not equality they’re after, it’s special treatment as a protected class.
It’ll be interesting to hear the liberal take on this – some of the women I know wanted the equality aspect, others didn’t like the draft at all, but off the top of my head I can’t think of any that wanted equal opportunity in the Armed Forces, but for only men to be required to register for the draft.
As the article states, this was an effort by conservative senators, not liberal ones. The SJW howler monkeys aren’t to blame for this one, except via convoluted mental gymnastics.
They are probably thinking about it the same as Obamacare did to Democrats. How many democrats that voted for it stayed in office after 10,12,14,16?
Their opponents will throw out the, “he wants to send your daughters to war!” talking point.
Not that I disagree, I am perfectly fine with selective service for all, or just getting rid of selective service.
That’s possible, but I think we can all agree that principles shouldn’t take a back seat to politics. Screw what your opponent says – get in, do the job, and if you lose, do something else. If you always worry about how everything is going to be portrayed by the opposition, you’ll be paralyzed by fear.
That’s a rotten way for anyone to live, even politicians.
It’s very simple, really. We’re all Americans, and should be equally responsible for the defense of our nation. If it’s worth living here, it’s worth fighting for. And if you can’t fight, then make yourself useful elsewhere.
Regardless of Selective Service, we all are, according to US Code anyway.
“If we want equality in this country, if we want women to be treated precisely like men are treated and that they should not be discriminated against, then we should support a universal conscription,” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said. Yep looks like a Conservative to me……Pick up the pieces of a pretty young lady destroyed by an IED. Put her left leg in a body bag and search for her breasts to make a whole body then come talk to me about equality and discrimination. All of you need to re-evaluate your thinking. This isn’t Ireland or Iraq. This is America and we have a different set of values on human life.
So, what you’re saying is that a man’s life is worth less than a woman’s? Because he can produce sperm and she can just stay home and crank out babies? And we girls serve no other useful purpose?
Just trying to understand here, because what you said is so 16th century, it’s just ridiculous.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say? I think the quote you stated is Rep. Speier in support of women being in the draft, whereas it was the Republicans in Congress removing that part of the bill:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/295510-gop-senators-take-cultural-issues-out-of-defense-bill
Everybody wants to be a gangster ’til it’s time to do gangster shit!!
What about the little boys who self-identify as little girls?
Good point. What about the trannies, also?
Making them play by their own rules is sweet.
Bitter for them, but sweet justice nonetheless.
Actually, I have a different take on this. I am hoping that this decision signals the beginning of a tide turn for all of the SJW nonsense in our military.
Agreed, Eden.
But it is so much fun to watch the SJW howler monkeys squirm when made to play by their own rules.
Alinsky rule #4.
That knife cuts both ways.
Exactly.
Culture warring would be forcing the military to accept and pay for the medical care for transgenders pre-existing medical needs due to their transgendered status….
Culture warring would NOT be expecting women to perform to the same standards and accepting the same conditions as their EQUAL male counterparts. That would be called “fair and equal” which is something our lawmakers know very little about as you can see based on their actions…but not to worry, after all with the exception of Trump we elected mostly the same people as were serving under Obama so no doubt it will all be better in a few months….
Only men are good enough to be drafted???? WTF???? The SJW’s aren’t willing to take that next step for full equality?
Another glass ceiling that the wimmins can’t break through… and the SJW’s are holding them down again.
That’s the problem with the SJW feminists. They want equality…….until they don’t.
They should be calling and haranging the Republitard Kongress Kritters to put the provision to at least have women register for the draft (with all the rewards for obedience, and punishments for disobedience, the same as the men), back into the bill.
Honest question – can you point out any SJW types who want equal opportunities in the military for women, but don’t want them to register for the draft? I do like to point out this sort of hypocrisy to my more liberal friends, and would love some links.
Have any said “allow all to serve in all jobs” but did not say “make selective service the same for all”?
Start there.
Bingo.
What is left unsaid is often as significant as what is stated explicitly.
I’ll disagree with Hondo. Assuming that people who are pushing to serve in all roles are somehow against the draft applying to them is a big leap of logic.
I just googled and found this survey showing 52% of women oppose registering for the draft (with 38% for, and 10% unsure) … but when you look at the wording of the question, you see it was asked about registering for the draft in general, which can easily include people who oppose the draft, not solely those who oppose the draft for women but are for it for men. If I have the time, I’ll dig around and see if any other polling on this is done – as a pure guess, if they separate out the question to gauge opposition to the draft vs. opposition for women to register but men still have to, I’d bet those numbers are pretty different. And I’d also guess that the younger crowd, with less defined gender roles, is even more in favor of ‘true equality’.
I’m prepared to eat crow if wrong, but that’s been my experience with the liberals I’ve spoken with.
Forgot the link:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2016/most_women_oppose_having_to_register_for_the_draft
You’re jumping to conclusions, LC, as well as misrepresenting what I said above.
Many on the left have jumped on the “open all roles in the military to women” bandwagon. However, I don’t recall hearing too many on the left specifically address the issue of requiring women to register for the draft. That was the point of my comment.
I stand by my comment; what’s left unsaid often DOES give insight into another’s true opinions on a given subject. That’s particularly true when dealing with politicians addressing controversial subjects. They often try to avoid addressing such issues directly.
Logically, the two (serving in all military specialties and draft eligibility) are a “package deal”. That’s particularly true since the former direct combat ban regarding military women was precisely the reason the SCOTUS upheld a male-only draft the last time the issue was taken to court. IMO advocating opening all military specialties to women without addressing the issue of the draft thus shows either (1) a lack of thought or (2) support for the former while being indifferent to or opposing the latter.
A lack of foresight can be corrected by a simple statement along the lines of, “Since women are now eligible for all military jobs, of course women should be required to register for the draft. I support changing the law to require that.” So far, I don’t recall hearing anything except a few on the left make a statement to that effect.
If I misrepresented what you said, it wasn’t intentional, I’m just saying that I don’t think there’s any implicit assumption about your (2) above. I certainly do agree that there’s often a lack of consideration about the draft aspect when people advocate for equality of opportunity in all MOSs, but I’m simply saying that a) I won’t hold that against people, and b) when pushed on it, I think most people (and most women, especially younger ones) who are for this would, if the question is explicit about the draft itself not being up for debate, side with the notion that women should register as well.
Basically, it seems you feel that without a secondary statement on the draft effect, a statement in favor of opening the roles to women implies they don’t favor the draft for women, but do for men? I’m saying that my experience in discussing this issue with, admittedly, a small sample size, shows otherwise. And I’m inclined to think it’s more representative of the position held by people pushing for equality in the roles.
And I’m inclined to think it’s more representative of the position held by people pushing for equality in the roles. Precisely – if by “it” you are referring to deliberately side-stepping the issue by not addressing it. The average 18-25 y/o female probably doesn’t even realize that males have to register for the draft until someone tells them that’s still a requirement. Most probably don’t even give it a second thought even then, since it doesn’t apply to them and we aren’t having a draft anyway. To expect them to have thought through the issue and identified the “disconnect” is akin to expecting to draw the card needed to complete an inside straight in 5-card draw poker. I’m guessing that’s generally true about most women between 25 and 45 as well. The US has not had a draft since the oldest of them was still in diapers. They were never confronted with the issue previously due to the combat arms assignment ban. However, anyone advocating the SJW-howler-monkey position on this issue damn well should know that draft registration is, by law, currently male only – and they should also know why the SCOTUS upheld it the last time it was challenged (the previously-mentioned combat arms/assignments ban). They thus should have thought about the ramifications of opening combat arms specialties to women with respect to the draft and draft registration. If they haven’t done so, they’ve not done their due diligence. If they know – and fail to address the disparity – that is a conscious choice. That IMO means they are OK with accepting and continuing that disparity in law – and are also desperately hoping no one notices and calls them on it. That to me further implies either acceptance of that double standard if not an outright endorsement of it. That is unacceptable. The current law regarding draft registration is only logically and morally supportable if women are banned from direct combat. The SJW-howler-monkey crowd needs to be forced to face that fact, and go on record – one way or another – regarding their support for expanding… Read more »
What’s the problem? We can’t get body bags in pink or what?
Gently, Sparks. It’s not like we haven’t had women die for this nation already.
I’m sure we’ll be in for a wonderful few years of hearing SJW Howling Flower Monkeys screech everywhere and I’m all in favor of equal treatment of them regardless of gender. After seeing a young female of that species punch a 70 year old man in the face over his beliefs I am all in favor of all of them receiving pepper spray, riot clubs, fire hosings and rough rides in the paddy wagons. I’m all for them using soapy water in their water cannons, that would make their stank asses melt on the spot!
Draft men, draft women. The WM’s I knew (and who served in my company) were an asset to the Marine Corps as much as the men. We had an all WM salute detail on 4 July ’72 at MCSC Barstow. (Been lookin’ for a reason to insert that in the conversation.) Can’t see women serving in my battery in RVN. Women are too important to be put in combat-leave that shit too us. Remember: we Americans are the leaders of the (alleged) “civilized world.”
Okay, borderbill, but consider this: in some future state of war, you have a unit of both men and women, and some of the men are cannon cockers, but none of the women have been trained in that. You suffer an overwhelming barrage of fire from the enemey, leaving you with five cannons and one artie GUY, and a whole bunch of women just doing ‘lock and load’.
Now are you going to simply sit there and let your position be overrun and wiped out, or are you going to make sure that everyone is trained on every piece of ballistic equipment, enough to load and use it, including the women?
Just askin’, because it is a possibility, you know.
I’d like to add, also, that the VC had no compunction about training their women to fire antiaircraft artillery. There is plenty of film of them doing that.
Or our women…
Yeah, that precedent was set in the summer of 1972, I believe.
The VC had nothing to do with it. Those photos of the chicks with the Triple-A were almost entirely propaganda on the part of the military in North Vietnam. It’s also a near certainty that the chances of an NVA gunner-babe either getting killed or hitting one of our own fast movers was about as likely as Ho Chi Minh riding the winning horse in the Kentucky Derby.
That’s immaterial, Perry, Gaskill. It may have been used as propaganda, but the NVA women were just as dedicated to their cause as the men, and some of them were vicious enough to be labeled beasts from Hell.
Frankly, I think this whole issue is much ado about nothing. In this day and age, with the current state of our national culture and the nature and swiftness of modern warfare, I seriously doubt there will be a military draft – at least in any of our lifetimes.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m in favor of compulsory national service – military, healthcare, ditch digging or whatever – but I just don’t see a military draft happening for males or females. In our current social/political culture, an active attack our very existence as a nation would be required before our representatives reinstate the draft. By the time such an attack began, however, it would be too late for a draft to do any good.
We, they and everyone can argue back and forth about whether or not it’s “fair” to exempt females from registering with selective service, but in the end, it doesn’t matter. There won’t be a military draft in the foreseeable future and even if there were, one could still be drafted regardless of registration status.
From 1792 (passage of the first Militia Act) to 1903 (passage of the Dick Act) the US had universal conscription which required membership in your local militia organization.
The Dick Act and rapid growth of the US after the Civil War basically put an end to universal enrollment, as the costs were going to be prohibitive once the USG started paying for training days.
The Militia Law is still active. We have the organized militia, which is the National Guard, and we have the unorganized militia, which consists of everybody else with the exception of certain professions.
Each state also has a state militia law, which operates on similar concepts. For example, in Virginia, able bodied men and women, from 15 to 56 (or between those ages), not in the National Guard or State Defense Force, are members of the unorganized state militia… Exceptions for certain professions.
The National Guard, and Reserve, were formed partly to zero in on who’d get the paid federal training. There were other reasons as well, but the unorganized militia is still liable for active militia call up. This was done as late as World War II.
Pretty much the way I see it as well. We’ll never see a draft so other than to support the good gummint jobs that exist in the “selective service” there’s no reason we need registration anyway.
I remember thinking how silly it was that I had to “register for the draft” – as an 18 year old private at Fort Benning, GA.
Like 9/11, if we get hit as a nation, we’ll have more volunteers than we will ever need. Both men and women. Of all ages, all creeds and all races, but with one objective… defend our country.
Part of the “It’s not fair to exempt females from registering” is that males cannot get federal financial aid without registering, females don’t have that requirement. Certain security clearances for government jobs require registration as well. I served 24 years in the Army with a TS clearance, and I still had to prove I registered in 1980 in order to hold a DHS clearance.
Now that the jobs/open issue is “settled”, i do not see how the Supreme Court could not find a 14th amendment issue with male-only registration and sanctions.
Particularly since the former ban on female military personnel serving in direct combat was the rationale used by the SCOTUS to uphold male-only draft registration the last time it was challenged.
Besides, I think “Service” should guarantee citizenship.
Would you like to know more?
That’s a good point. The French Foreign Legion will grant you French citizenship for enlisting, if you want it.
They won’t, however, suggest which wine goes with what dish.
Ahh, the difference between a resident and a citizen!
Should be required reading in every high school.
– For both males and females.
Agreed.
I see what you did there with that Starship Troopers reference.
Actually military service already guarantees citizenship.
Under special provisions in Section 329 of the INA, the President signed an executive order on July 3, 2002, authorizing all noncitizens who have served honorably in the U.S. armed forces on or after Sept. 11, 2001, to immediately file for citizenship.
This order also covers veterans of certain designated past wars and conflicts. The authorization will remain in effect until a date designated by a future presidential executive order.
There are some attractive features to that idea of Heinlein’s.
I have no problem with that. While I was in Afghanistan there were about 12 members of our Brigade that took their Oaths of Citizenship during that tour. They not only volunteered and put on the uniform, they risked their hind ends in a Combat Zone alongside yours truly, and I’m proud to call them Fellow American Citizens. AS TO the illegal aliens, SCREW ‘EM, the only thing we owe them is deportation!
Yep. I’ve adminstered the oath of allegiance to about 4,000 of them both here in the States and in theatre over the past 8 years.
What??? They fought for the right to get into RANGER school but will not demand to be signed up for the draft? I am shocked their not marching in the streets?
Total Bullshit.
Setting recycle records and avoiding the draft.
Maybe I should get a sex change and sign back up.
I would make rank in no time.
I do wonder if the Selective Service would be a good agency to make disappear.
Nixon stopped the draft in 1973, wasn’t it? I do remember that I was waiting on my “Greetings” letter just before my sweet bride and I were married, and Nixon’s action let me focus on the wedding and school instead. What useful function have they served since then?
Fire all of them, send the records to National Archives, and close the offices for good. Wonder how much money that would save?
$22,900,000
Source: https://www.sss.gov/Portals/0/PDFs/Budget%20Justification%202016.pdf
I’m all for ditching Selective Service altogether, as well.
If we ever decide to actually start drafting people one of the first things that will happen is a lawsuit filed by some male claiming that not drafting women violates his Constitutional right to equal application of the law. If he wins, nobody could be drafted.
It would be best to settle questions like this now, before the need arises. Another reason I support restoring the draft.
He’ll be in line behind me. I think that age discrimination should also be considered. I’m quite sure that in a national emergency, any WWII/Korean War/VN War vet would pony up ahead of the slackers in a heartbeat.
How does that joke go?
Old folks are already cranky and just don’t give a rip, we’ll just shoot you and be done with it?
Something like that, yes, Graybeard.
This could be a signal that in the near future combat roles will once again be closed to the fairer sex and physical performance standards will be upheld. It makes no sense to draft someone who has such a high % chance of getting injured or failing to meet infantry or tanker physical requirements.
Israel found it’s a mistake to send women into combat, but they can still be drafted, as there’s many other jobs that women can do.
When the Second World War began, and the United States Army created the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps, i.e., the “WAAC”, later to become the Women’s Army Corps, i.e., the “WAC”, my stepmother Alma Capps (now Mallernee) was the 104th female to enlist.
She had her Basic Combat Training at Des Moines, Iowa, and spent the war in Florida, watching for enemy aircraft.
She currently lives in the Assisted Living section of Heritage Place in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and will turn ONE HUNDRED YEARS OLD on Sunday 26 March 2017.
She sounds like a wonderful woman! How great that you still have her in your life. I hope her next birthday is outstanding and full of family and friends!
Why, exactly, is this even an issue? I mean, are we really going to bring back the draft, ever?
We fought the longest war in American history with no draft. Surely we can fight all future wars with no draft, right?
I firmly believe we should just consign Selective Service to the history books and move on.
Hard to say what the future will bring. Assuming that all future wars will be asymmetric in nature and require fewer and a few hundred thousand deployed troops is never a long term plan.
And as I recall, and have read on this very blog, the Pentagon was giving all kinds of waivers (even to people like Bergdahl) to get the troop count up in order to avoid deploying people 3 or 4 or 5 times…and stop-loss orders….and that’s for a small troop count conflict.
Our current military can’t support a full scale conflict requiring a million trigger pullers as there’s barely a million people serving….I believe the number serving today is what .5% of the population? That’s never going to suffice in a full blown global conflict…against the lower level capability enemies in the middle east it was barely enough. A more capable, equipped and trained enemy would require far more bodies.
“And as I recall, and have read on this very blog, the Pentagon was giving all kinds of waivers (even to people like Bergdahl) to get the troop count up in order to avoid deploying people 3 or 4 or 5 times…and stop-loss orders….and that’s for a small troop count conflict.”
I remember seeing PT as well as height/weight no-gos graduating WLC (It was a PC joke to me)when I took it. In the old days back when it was PLDC (Parade Rest School to some)just flunking the initial PT Test got one sent packing back to their unit.
The argument for a draft, and Kratman makes a good case, is that survival against a “peer” opponent may make it necessary, even essential, to draft.
I generally oppose a draft on a number of grounds, but he argues the “for” case very well, and it should be considered by both sides.
I think 11B has a good point.
We have not had a conflict such as WWII for more than 70 years. We prepped for one, but not had one.
I know that the ‘traditional’ OPFOR exercises take different tactics than the exercises for the fighting being done since 9/11.
It is worth considering that in the WWI WWII conflicts, the US was not viewed as the major player by the bad guys at the start of each conflict. They attacked those they perceived as their serious opponents first, and we came in fresh to the fight to mop up. In a future conflict, that will not be the case. The USA is sitting in the X ring. It is our strength that has kept the big guys from picking on us.
We may just need an “all hands on deck” draft someday.
Korea and Vietnam were on a smaller scale but against opponents who had major first world backers. Air superiority wasn’t a given in either of those conflicts and the resulting casualty count on the US side would be unimaginable to a public used to a dozen or less casualties at a time.
Having a day where 600 men died in a single afternoon as we did in both those conflicts would be something the public would struggle with today I suspect.
First world enemies in a traditional conflict of arms would require a massive amount of personnel and equipment, which means if we lack that we might far more quickly utilize a nuclear resolution option…which would certainly change the world in an instant….even if the world didn’t know it had been changed so drastically at that moment.
True, VOV. We were still fighting the prior war – and China and Russia were, IMHO, testing us there.
I’m afraid 600 casualties in a day would shock todays citizenry. Their long-term response might not be the wisest, either.
I sure would like to see a reference cited as to which specific day in Vietnam we suffered 600 KIA.
I’m unable to find any reference at all that cites over 580 KIA for a whole month, let alone in a single day.
A little help?
Small add-on:
From everything I have ever read, 17 Nov 65 when the 1st CAV lost 155 KIA was our bloodiest day.
That’s why I asked about the 600 KIA in one day.
You’re correct I typed that wrong…we need an edit function…245 men were killed on January 31, 1968 that is the highest death toll for any single day during the war. I was using my phone to type when should have been using my keyboard…you can get the information from the wall’s website as the deaths are listed chronologically and then alphabetically within each date…
You have my apology for the incorrect information.
May of 1968 was the worst month of the war as well with 2400 killed during the month so the 600 number (approximately) should have been for a week not a day…I had stated that incorrectly from memory and should have researched the number again…getting to that point where CRS (can’t remember shit) is more of a factor than I’d like to remember….
I suffer from CRS too.
Okay, Got it.
Now we need to stop coed basic training and kick women out of all combat jobs. That way we can get back to having a military we can depend on. I’m not sure if today’s military could really win a war against Russia or China. It’s too soft and dependent on technology. Let our enemy take out our technology with an EMP blast and were left with a bunch of people who couldn’t handle combat without it.
Like I’ve read on here numerous times, the SJW’s are all for having women in the army…until it’s time to do army stuff.
OK, the only way this really “fits” the topic is that it involves a couple of young ladies, but here are two who give us hope for the next generation.
Tissue Alert
http://www.khou.com/features/high-school-runner-disqualified-for-helping-competitor/359491006
I guess I am my ladybits are just too speeeeeeeshul to qualify to pull my equal weight. I should give up my firearms, stop hauling 50 lb sacks of feed and get back in the kitchen with my baby, teehee.
Because what’s sauce for the gander, clearly, isn’t sauce for the goose. Be nice if they got it right for a change.
Some people/groups want equality until it becomes an inconvenience to them.
Since registering for Selective Service was a requirement for getting government loans for college, I see absolutely nothing wrong with requiring it of women, too. It is not culture warring. There are something over 150,000 women – I’ve lost count – from multiple war periods who volunteered, and many, many of them for positions that put them in extreme danger, never mind the most recent 15 years of women IN combat zones, doing what they volunteered to do.
If those self-centered bitches, male and female both, who shout the loudest about equality really want that, then they can just step up to the line and register, or they get nothing.
I ain’t giving into your feminist demands woman! Get out of the pants and back into a dress!