PDA

View Full Version : Bush, Rubio, Christie: Women should be eligible for Selective Service



Rainmaker
02-07-2016, 02:50 PM
So, did anyone else happen to notice the 3 NEOCON stooges of the apocalypse calling for teenage girls to have to register for the draft?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/selective-service-2016-campaign-jeb-bush-marco-rubio-chris-christie-women-218880

When pressed by the moderator all 3 of these mealy mouthed faggots gave some progressive liberal sounding answer about "fairness and discrimination".

Of course none of these tough guys actually chose to enlist themselves, when they had the chance. They'd rather your little daughters have to do it instead.

IMO. This is where all this social engineering, Combat Barbie Bullshit is heading.... they want to be able to conscript our women and let them be ground up by the camel fuckers, in useless wars fought on behalf of central banker scum and making the region safe for greater Israel.

garhkal
02-07-2016, 06:58 PM
Sorry rainmaker, but here is where i disagree with you. IF women want to serve in combat arms, and get true equality, then they damn well should also have to sign up with the Select Service, just like guys do.

sandsjames
02-07-2016, 07:04 PM
I believe the question was (paraphrased)"Since they can fill combat roles, should they be required to register for the draft?" It only makes sense that the answer to this question be yes. Now, if the question was "Do you think women should be in combat roles?" then I might expect some differing answers, but that wasn't the question. If they said that women should be in combat roles but NOT have to register for selective service, then they would be idiots.

Rainmaker
02-07-2016, 07:44 PM
IF women want to serve in combat arms, and get true equality, then they damn well should also have to sign up with the Select Service, just like guys do.

Other than a very small minority of feminists with harry nipples. Who wants women in combat arms? I sure as hell don't. and Most of the women I know, don't want to serve in combat arms either.

The gender lines are being blurred by these Godless communist agitators.

My son's serving as an Infantry Officer, right now, And I'm sure he has no desire to see his Little sisters fighting in the Army. AndThe men in My family have a long history of service (going all the way back to my 5th Great Grandfather who was a that was among the first southern Militia troops to serve under General Washington) But, I'll tell you this much speaking as a Father of 3 daughters..... If they think they're going to try to conscript our American daughters against their will to fight in useless wars so that a bunch of corrupt Zionist bankers can continue to enrich themselves at the public expense, than I predict, they're going to wind up as some dead mother fuckers. (Hypothetically speaking of course).

Rainmaker
02-07-2016, 07:59 PM
If they said that women should be in combat roles but NOT have to register for selective service, then they would be idiots.


"There's no reason why one young woman should be discriminated against for registering for the Selective Service."

So if this corrupt, Fat Fucking Pig (who doesn't even have enough self discipline to quit eating himself to death) thinks it's discriminating against women to not subject them to being involuntarily conscripted into the Army, then he's already an idiot.

sandsjames
02-07-2016, 08:32 PM
"There's no reason why one young woman should be discriminated against for registering for the Selective Service."

So if this corrupt, Fat Fucking Pig (who doesn't even have enough self discipline to quit eating himself to death) thinks it's discriminating against women to not subject them to being involuntarily conscripted into the Army, then he's already an idiot.


The simplest thing is to not have women in combat roles in the first place.

garhkal
02-08-2016, 04:56 AM
Rainmaker. How would it NOT be equally discriminatory to give them a pass on registering for selective service?

sandsjames
02-08-2016, 09:59 AM
Rainmaker. How would it NOT be equally discriminatory to give them a pass on registering for selective service?

It is discrimination. And that's not always a bad thing.

Rusty Jones
02-08-2016, 11:50 AM
Sorry rainmaker, but here is where i disagree with you. IF women want to serve in combat arms, and get true equality, then they damn well should also have to sign up with the Select Service, just like guys do.



I was never one to feel that everything needs to be "equal" between the sexes. To be honest, whenever I hear a man say shit like this, I'm reminded of that scene at the end of Happy Gilmore where he had the tower blocking his ball, and they talked about pausing the game until the next day when they could move the tower out of the way. Shooter McGavin loses his composure, and says "No, he has to hit it now! Play it as it lies! I hit it off Frankenstein's fat foot. Those are the rules!"

While, technically, Shooter was right... he did look like an immature whiner when he said this, did he not?

Now you know how I feel when I see men screaming at the top of their lungs about how they feel women should have to register for the selective service too.

Put yourself in this situation: you have a daughter in her mid 20's. She's married, and has two children. All of a sudden, your daughter's number comes up. She's drafted, handed a rifle, and is sent into combat half way across the world... all while your son in law is living large in the comfort of that three bedroom house in the suburbs. While your daughter is doing the fighting.

Really, do things HAVE to be equal? Whatever happened to feeling that, as men, we have responsibilities... namely, the ones that we're more physically and emotionally equipped to handle, so that women won't have to?

I've said this many times, and I'll say it again: too many men are hiding behind feminism, because they feel that feminism frees them from their responsibilities as men. Feminism has men handing their balls over to women.

Rusty Jones
02-08-2016, 02:18 PM
Our society is becoming way too androgynized. Because, for all the talk of women trying to turn men into women... we see men trying to turn women into men.

Is that what so-called "heterosexuals" are attracted to these days?

UncaRastus
02-08-2016, 02:40 PM
I recall, from the '60s, a try at unisex clothing was attempted. Demonstrations on campuses were not only for antiwar stuff, but for anything anti establishment, across the board. Back then, hippies tried to get marijuana legalized. Socialism was the bent for the hippies, also.

Now? I think that we all can see how everything has come back, with a vengeance.

sandsjames
02-08-2016, 03:32 PM
I recall, from the '60s, a try at unisex clothing was attempted. Demonstrations on campuses were not only for antiwar stuff, but for anything anti establishment, across the board. Back then, hippies tried to get marijuana legalized. Socialism was the bent for the hippies, also.

Now? I think that we all can see how everything has come back, with a vengeance.


Every generation has their "anti-establishment" thing, usually represented by the type of music they choose/chose to listen too. Every generation thinks they are unique, but things never change:

50s: Greasers
60s/70s: Hippies
80s: Punk
90s: Alternative
00s/10s: Social Media/Reddit kids/streaming "Indy" music crowd

What they have in common is that they all think they are ahead of their time...that they are the first ones to see the problems and that they are the first ones who can fix them by becoming more "liberal". Yet the more that happens, the less any identity is maintained by anyone.

Rusty Jones
02-08-2016, 03:47 PM
Every generation has their "anti-establishment" thing, usually represented by the type of music they choose/chose to listen too. Every generation thinks they are unique, but things never change:

50s: Greasers
60s/70s: Hippies
80s: Punk
90s: Alternative
00s/10s: Social Media/Reddit kids/streaming "Indy" music crowd

What they have in common is that they all think they are ahead of their time...that they are the first ones to see the problems and that they are the first ones who can fix them by becoming more "liberal". Yet the more that happens, the less any identity is maintained by anyone.

Nice list, however... for the 50's, I'd replace Greasers with Beatniks and Hepcats. As the Greasers got older, they got absorbed by Bikers, which would make Bikers the successor group.

The very first Hippy was a Beatnik who moved from New York to San Francisco to spread the culture.

sandsjames
02-08-2016, 04:30 PM
Nice list, however... for the 50's, I'd replace Greasers with Beatniks and Hepcats. As the Greasers got older, they got absorbed by Bikers, which would make Bikers the successor group.

The very first Hippy was a Beatnik who moved from New York to San Francisco to spread the culture.

Very true. I guess you could also throw the EMO in there for the 00s...either way, they're all the same, yet think they are the first of their kind.

UncaRastus
02-08-2016, 04:35 PM
Can we fit in the 'Entitlists'?

sandsjames
02-08-2016, 04:39 PM
Can we fit in the 'Entitlists'?

Pretty sure that's included in all of those groups.

Rusty Jones
02-08-2016, 04:42 PM
Very true. I guess you could also throw the EMO in there for the 00s...either way, they're all the same, yet think they are the first of their kind.



Emo, hipster, metrosexual, I can't really tell the difference. Well, lemme take that back - the metrosexual wore boot cut jeans, square toed shoes, and an untucked button-down shirt with the sleeves rolled half-way up the forearm. I can't tell the difference between a hipster and a lumbersexual, though. I've read somewhere that the lumbersexual is a late reaction to the metrosexual, where they're trying to reclaim the masculinity that was lost in the heyday of the latter. But it's a fail, from what I see. They need to ditch the skinny jeans and put down the craft beers for that.

garhkal
02-08-2016, 05:21 PM
It is discrimination. And that's not always a bad thing.

So discrimination is ok if the women are the one benefiting?
That sounds like how you are saying it.


Now you know how I feel when I see men screaming at the top of their lungs about how they feel women should have to register for the selective service too.

While i feel the same way when i see people scream that we 'need to treat women equal, but not equal'. I have and always will say, IF they want equality, then that should also include RESPONSIBILITY. Part of that responsibility is the signing up for selective service. Part of the 'equality' that goes with that is being in combat arms. If they don't want combat arms, then they don't need to worry about selective service.
BUT since they Do seem to want to be in the combat arms orgs, then they bloody well should be required to sign up.


Put yourself in this situation: you have a daughter in her mid 20's. She's married, and has two children. All of a sudden, your daughter's number comes up. She's drafted, handed a rifle, and is sent into combat half way across the world... all while your son in law is living large in the comfort of that three bedroom house in the suburbs. While your daughter is doing the fighting.

I see that as no different from 'your son is married and has 2 kids, and your son has to go off and fight a war which he may not come back from'. Or are you saying men's lives are not as important as womens lives?


Really, do things HAVE to be equal? Whatever happened to feeling that, as men, we have responsibilities... namely, the ones that we're more physically and emotionally equipped to handle, so that women won't have to?

I've said this many times, and I'll say it again: too many men are hiding behind feminism, because they feel that feminism frees them from their responsibilities as men. Feminism has men handing their balls over to women.

So what 'responsibilities' are exclusively men?

sandsjames
02-08-2016, 05:25 PM
So discrimination is ok if the women are the one benefiting?
That sounds like how you are saying it. No...women being discriminated against, in this case, also benefits men.

sandsjames
02-08-2016, 05:29 PM
So what 'responsibilities' are exclusively men? Fathering a child, providing financial support to a family, providing the majority of the discipline to the children, making the tough decisions that women's emotions don't allow them to make, etc.

Rusty Jones
02-08-2016, 05:41 PM
You know, I found a good quote somewhere that said something along the lines of "Femininity flourishes where there is safety."

It got me thinking about about someone on facebook who said something along the lines of envying the strength of his mother and other women in his family... and the first thing that I thought to myself is that the reason why the women in his family are so "strong" is because the men in his family had failed them.

A woman can't be feminine unless she has a man in her life that she can trust to shoulder all of the burdens that require masculinity to do so. If she doesn't have that, then she has to assume masculine traits himself.

In my observation, the same is true of a man. In terms of masculinity, "use it or lose it" definitely applies.

Rainmaker
02-08-2016, 06:28 PM
You know, I found a good quote somewhere that said something along the lines of "Femininity flourishes where there is safety."

Good Quote Rusty..... Here's another one.

"The last six Roman emperors were fags. You see, homosexuality, immorality in general, these are the enemies of strong societies. That’s why the communists and the left-wingers are pushing it. They’re trying to destroy us." - Richard Nixon

Rusty Jones
02-08-2016, 06:40 PM
Well, considering that almost ALL Roman Emperors were "fags" (including the ones who reigned during its expansion), and the events surrounding his tenure as a head of state, I'm not sure he was really in a position to talk.

Rainmaker
02-08-2016, 07:15 PM
I'm not sure he was really in a position to talk.


Actually the comment was recorded on the Nixon tapes. And just because, he was railroaded by the subversive 5th Column media. Doesn't mean he was wrong.

The fall of great nations is always a result of moral decay.

Back in the days Before Western Civilization classes were scratched from the Public school's curriculum and replaced with Multi-Cultural and Diversity Studies, Americans were taught that corruption made it impossible for Rome to defend itself leading to its eventual collapse.

Once a country goes full Homo, It's headed for the dustbin of History.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8438210/Fall-of-Roman-Empire-caused-by-contagion-of-homosexuality.html

Rainmaker
02-08-2016, 07:45 PM
Rainmaker. How would it NOT be equally discriminatory to give them a pass on registering for selective service?

"There's no reason why one young woman should be discriminated against for registering for the Selective Service."- Chris Christie

Translation: "I want to stay home in the governor's mansion and eat doughnuts and Fuck whores, While your daughter is forced to go off to fight the Camel Fuckers because Fat asses like me, can't be bothered to serve".

How in the hell can it be discrimination against women to not require them to be subjected to an Involuntary Conscription against their will? If anything it's discrimination against men. To which, I say The military is supposed to discriminate.


What kind of society lets itself be bullied into destroying its military by a couple of dysfunctional dykes Screaming that Girls just wanna be drafted?

Rusty's right. American men need to man up and find their balls and run these psychotic bastards out of our republic.

And the worst part is the JCS are the ones pushing this stupid shit. We need to find some new Generals too.

And don't think Rainmaker hasn't noticed that Ever since the Military times changed from Gannet to TEGNA, these little Girl power propaganda stories started popping up, imbedded With DC mouth full 'o dick speak, about "Paradigm shifts" and how we need the "best"people (The implication being that there aren't going to be enough men smart enough to operate in the modern military) etc...

USN - Retired
02-10-2016, 05:14 AM
Here's a video that leads me to believe that sending women into combat might be okay...

http://capitalismisfreedom.com/video-happens-robbers-attack-female-mma-fighter/

UncaRastus
02-10-2016, 01:29 PM
Rainmaker, it's OK, even if Chris Christie drops out. Florida still has the write-in section, so that you can still vote for him. I know how he is your favorite. So, don't give up on him!

;)

Rainmaker
02-10-2016, 02:55 PM
Here's a video that leads me to believe that sending women into combat might be okay...

http://capitalismisfreedom.com/video-happens-robbers-attack-female-mma-fighter/

Oooh..... looks like She used her Super girl powers on him!

That's Great, As long we only draft professional MMA fighters and make sure that our enemies also know, that our opponents can only be pussies that weigh no more than 115 lbs soaking wet, then everything should turn out ok (like it does in the movies).


But, You do know that Female's menstrual cycles tend to sync up, when they're in the field? And here we have 60 year old Generals commanding our forces, that can't keep from fucking their Honeypot girlfriend's in their private quarters or help but emailing their flings back in the states 300 times a day, while their troops sleep in the dirt.

But, these same hypocrites are going to expect a bunch of 20 something year old young men, to remain celibate on a 15 month deployment, when all these Olympic athlete caliber hotties in their platoons start ovulating en masse?

USN - Retired
02-10-2016, 03:31 PM
And here we have 60 year old Generals commanding our forces, that can't keep from fucking their Honeypot girlfriend's in their private quarters or help but emailing their flings back in the states 300 times a day, while their troops sleep in the dirt.


Rank has its privilege.

Rainmaker
02-10-2016, 06:16 PM
Rainmaker, it's OK, even if Chris Christie drops out. Florida still has the write-in section, so that you can still vote for him. I know how he is your favorite. So, don't give up on him!

;)

Let's just hope Mein Trumper doesn't appoint him as Attorney General or God forbid pick him as VP! Because Rainmaker might be forced to consider voting for Bolshevik Bernie or Hitlery!

MikeKerriii
02-11-2016, 05:03 AM
Fathering a child, providing financial support to a family, providing the majority of the discipline to the children, making the tough decisions that women's emotions don't allow them to make, etc.

The first item is a factual statement, the rest were only somewhat true evena generation or two ago and the last one is simply ignorant.

sandsjames
02-11-2016, 04:12 PM
The first item is a factual statement, the rest were only somewhat true evena generation or two ago and the last one is simply ignorant.

The ignorance isn't on my part...it's on people like being afraid to admit that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses.

UncaRastus
02-16-2016, 04:43 PM
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/02/16/women-combat-and-draft-answers-your-biggest-questions/80441992/

An overall sort of article, pertinent to women in the draft.

MikeKerriii
02-16-2016, 06:59 PM
The ignorance isn't on my part...it's on people like being afraid to admit that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses.

They do have different strengths and weakness, I just belive that the ones you pointed out are BS.

MikeKerriii
02-16-2016, 07:03 PM
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/02/16/women-combat-and-draft-answers-your-biggest-questions/80441992/

An overall sort of article, pertinent to women in the draft.
It is very pertinent, since the rationale used to justify women not being subject to the draft no longer applies.

sandsjames
02-16-2016, 07:41 PM
They do have different strengths and weakness, I just belive that the ones you pointed out are BS.They're BS only if we live under the assumption that all of your opinions are fact.

sparks82
02-18-2016, 04:01 PM
Well this thread is completely laughable, yet sad at the same time.

I'm a female soldier. I've been in almost 12 years on active duty. I've deployed twice. Here are my thoughts on Selective Service:

Either they need to just get rid of it since we haven't used a draft in years OR they make it equal. The only thing that kept women from having to sign up for it is the combat exclusion policy. That is gone. So there's no reason women can't be forced to sign up along with men. I think it's complete bullshit that males have to sign up or face punishment for it but we don't.

What is the difference between forcing men to go to war and forcing women? So it's okay if we volunteer but it's not okay if we're forced to go? Honestly if we get to the point we have to resort to activating the draft, I think the country is in some serious trouble and everything as we know it is probably about to cease to exist.

There are far too many comments for me to reply to individually and, honestly, I believe I would be wasting my breath with some of the people posting on here.

To caveat, I'm not a feminist or "feminazi." I don't want to be combat arms but I feel that any woman who wants to and can meet that standard and perform that job should be able to have the option for that job. I'm too old for that shit though.

UncaRastus
02-19-2016, 05:37 PM
New tank paint job, to lure women into the Army and the Marines! Or into the Marionettes!

181

FuelShopTech1
03-06-2016, 10:30 PM
Well this thread is completely laughable, yet sad at the same time.

I'm a female soldier. I've been in almost 12 years on active duty. I've deployed twice. Here are my thoughts on Selective Service:

Either they need to just get rid of it since we haven't used a draft in years OR they make it equal. The only thing that kept women from having to sign up for it is the combat exclusion policy. That is gone. So there's no reason women can't be forced to sign up along with men. I think it's complete bullshit that males have to sign up or face punishment for it but we don't.

What is the difference between forcing men to go to war and forcing women? So it's okay if we volunteer but it's not okay if we're forced to go? Honestly if we get to the point we have to resort to activating the draft, I think the country is in some serious trouble and everything as we know it is probably about to cease to exist.

There are far too many comments for me to reply to individually and, honestly, I believe I would be wasting my breath with some of the people posting on here.

To caveat, I'm not a feminist or "feminazi." I don't want to be combat arms but I feel that any woman who wants to and can meet that standard and perform that job should be able to have the option for that job. I'm too old for that shit though.

Pretty much.

I would have no problem registering with selective service if it became required for women. I'd die within the first five minutes of combat, but that's because I'm built like a bird (or a pencil-necked geek), not because my weak little female brain can't handle tough decisions.

In any case, I've never understood why women weren't eligible to be drafted, even prior to the lifting of the ban on women in combat roles. There's plenty of non-combat jobs that females could do that would also free up more men for the front lines. I don't believe being born with a vagina voids a person of their responsibility to their country.

sparks82
03-07-2016, 04:16 PM
www.sss.gov (http://www.sss.gov) has all the answers to the Selective Service questions. I don't know why people don't go there every time this has come up.

https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft/Backgrounder-Women-and-the-Draft

"Although the specter of a future draft remained solely the concern of young men, discussions in Congress and the Administration about registering and conscripting women periodically took place. Section 811 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1980 (P.L. 96-107, Nov. 9, 1979) required the President to send to the Congress a plan for reforming the law providing for the registration and induction of persons for military service. The President sent his recommendations for Selective Service reform in a report dated Feb. 11, 1980. As noted above, the President requested reactivation of registration for men. But another recommendation to the Congress was that the act be amended to provide presidential authority to register, classify, and examine women for service in the Armed Forces. If granted, the President would exercise this authority when the Congress authorized the conscription of men. Although women would become part of the personnel inventory for the services to draw from, their use would be based on the needs and missions of the services. Department of Defense (DoD) policy, which was not to assign women to positions involving close combat, would continue. In response to these recommendations, the Congress agreed to reactivate registration, but declined to amend the act to permit the registration of women. In the legislative history for the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1981, the Senate Armed Services Committee report stated that the primary reason for not expanding registration to include women was DoD’s policy of not using women in combat. Additional reasons cited in the report included agreement by both civilian and military leadership that there was no military need to draft women and congressional concerns about the societal impact of the registration and possible induction of women."

That's why we were never required. The bolded part mainly.

sandsjames
03-07-2016, 04:25 PM
www.sss.gov (http://www.sss.gov) has all the answers to the Selective Service questions. I don't know why people don't go there every time this has come up.



That's why we were never required. The bolded part mainly.

Everyone knows WHY. They just don't understand the reasoning for the "Why"... Keep up.

Rainmaker
03-07-2016, 05:03 PM
www.sss.gov (http://www.sss.gov) has all the answers to the Selective Service questions. I don't know why people don't go there every time this has come up.



In the legislative history for the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1981, the Senate Armed Services Committee report stated that the primary reason for not expanding registration to include women was DoD’s policy of not using women in combat. Additional reasons cited in the report included agreement by both civilian and military leadership that there was no military need to draft women and congressional concerns about the societal impact of the registration and possible induction of women."

That's why we were never required. The bolded part mainly.

"Additional reasons cited in the report included agreement by both civilian and military leadership that there was no military need to draft women and congressional concerns about the societal impact of the registration and possible induction of women."

The additional reasons cited are still relevant.

garhkal
03-07-2016, 06:39 PM
Well this thread is completely laughable, yet sad at the same time.

I'm a female soldier. I've been in almost 12 years on active duty. I've deployed twice. Here are my thoughts on Selective Service:

Either they need to just get rid of it since we haven't used a draft in years OR they make it equal. The only thing that kept women from having to sign up for it is the combat exclusion policy. That is gone. So there's no reason women can't be forced to sign up along with men. I think it's complete bullshit that males have to sign up or face punishment for it but we don't.

What is the difference between forcing men to go to war and forcing women? So it's okay if we volunteer but it's not okay if we're forced to go? Honestly if we get to the point we have to resort to activating the draft, I think the country is in some serious trouble and everything as we know it is probably about to cease to exist.

There are far too many comments for me to reply to individually and, honestly, I believe I would be wasting my breath with some of the people posting on here.

To caveat, I'm not a feminist or "feminazi." I don't want to be combat arms but I feel that any woman who wants to and can meet that standard and perform that job should be able to have the option for that job. I'm too old for that shit though.

Good for you.
As a q, do you favor lowering the standards to get women INTO those jobs or not?


"Additional reasons cited in the report included agreement by both civilian and military leadership that there was no military need to draft women and congressional concerns about the societal impact of the registration and possible induction of women."

The additional reasons cited are still relevant.

But since those roles are now being opened TO women, do those 2 bolded reasons you have still exist?

Rainmaker
03-07-2016, 07:10 PM
But since those roles are now being opened TO women, do those 2 bolded reasons you have still exist?

We can pretend whatever we'd like. But, the laws of nature will not change (just because the girls running the Obama administration want them to).

FuelShopTech1
03-08-2016, 12:13 PM
www.sss.gov (http://www.sss.gov) has all the answers to the Selective Service questions. I don't know why people don't go there every time this has come up.

https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Women-And-Draft/Backgrounder-Women-and-the-Draft

"Although the specter of a future draft remained solely the concern of young men, discussions in Congress and the Administration about registering and conscripting women periodically took place. Section 811 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1980 (P.L. 96-107, Nov. 9, 1979) required the President to send to the Congress a plan for reforming the law providing for the registration and induction of persons for military service. The President sent his recommendations for Selective Service reform in a report dated Feb. 11, 1980. As noted above, the President requested reactivation of registration for men. But another recommendation to the Congress was that the act be amended to provide presidential authority to register, classify, and examine women for service in the Armed Forces. If granted, the President would exercise this authority when the Congress authorized the conscription of men. Although women would become part of the personnel inventory for the services to draw from, their use would be based on the needs and missions of the services. Department of Defense (DoD) policy, which was not to assign women to positions involving close combat, would continue. In response to these recommendations, the Congress agreed to reactivate registration, but declined to amend the act to permit the registration of women. In the legislative history for the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1981, the Senate Armed Services Committee report stated that the primary reason for not expanding registration to include women was DoD’s policy of not using women in combat. Additional reasons cited in the report included agreement by both civilian and military leadership that there was no military need to draft women and congressional concerns about the societal impact of the registration and possible induction of women."

That's why we were never required. The bolded part mainly.

Yeah, they don't draft women because women can't, or used to not be able to, be in combat.

My question was why not draft them into non-combat roles?

Rainmaker
03-08-2016, 02:19 PM
Yeah, they don't draft women because women can't, or used to not be able to, be in combat.
There were additional reasons cited. Why are those reasons no longer valid?


My question was why not draft them into non-combat roles?

Because there's no Military necessity to do so and the majority of the Civilian population doesn't want to.

We've done just fine for 240 years without drafting teenage girls into the Military, so why should we change now? I can't think of a good reason (Other than just to suit some Liberal SJW's that've been brainwashed by 40 years of Feminist Dogma into thinking that there are no physiological/psychological differences between men and women)

sparks82
03-08-2016, 05:52 PM
Actually you'd be surprised. I've seen a lot of comments on other forums about this. Maybe you need to "keep up."

I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand the reasoning for the "why" when it was very clearly due to combat exclusion and that Congress' intended to use the draft to fulfill primarily infantry type roles.

sparks82
03-08-2016, 05:53 PM
Because that's now what the draft was intended to do according to this page. It was intended to fill primarily infantry roles.

sparks82
03-08-2016, 06:05 PM
Good for you.
As a q, do you favor lowering the standards to get women INTO those jobs or not?



But since those roles are now being opened TO women, do those 2 bolded reasons you have still exist?

No they shouldn't exist. Society has become more accepting - although some still don't want women in the military - of women serving. Women have died in combat. Women have come home missing limbs, with PTSD and so on. There is still work to do and we aren't accepted by everyone. Not that anyone on this thread probably cares about if we are accepted or not in society...it would be nice when I go to my daughter's medical stuff and people don't get surprised I'm the active duty member who has the TRICARE and not my ex.

No standards shouldn't be lowered and it sounds like they won't be lowered. I read that the Army is going to have a PT test that's an assessment like how they use the ASVAB to assign people jobs. If you score high enough on this physical test as a recruit - you can pick certain jobs like infantry or whatever. If you don't physically score high enough, you can't have that job. So that means males who don't qualify physically can't be infantry either. Makes sense but someone will fuck it up.

sparks82
03-08-2016, 06:08 PM
There were additional reasons cited. Why are those reasons no longer valid?



Because there's no Military necessity to do so and the majority of the Civilian population doesn't want to.

We've done just fine for 240 years without drafting teenage girls into the Military, so why should we change now? I can't think of a good reason (Other than just to suit some Liberal SJW's that've been brainwashed by 40 years of Feminist Dogma into thinking that there are no physiological/psychological differences between men and women)

Because now that we are allowed into all MOSs we should be drafted. There's no reason not to draft women. But honestly, if we get to that desperation point of drafting I think the entire country is pretty well fucked and everyone should pick up and fight.

If you just look through human history there are plenty of examples of women who were warriors, led armies, fought alongside men. Women disguised themselves as men to fight in the Civil War and I believe the Revolutionary War as well. But that will just get dismissed as it always does by certain types of males...

garhkal
03-08-2016, 06:10 PM
There were additional reasons cited. Why are those reasons no longer valid?

Which one, society is not ready to see girls/women get killed?? That can now go out of the window.
Societal impact of women being inducted? Again, with how much women have pushed and keep pushing for equality, that also should be now tossed. Can't be equal if you then demand special treatment (still ignored for the draft).




Because there's no Military necessity to do so and the majority of the Civilian population doesn't want to.

We've done just fine for 240 years without drafting teenage girls into the Military, so why should we change now? I can't think of a good reason (Other than just to suit some Liberal SJW's that've been brainwashed by 40 years of Feminist Dogma into thinking that there are no physiological/psychological differences between men and women)

I toss BS here. Many sites i go to, where we have discussed (or are still discussing it), there are plenty of gals themselves chiming in that "If we want equality in what we can do, we should also be equal in what we are REQUIRED to do."..

Rainmaker
03-08-2016, 06:54 PM
There is still work to do and we aren't accepted by everyone. Not that anyone on this thread probably cares about if we are accepted or not in society

Thank You for volunteering your service to our Nation , and I mean that sincerely. But, you're right. We don't care. Because, The mission of the Military is not to make sure that you're accepted in society and your service doesn't entitle you to get to speak on behalf of ALL American women any more than any of the rest of our service does.

My Wife is a Mother of 5 (including 2 daughters). She's also A Major in the Reserves and has deployed twice to OEF/OIF (non-combat job) and disagrees with you about drafting women. Why is your opinion more valid than hers? And Just because civilians get confused about who's your daughter's TRICARE sponsor is really of no consequence to anyone except you.


Because now that we are allowed into all MOSs we should be drafted. There's no reason not to draft women.

You said yourself that the purpose of the Draft is to primarily put people into COMBAT billets. So, What about the rates of attrition? a unit is only as strong as its weakest link. Should we just Disregard that compared to the average man, the average woman has a lower muscle mass, a higher body fat %, a lower aerobic capacity, a lower anaerobic capacity, a higher susceptibility to stress fractures and other overuse injuries. Should we just Disregard that the Weakest Average Male would still rank in the 85th percentile of the Average Women physical strength measurements. Should we just Disregard the potential distractions to 18-25 year old Kids living in close quarters, pregnancy problems, fraternization, wasted time spent on Sexual discrimination complaints, disciplinary actions and Rape investigations.

The USMC study demonstrated conclusively Gender Integrated Combat Units were less effective and the SECDEF just ignored it. What percentage of females in the Army would you find acceptable to your agenda?


means males who don't qualify physically can't be infantry either

Is this not already the case?

Mjölnir
03-08-2016, 07:08 PM
Actually you'd be surprised. I've seen a lot of comments on other forums about this. Maybe you need to "keep up."

She's going to fit in well around here.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/fdGkCOiM0oOqI/200_s.gif

sandsjames
03-08-2016, 07:31 PM
Actually you'd be surprised. I've seen a lot of comments on other forums about this. Maybe you need to "keep up."

I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand the reasoning for the "why" when it was very clearly due to combat exclusion and that Congress' intended to use the draft to fulfill primarily infantry type roles.

First, just a general forum note, use the "reply..." or "quote" so we know who you're responding two.

Second, if the comments about it are on other forums, then ask those people.

The answer to the question "why" is exactly as Rainmaker has stated. Let's not forget that most women don't want this "equality" bullshit to the extent that the feminazis do, so to punish all women for the complaints of a few just doesn't make sense.

I agree with the rationalization that if women can be in combat roles then they can also be drafted. But since I disagree with women in combat roles then, ultimately, I don't feel women should be drafted.

I picture my 18 year old, 5'2" 100 pound niece getting drafted during time of war, for the sake of "equality" and it makes me sick. Would be better off sending a fucking Chihuahua to a pit bull fight.

The only "why" that should come up in this conversation is "why the fuck can't people use a little common sense.

If women want to volunteer to register, I'm ok with that...it just should never be mandatory.

Rainmaker
03-08-2016, 07:41 PM
She's going to fit in well around here.



Rainmaker had to attract some ladies to the Forum because Sandsjames was getting bored.

Rainmaker
03-08-2016, 08:20 PM
Societal impact of women being inducted? Again, with how much women have pushed and keep pushing for equality, that also should be now tossed.

1945 - U.S. Army armored forces race to seize the strategically vital Remagen bridge before the Germans blow the structure. The Americans are successful-- enabling the allies to establish a bridgehead on the enemy side of the Rhine River.

2015- U.S. Army races to update its strategically vital breastfeeding and lactation policy before Obama blows his top. The Americans are successful -- enabling the political hack Generals to address many issues raised by critics of the initial directive.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/12/16/new-army-breastfeeding-memo-bans-bathroom-lactation-area/77437228/

FuelShopTech1
03-08-2016, 10:18 PM
There were additional reasons cited. Why are those reasons no longer valid?



Because there's no Military necessity to do so and the majority of the Civilian population doesn't want to.

We've done just fine for 240 years without drafting teenage girls into the Military, so why should we change now? I can't think of a good reason (Other than just to suit some Liberal SJW's that've been brainwashed by 40 years of Feminist Dogma into thinking that there are no physiological/psychological differences between men and women)

The main reason was "women can't be in combat," which is no longer valid.

And their really is no reason NOT to draft women except for insecure men who feel that women in the military makes their pee-pee smaller.

Vaginas don't void responsibility to your country, or entitle you to special protection.

USN - Retired
03-08-2016, 11:24 PM
Year: 1995. Location: Diego Garcia (middle of the Indian Ocean), Patrol Wing Detachment (Tactical Support Center).

Three very young and very junior female sailors reported to the Tactical Support Center on Diego Garcia. All assignments to Diego Garcia are one year and unaccompanied. Those sailors were in there late teens/early twenties and at or below the E-3 pay grade. As those newly reported female sailors were standing around the admin office, a very crusty old male chief walked up to them and said " all three of you will not complete your one year assignment here on Diego Garcia. All three of you will be pregnant in a few months, maybe even in a few weeks, and we will have to send you home early." (Note: pregnant sailors are not allowed to stay on Diego Garcia due to the limited medical facilities). Needless to say, the Chief got in big trouble for what he said (and No, I am not that chief).

How many of those female sailors got pregnant and had to be sent home early? I'll let you guess for now, but here's a hint: the answer is more than 0 but less than 3. I'll provide you with the answer later.

FuelShopTech1
03-08-2016, 11:27 PM
Year: 1995. Location: Diego Garcia (middle of the Indian Ocean), Patrol Wing Detachment (Tactical Support Center).

Three very young and very junior female sailors reported to the Tactical Support Center on Diego Garcia. All assignments to Diego Garcia are one year and unaccompanied. Those sailors were in there late teens/early twenties and at or below the E-3 pay grade. As those newly reported female sailors were standing around the admin office, a very crusty old male chief walked up to them and said " all three of you will not complete your one year assignment here on Diego Garcia. All three of you will be pregnant in a few months, maybe even in a few weeks, and we will have to send you home early." (Note: pregnant sailors are not allowed to stay on Diego Garcia due to the limited medical facilities). Needless to say, the Chief got in big trouble for what he said (and No, I am not that chief).

How many of those female sailors got pregnant and had to be sent home early? I'll let you guess for now, but here's a hint: the answer is more than 0 but less than 3. I'll provide you with the answer later.

Aaaaannnddd....????

MikeKerriii
03-09-2016, 03:48 AM
The main reason was "women can't be in combat," which is no longer valid.

And their really is no reason NOT to draft women except for insecure men who feel that women in the military makes their pee-pee smaller.

Vaginas don't void responsibility to your country, or entitle you to special protection.

LOL, You just cut to the heart of most machismo posturing.

MikeKerriii
03-09-2016, 03:51 AM
Year: 1995. Location: Diego Garcia (middle of the Indian Ocean), Patrol Wing Detachment (Tactical Support Center).

Three very young and very junior female sailors reported to the Tactical Support Center on Diego Garcia. All assignments to Diego Garcia are one year and unaccompanied. Those sailors were in there late teens/early twenties and at or below the E-3 pay grade. As those newly reported female sailors were standing around the admin office, a very crusty old male chief walked up to them and said " all three of you will not complete your one year assignment here on Diego Garcia. All three of you will be pregnant in a few months, maybe even in a few weeks, and we will have to send you home early." (Note: pregnant sailors are not allowed to stay on Diego Garcia due to the limited medical facilities). Needless to say, the Chief got in big trouble for what he said (and No, I am not that chief).

How many of those female sailors got pregnant and had to be sent home early? I'll let you guess for now, but here's a hint: the answer is more than 0 but less than 3. I'll provide you with the answer later.

The women we are talking about were not even born when that happened. Its not very relevant.

garhkal
03-09-2016, 06:10 AM
The main reason was "women can't be in combat," which is no longer valid.

And their really is no reason NOT to draft women except for insecure men who feel that women in the military makes their pee-pee smaller.

Vaginas don't void responsibility to your country, or entitle you to special protection.

While not as harsh as i would have said it, i give this 5 claps!


Year: 1995. Location: Diego Garcia (middle of the Indian Ocean), Patrol Wing Detachment (Tactical Support Center).

Three very young and very junior female sailors reported to the Tactical Support Center on Diego Garcia. All assignments to Diego Garcia are one year and unaccompanied. Those sailors were in there late teens/early twenties and at or below the E-3 pay grade. As those newly reported female sailors were standing around the admin office, a very crusty old male chief walked up to them and said " all three of you will not complete your one year assignment here on Diego Garcia. All three of you will be pregnant in a few months, maybe even in a few weeks, and we will have to send you home early." (Note: pregnant sailors are not allowed to stay on Diego Garcia due to the limited medical facilities). Needless to say, the Chief got in big trouble for what he said (and No, I am not that chief).

How many of those female sailors got pregnant and had to be sent home early? I'll let you guess for now, but here's a hint: the answer is more than 0 but less than 3. I'll provide you with the answer later.

Sounds like both the Med cruises we had on the USS America.. First one, we had just over 300 females assigned to the ship, by the end of the cruise (and this was after all the carrier quals, Oppies and other stuff ahead of it as well), we were down to just under 200.. All cause of pregnancies. Two of our destroyers in our battle group had issues just keeping manning up cause of pregnancies there too.

sandsjames
03-09-2016, 10:41 AM
The main reason was "women can't be in combat," which is no longer valid.

And their really is no reason NOT to draft women except for insecure men who feel that women in the military makes their pee-pee smaller.

Vaginas don't void responsibility to your country, or entitle you to special protection.

Women in the military make men's pee-pees drip and burn...that's about it.

Seriously, though..if women choose to register for the draft, let them. I've no problem with that. Don't force them all to do so, however. Just because your vagina (you do seem to love using that word, though use the word "pee-pee" for men, so I can already see where you stand on pretty much everything male/female) is "open" to being drafted, don't force it on everyone.

Women want choice, and that is awesome. So why is it you get so pissed off when women make the choice to fall into the traditional female role? Is choice only good when it's the choice you would make?

Mjölnir
03-09-2016, 12:14 PM
While not as harsh as i would have said it, i give this 5 claps!



Sounds like both the Med cruises we had on the USS America.. First one, we had just over 300 females assigned to the ship, by the end of the cruise (and this was after all the carrier quals, Oppies and other stuff ahead of it as well), we were down to just under 200.. All cause of pregnancies. Two of our destroyers in our battle group had issues just keeping manning up cause of pregnancies there too.

My most recent deployment was 8-months on a DDG. Total crew just over 250, around 80 females. No one sent some due to pregnancy.

Just as we began the TRANSLANT we had a health and comfort and sent 11 (10 males 1 female) home due to possession of drug paraphernalia.

FuelShopTech1
03-09-2016, 01:14 PM
Women in the military make men's pee-pees drip and burn...that's about it.

Seriously, though..if women choose to register for the draft, let them. I've no problem with that. Don't force them all to do so, however. Just because your vagina (you do seem to love using that word, though use the word "pee-pee" for men, so I can already see where you stand on pretty much everything male/female) is "open" to being drafted, don't force it on everyone.

Women want choice, and that is awesome. So why is it you get so pissed off when women make the choice to fall into the traditional female role? Is choice only good when it's the choice you would make?

Where have I indicated that I get "super pissed" when women choose traditional roles? I couldn't care less what other people choose to do with their lives that doesn't affect me.

And I think the draft in general is bullshit, but, if men don't get a "choice" on whether or not to register, I see no reason while women should.

FuelShopTech1
03-09-2016, 01:17 PM
While not as harsh as i would have said it, i give this 5 claps!



Sounds like both the Med cruises we had on the USS America.. First one, we had just over 300 females assigned to the ship, by the end of the cruise (and this was after all the carrier quals, Oppies and other stuff ahead of it as well), we were down to just under 200.. All cause of pregnancies. Two of our destroyers in our battle group had issues just keeping manning up cause of pregnancies there too.

Anecdotes are fun.

In bootcamp, the women got washed back because of PT failure while the men got sent to med hold for suicide attempts because they missed their girlfriends.

I could do this all week.

Rainmaker
03-09-2016, 01:58 PM
[

The main reason was "women can't be in combat," which is no longer valid.

That was only the first reason. But, now that President Obama has decreed that the laws of physics are no longer applicable (and proven that equality in Nature actually exists), It still takes an Act of Congress to change the law.

So, We'll have to think about The 2nd and 3rd reasons which were "that there was no military need to draft women and congressional concerns about the societal impact of the registration and possible induction of women."

Why is it exactly that you think those other two reasons are no longer valid?


And their really is no reason NOT to draft women except for insecure men who feel that women in the military makes their pee-pee smaller.

Clearly you've given this a lot of thought & made a well-reasoned argument. One could make a counter point that There's no Military need TO draft women except for placating some insecure, Feminists, that are too Homely to get a date, so they probably hate all men and are suffering from a serious case of Penis Envy and/or Daddy issues.


Vaginas don't void responsibility to your country, or entitle you to special protection.

That's good to know!.......... We'll save a ton of time and money..... We can start by getting rid of Title IX laws, Domestic abuse laws, The Violence against Women act, FMLA, Sexual Discrimination laws, MOM Act, Military Breastfeeding Policies etc. etc.....

....Oh and I almost forgot.....The new Draftees will all test using the current Male PT standards and use those scores to compete for Promotion and assignments on an equal basis. Right?

FuelShopTech1
03-09-2016, 02:13 PM
[


That was only the first reason. But, now that President Obama has decreed that the laws of physics are no longer applicable (and proven that equality in Nature actually exists), It still takes an Act of Congress to change the law.

So, We'll have to think about The 2nd and 3rd reasons which were "that there was no military need to draft women and congressional concerns about the societal impact of the registration and possible induction of women."

Why is it exactly that you think those other two reasons are no longer valid?

Because the year is now 2016? Technically, there's no "need" to draft men either.




Clearly you've given this a lot of thought & made a well-reasoned argument. One could make a counter point that There's no Military need TO draft women except for placating some insecure, Feminists, that are too Homely to get a date, so they probably hate all men and are suffering from a serious case of Penis Envy and/or Daddy issues.

It's about as valid an argument that the only women who want to fight are ugly dykes with hairy nipples.




That's good to know!.......... We'll save a ton of time and money..... We can start by getting rid of Title IX laws, Domestic abuse laws, The Violence against Women act, FMLA, Sexual Discrimination laws, MOM Act, Military Breastfeeding Policies etc. etc.....

....Oh and I almost forgot.....The new Draftees will all test using the current Male PT standards and use those scores to compete for Promotion and assignments on an equal basis. Right?

Seeing as most of those policies also benefit men, I wouldn't be so eager to see them go. And go right ahead with male PT standards.

Keep trying.

Rainmaker
03-09-2016, 02:38 PM
Year:

How many of those female sailors got pregnant and had to be sent home early? I'll let you guess for now, but here's a hint: the answer is more than 0 but less than 3. I'll provide you with the answer later.

Rainmaker will guess 1 (only because the other 2 were gay)

Now, Anyone Who's spent any significant time in the military has plenty of stories like these of females winding up pregnant (sometimes intentionally) and becoming unfit for a deployment or duty.

Given this reality.... One of the questions that needs to be studied is what is the likely percentage of Females that would "self-inflict" a pregnancy to avoid being drafted?

Rainmaker
03-09-2016, 02:56 PM
I'd die within the first five minutes of combat, but that's because I'm built like a bird (or a pencil-necked geek)

Trying to follow your logic..... So, you seem to be saying that you personally are not able to carry another man's ruck. But, that you think other people's daughters should be conscripted to do so? Not because of any military necessity. But, because It's 2016 and you think it's "Bullshit" that they don't have to?



And go right ahead with male PT standards.
Keep trying.

Rainmaker likes the cut of your jib. Just curious what rank are you, Honey?

Do you think you've ever benefited (career-wise) from your 'Vagina' in any way? Maybe you can tell them on your next APFT that you'd like to be measured using the male 17-21 standards from here on out.

sparks82
03-09-2016, 03:58 PM
Thank You for volunteering your service to our Nation , and I mean that sincerely. But, you're right. We don't care. Because, The mission of the Military is not to make sure that you're accepted in society and your service doesn't entitle you to get to speak on behalf of ALL American women any more than any of the rest of our service does.

My Wife is a Mother of 5 (including 2 daughters). She's also A Major in the Reserves and has deployed twice to OEF/OIF (non-combat job) and disagrees with you about drafting women. Why is your opinion more valid than hers? And Just because civilians get confused about who's your daughter's TRICARE sponsor is really of no consequence to anyone except you.



You said yourself that the purpose of the Draft is to primarily put people into COMBAT billets. So, What about the rates of attrition? a unit is only as strong as its weakest link. Should we just Disregard that compared to the average man, the average woman has a lower muscle mass, a higher body fat %, a lower aerobic capacity, a lower anaerobic capacity, a higher susceptibility to stress fractures and other overuse injuries. Should we just Disregard that the Weakest Average Male would still rank in the 85th percentile of the Average Women physical strength measurements. Should we just Disregard the potential distractions to 18-25 year old Kids living in close quarters, pregnancy problems, fraternization, wasted time spent on Sexual discrimination complaints, disciplinary actions and Rape investigations.

The USMC study demonstrated conclusively Gender Integrated Combat Units were less effective and the SECDEF just ignored it. What percentage of females in the Army would you find acceptable to your agenda?



Is this not already the case?

Did I ever say that I speak for all women in the military? I did not. Please show me where I said that I was the female military member spokesperson. You can't because I did not. I also did not say the mission of the military is to make sure I'm accepted into society. I realize I won't be. That doesn't mean I can't be frustrated by it. I'm not the only one. A LOT of female veterans and those currently serving get irritated when we are automatically assumed to be the dependent or spouse and not the servicemember.

I also don't claim to speak for your wife and I don't really care what her opinion is on women in the draft. She doesn't speak for me anymore than I speak for her. She is entitled to her opinion as I am mine. She doesn't want her daughters drafted but doesn't care if her sons do - that's kind of ridiculous to me. I don't want my daughter or her siblings to be in the military at all but if they choose to or were drafted, oh well.

There is no longer any reason not to make women sign up for the SS. None. Either we get rid of the draft or everyone signs up because it is not fair to make men sign up or face stiff penalties for not signing up for something they don't want to do. We honestly don't even need the draft anymore with an all volunteer service. I would say we are in very desperate times if we return to a draft to fill the military ranks.

The USMC study on intergrated units was also complete and total bullshit. It had an extreme amount of flaws. The Sec of Navy read the full report and stated the flaws. Two independent researchers saw the study and commented on it and stated the flaws of the study from a researcher perspective. Mabus wrote that the language of the study was outdated in regards to combat even though we have changed how we fight drastically.

The researchers stated that from a research perspective there was absolutely nothing that could reliably be drawn from that research. The volunteer selection was poor. The physical screening was poor. They did a $36 million study that established no standards. There are no standards for someone to be in infantry in any branch that I'm aware.

FuelShopTech1
03-09-2016, 04:02 PM
Trying to follow your logic..... So, you seem to be saying that you personally are not able to carry another man's ruck. But, that you think other people's daughters should be conscripted to do so? Not because of any military necessity. But, because It's 2016 and you think it's "Bullshit" that they don't have to?

No. I said I was fine with being drafted, but that I'd probably die within the first five minutes of combat.



Rainmaker likes the cut of your jib. Just curious what rank are you, Honey?

Do you think you've ever benefited (career-wise) from your 'Vagina' in any way? Maybe you can tell them on your next APFT that you'd like to be measured using the male 17-21 standards from here on out.

I was an E-5, and, yes, I've probably benefited from my vagina.

sparks82
03-09-2016, 04:05 PM
Women in the military make men's pee-pees drip and burn...that's about it.

Seriously, though..if women choose to register for the draft, let them. I've no problem with that. Don't force them all to do so, however. Just because your vagina (you do seem to love using that word, though use the word "pee-pee" for men, so I can already see where you stand on pretty much everything male/female) is "open" to being drafted, don't force it on everyone.

Women want choice, and that is awesome. So why is it you get so pissed off when women make the choice to fall into the traditional female role? Is choice only good when it's the choice you would make?

Who is pissed at women who want to be a "traditional" female role? Either get rid of the draft or make everyone do it.

sparks82
03-09-2016, 04:08 PM
First, just a general forum note, use the "reply..." or "quote" so we know who you're responding two.

Second, if the comments about it are on other forums, then ask those people.

The answer to the question "why" is exactly as Rainmaker has stated. Let's not forget that most women don't want this "equality" bullshit to the extent that the feminazis do, so to punish all women for the complaints of a few just doesn't make sense.

I agree with the rationalization that if women can be in combat roles then they can also be drafted. But since I disagree with women in combat roles then, ultimately, I don't feel women should be drafted.

I picture my 18 year old, 5'2" 100 pound niece getting drafted during time of war, for the sake of "equality" and it makes me sick. Would be better off sending a fucking Chihuahua to a pit bull fight.

The only "why" that should come up in this conversation is "why the fuck can't people use a little common sense.

If women want to volunteer to register, I'm ok with that...it just should never be mandatory.

It's been awhile since I was on this forum and I did start using reply with quote. But thanks for catching me up on something I already did...

I'm not sure why I need to ask people on other forums about comments when I said that the question comes up on other forums about the draft. I have addressed that on other forums. I was simply stating that it is a common question "why" women were excluded. People legitimately were clueless why women were excluded.

How is signing up for the SS a "punishment?" It's not like they're going to get drafted. I think it's bullshit that men have to sign up and if they don't they face stiff penalties but women don't have to. So either get rid of it totally or make everyone do it.

I don't see why it's okay to force our sons to be drafted but not our daughters. Neither one is okay to be forced into the military.

sparks82
03-09-2016, 04:09 PM
1945 - U.S. Army armored forces race to seize the strategically vital Remagen bridge before the Germans blow the structure. The Americans are successful-- enabling the allies to establish a bridgehead on the enemy side of the Rhine River.

2015- U.S. Army races to update its strategically vital breastfeeding and lactation policy before Obama blows his top. The Americans are successful -- enabling the political hack Generals to address many issues raised by critics of the initial directive.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/12/16/new-army-breastfeeding-memo-bans-bathroom-lactation-area/77437228/

I wouldn't call this the Army "racing" to update breastfeeding policy when it's been a topic for a few years. Also not even comparable.

sparks82
03-09-2016, 04:10 PM
The women we are talking about were not even born when that happened. Its not very relevant.

How is it not relevant?

sparks82
03-09-2016, 04:15 PM
Rainmaker will guess 1 (only because the other 2 were gay)

Now, Anyone Who's spent any significant time in the military has plenty of stories like these of females winding up pregnant (sometimes intentionally) and becoming unfit for a deployment or duty.

Given this reality.... One of the questions that needs to be studied is what is the likely percentage of Females that would "self-inflict" a pregnancy to avoid being drafted?

The intentional pregnancy stories are few and far between. Unless the female or male is extremely fertile, it's hardly likely to plan a pregnancy to miss a deployment. I've heard these so called stories of females getting pregnant "on purpose" but unless you were the male that did it how do you know? There's a 25% chance every month for a woman to get pregnant. It's not always as easy for everyone as people think. Some can get pregnant with one time. Some don't.

How would you study the percentage of women who would try to get pregnant to avoid a draft? I would say pretty low. Same as with those who "intentionally" get pregnant to avoid deployment.

I think you seem to forget the number of males who find some way to avoid deployment - self inflicted injury, behavioral health, etc. I've seen males dodge deployments.

UncaRastus
03-09-2016, 04:46 PM
While sparks may want to cling to the belief that the testing was flawed, the USMC says that it gave the women involved in the trial the same chances as they gave to the males.

Just because Mabus and his politically correct 'reviewers' may have thought the study was somehow rigged, the fact is that women suffer far more shin splints/stress fractures than men do. The best, in shape women, were used, and the results have been reported, as Mabus wanted.

They failed in carrying the required loads that men carry. They slowed down troop movements, trying to carry those loads. They failed to send rounds down range, in an accurate manner, after being tired out from have to do a route step march, carrying the combat loads.

Since the testing proved something that he didn't want to believe, he blamed the Corps.

Just because he and his hired hatchet 'reviewers' found errors does not mean that they are correct in their 'assumptions'.

Because Mabus has to be always right. And his hired 'reviewers'.

So, the Marines put through an integrated battalion. Woo hoo! Now let them do that every time that Mabus has some more women that he wants to test.

And in the end run, when the original points have been reproved, time and again, the guys in the infantry will have to go without, because what could have been spent on upgrading their equipment will have been spent on testing, testing, and retesting.

The USMC STILL doesn't require women to do pull ups. But those same women want to be a part of the infantry. Wow. If ever anyone has had to climb a wall, those people can see why doing pull ups is important for them to be able to do.

Anyone that has ever worked in the health field knows, men and women are built differently. Lighter bones, lesser weight bearing joints, less muscle as compared to fat, in women. And on and on.

I myself have seen many women come in to sick call and ER, at Parris Island, from shin splints and stress fractures, while the men coming in were near to zero for the same thing happening to them.

I was in charge of the sick call, for the casual company, and I was the head corpsman in the ER, while I was there. I went from one job to the other, and I can attest to the vast differences between male and female recruits.

Oops. I was not politically correct. Sorry about that.

USN - Retired
03-09-2016, 05:05 PM
My most recent deployment was 8-months on a DDG. Total crew just over 250, around 80 females. No one sent some due to pregnancy.
Just as we began the TRANSLANT we had a health and comfort and sent 11 (10 males 1 female) home due to possession of drug paraphernalia.

So are you're comparing drug users and pregnant women? That sounds like an apples to oranges comparison to me. If a sailor in the Navy abuses drugs, we kick that sailor out of the Navy with something other than an honorable discharge. A pregnant sailor has many options and benefits, and she may stay in the Navy if she so desires.


Anecdotes are fun.
In bootcamp, the women got washed back because of PT failure while the men got sent to med hold for suicide attempts because they missed their girlfriends.
I could do this all week.

Anecdotes are fun, but is your anecdote any good? I don't think so. Anyone who attempts suicide will probably be immediately discharged from the military. Are you saying that a female sailor would never attempt suicide?

Take a look at this and let us know if it is also fun:

Disease and Nonbattle Injuries Sustained by a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team During Operation Iraqi Freedom

ABSTRACT Background: A longitudinal cohort analysis of disease nonbattle injuries (DNBI) sustained by a large combat-deployed maneuver unit has not been performed. Methods: A descriptive analysis was undertaken to evaluate for DNBI casualty care statistics incurred by a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team (BCT) during a counterinsurgency campaign of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Results: Of the 4,122 soldiers deployed, there were 1,324 DNBI with 5 (0.38%) deaths, 208 (15.7%) medical evacuations (MEDEVAC), and 1,111 (83.9%) returned to duty. The DNBI casualty rate for the BCT was 257.0/1,000 soldier combat-years. Females, compared with males, had a significantly increased incidence rate ratio for becoming a DNBI casualty 1.67 (95% CI 1.37,2.04). Of 47 female soldiers receiving MEDEVAC 35 (74%) were for pregnancy-related issues.

Source: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a535873.pdf

USN - Retired
03-09-2016, 05:11 PM
The intentional pregnancy stories are few and far between. Unless the female or male is extremely fertile, it's hardly likely to plan a pregnancy to miss a deployment. I've heard these so called stories of females getting pregnant "on purpose" but unless you were the male that did it how do you know? There's a 25% chance every month for a woman to get pregnant. It's not always as easy for everyone as people think. Some can get pregnant with one time. Some don't.

How would you study the percentage of women who would try to get pregnant to avoid a draft? I would say pretty low. Same as with those who "intentionally" get pregnant to avoid deployment.


... according to a 2010 survey, two of every three enlisted female sailors became pregnant during their tenure in the Navy. Of those who got pregnant that year, 36 percent said their pregnancies were planned, a slightly lower proportion than in women of similar age in the general population. Navy officers fared better: 70 percent said their pregnancies were planned.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/rates-of-unintended-pregnancies-in-the-navy-are-surprisingly-high/2013/07/01/b8f86630-b0dc-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html



I think you seem to forget the number of males who find some way to avoid deployment - self inflicted injury, behavioral health, etc. I've seen males dodge deployments.

Please provide us with some examples (and please site your sources).

USN - Retired
03-09-2016, 05:15 PM
Current feminist dogma (an Navy policy) tells us that women in the Navy are allowed to get pregnant whenever they chose and as many times as they choose. Female sailors are under absolutely no obligation to plan their pregnancies for an appropriate time. The reproductive choice of a female sailor takes priority over the mission of the Navy. Once a woman in the Navy gets pregnant, she may be away from her job for many months both before giving birth and many months after giving birth, especially if she is on sea duty. Even many shore duty jobs can not be accomplished by a woman for many months before or after she gives birth. A job involving fuel is one of many examples. Once a woman in the Navy gets pregnant, she will basically be on very light duty for about two years.

The Navy expects us to enthusiastically embrace this dogma/policy while simultaneously pretending that this dogma/policy doesn't even exist.

sparks82
03-09-2016, 05:31 PM
Current feminist dogma (an Navy policy) tells us that women in the Navy are allowed to get pregnant whenever they chose and as many times as they choose. Female sailors are under absolutely no obligation to plan their pregnancies for an appropriate time. The reproductive choice of a female sailor takes priority over the mission of the Navy. Once a woman in the Navy gets pregnant, she may be away from her job for many months both before giving birth and many months after giving birth, especially if she is on sea duty. Even many shore duty jobs can not be accomplished by a woman for many months before or after she gives birth. A job involving fuel is one of many examples. Once a woman in the Navy gets pregnant, she will basically be on very light duty for about two years.

The Navy expects us to enthusiastically embrace this dogma/policy while simultaneously pretending that this dogma/policy doesn't even exist.

So it's okay for male servicemembers to get their spouses or significant others pregnant as many times as they want but female servicemembers should have to "plan" out their family decisions...is that what you're getting at? That's my perception.

Why would she be on light duty for 2 years? Maternity leave is 12 weeks. Women get up to 6 months (Army anyway) to pass APFT/weight standards. So three months maternity leave, six months to pass APFT (Idk if the Navy has this) that's 9 months. Pregnancy at most 9 months. Hopefully not much less. So 18 months altogether. But we're not on profile for the entire maternity leave. I had a kid when it was six weeks and my profile was not for six weeks. Then of course you need time to get back in shape after going through a pregnancy.

But you're not on light duty for all of maternity leave or post partum PT. Does the Navy have something different for post partum recovery.

I find it funny how males always bitch that women get off work for being pregnant. Well it's pretty significant. Why should we have to put a family on hold for the military when males don't have to do the same thing?

I honestly think males should get longer paternity leave - 10 days is a joke. I think single soldiers should be at the discretion of the commander getting it (only married males get it now). There are those who are engaged and have a child or who just don't want to get married. They should get paternity leave. If it was a result of a one night stand and they aren't going to be involved with the kid then no.

sparks82
03-09-2016, 05:37 PM
While sparks may want to cling to the belief that the testing was flawed, the USMC says that it gave the women involved in the trial the same chances as they gave to the males.

Just because Mabus and his politically correct 'reviewers' may have thought the study was somehow rigged, the fact is that women suffer far more shin splints/stress fractures than men do. The best, in shape women, were used, and the results have been reported, as Mabus wanted.

They failed in carrying the required loads that men carry. They slowed down troop movements, trying to carry those loads. They failed to send rounds down range, in an accurate manner, after being tired out from have to do a route step march, carrying the combat loads.

Since the testing proved something that he didn't want to believe, he blamed the Corps.

Just because he and his hired hatchet 'reviewers' found errors does not mean that they are correct in their 'assumptions'.

Because Mabus has to be always right. And his hired 'reviewers'.

So, the Marines put through an integrated battalion. Woo hoo! Now let them do that every time that Mabus has some more women that he wants to test.

And in the end run, when the original points have been reproved, time and again, the guys in the infantry will have to go without, because what could have been spent on upgrading their equipment will have been spent on testing, testing, and retesting.

The USMC STILL doesn't require women to do pull ups. But those same women want to be a part of the infantry. Wow. If ever anyone has had to climb a wall, those people can see why doing pull ups is important for them to be able to do.

Anyone that has ever worked in the health field knows, men and women are built differently. Lighter bones, lesser weight bearing joints, less muscle as compared to fat, in women. And on and on.

I myself have seen many women come in to sick call and ER, at Parris Island, from shin splints and stress fractures, while the men coming in were near to zero for the same thing happening to them.

Is anyone going to call me a liar for speaking the truth about shin splints and stress fractures?

I was in charge of the sick call, for the casual company, and I was the head corpsman in the ER, while I was there. I went from one job to the other, and I can attest to the vast differences between male and female recruits.

Oops. I was not politically correct. Sorry about that.

Oh the USMC said they did the research correctly so it must be true...even though independent researchers (whose very job day in and day out it is to research) said the opposite. AND the SECNAV.

The SECNAV didn't hire any reviewers. He made a statement. These other researchers made a separate statement. They were able to review the ENTIRE study. Not the executive summary that was released. Do you know what an executive summary is (key word is summary)?

Did you see the full study? I think I'll believe those who read the complete research over you. How have original points been proven time and again?

I'm not in the Marines so I don't care what they do. I believe that the study was poorly conducted because most military studies are poorly conducted and a waste of time.

Of course we all know men and women are built differently. No one disputes that - ever.

I myself have seen MALES come into sick call and the ER with shin splints, stress fractures, and even more minor things in the Army. I have seen a lot of bullshit excuses to go to sick call from male and female soldiers but as I've been in mostly male units, it's more males who come up with the bullshit excuses. Even in an infantry unit. I know plenty of medics who have seen males come in for bullshit too.

Who said you had to be politically correct? No one.

You actually didn't come up with any new information or anything debatable but nice try.

sandsjames
03-09-2016, 05:40 PM
So it's okay for male servicemembers to get their spouses or significant others pregnant as many times as they want but female servicemembers should have to "plan" out their family decisions...is that what you're getting at? That's my perception.

Why would she be on light duty for 2 years? Maternity leave is 12 weeks. Women get up to 6 months (Army anyway) to pass APFT/weight standards. So three months maternity leave, six months to pass APFT (Idk if the Navy has this) that's 9 months. Pregnancy at most 9 months. Hopefully not much less. So 18 months altogether. But we're not on profile for the entire maternity leave. I had a kid when it was six weeks and my profile was not for six weeks. Then of course you need time to get back in shape after going through a pregnancy.

But you're not on light duty for all of maternity leave or post partum PT. Does the Navy have something different for post partum recovery.

I find it funny how males always bitch that women get off work for being pregnant. Well it's pretty significant. Why should we have to put a family on hold for the military when males don't have to do the same thing?

I honestly think males should get longer paternity leave - 10 days is a joke. I think single soldiers should be at the discretion of the commander getting it (only married males get it now). There are those who are engaged and have a child or who just don't want to get married. They should get paternity leave. If it was a result of a one night stand and they aren't going to be involved with the kid then no.

If women get all that time off for pregnancy then why shouldn't men? Why can't the husband be on a profile during the same time that the spouse is? They both share equally, right? If it's good for women then it's good for men, right?

Do you see how ridiculous this is? This may come as a shock, but men and women are different. We have different strengths and different weaknesses. To throw everything under one blanket rule (including the draft) is as dumb as thinking that a man should be on profile for 18 months while his wife is pregnant/recovering from child birth.

Or are double standards only bad sometimes?

sparks82
03-09-2016, 05:44 PM
... according to a 2010 survey, two of every three enlisted female sailors became pregnant during their tenure in the Navy. Of those who got pregnant that year, 36 percent said their pregnancies were planned, a slightly lower proportion than in women of similar age in the general population. Navy officers fared better: 70 percent said their pregnancies were planned.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/rates-of-unintended-pregnancies-in-the-navy-are-surprisingly-high/2013/07/01/b8f86630-b0dc-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html




Please provide us with some examples (and please site your sources).

Um my experience in the last 12 years and two deployments were I personally SAW males deployment dodge. I was on Rear D a few years ago because I had to go to ALC. I saw a lot of people bullshitting the system to get out of the deployment and the Army.

I see you failed to notice this in your "source."

"Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly said that in 2010, two out of three enlisted female soldiers became pregnant while in the Navy. The data came from a 2010 survey, but the pregnancies occurred during the women’s full tenure in the Navy, not just that year. This version has been corrected."

"Of those who got pregnant that year, 36 percent said their pregnancies were planned, a slightly lower proportion than in women of similar age in the general population. Navy officers fared better: 70 percent said their pregnancies were planned. There are about 52,000 women in the Navy and about 271,000 men." --- How does this prove anything? Were these females married? Engaged? In a committed relationship? Where's the data to show they were deployment dodging? I see no information on that. In fact your "source" is about unplanned pregnancies in the Navy and how to stop them. Not planned ones. This isn't relevant to the discussion at all.

"Of particular concern to MacDonald were enlisted women ages 21 to 25. About half had been using no birth control prior to getting pregnant. A majority of these women said they had not used protection because they weren’t planning to have sex. Other women said they didn’t want to use birth control or their partners didn’t want them to." -- This is what should be troubling to not just health care providers but leaders as well. The fact you have 21-25 year olds who don't use any form of birth control at all. That's pretty sad to know there are adults who don't know about it or just don't use it. Not that females are having families.

You still failed to show any type of claim or support on "deployment dodging." (Also cite your sources, not site).

UncaRastus
03-09-2016, 06:00 PM
sparks, your time with the Army hardly projects much experience with the USMC. So, nice try, but I do believe that the US Army and USMC are different in a lot of ways, to include the willingness to go fight whenever they are called up.

So, again, nice try. I don't believe that you are entitled to speak as someone knowledgeable about the USMC.

I did serve with the Marines, as a Marine, before I became a corpsman with the USN, and having the privilege of spending all of my time in the Navy, with the Marines.

USN - Retired
03-09-2016, 06:06 PM
So it's okay for male servicemembers to get their spouses or significant others pregnant as many times as they want but female servicemembers should have to "plan" out their family decisions...is that what you're getting at? That's my perception.

A male service member doesn't get to skip deployment when the wife gets pregnant.


Why would she be on light duty for 2 years? Maternity leave is 12 weeks. Women get up to 6 months (Army anyway) to pass APFT/weight standards. So three months maternity leave, six months to pass APFT (Idk if the Navy has this) that's 9 months. Pregnancy at most 9 months. Hopefully not much less. So 18 months altogether. But we're not on profile for the entire maternity leave. I had a kid when it was six weeks and my profile was not for six weeks. Then of course you need time to get back in shape after going through a pregnancy.

But you're not on light duty for all of maternity leave or post partum PT. Does the Navy have something different for post partum recovery.

A female sailor is removed from sea duty (and arduous shore duty) as soon as she is pregnant and won't return to sea duty for at least a year after she gives birth. So that's close to two years. But wait, there's more... If a woman is breast feeding, she can't work around toxic materials (fuel, oil, etc). Just about every Navy work center is loaded with toxic materials. So if a sailor is breastfeeding, she will be sent to some admin office to answer the phone, take messages, and keep a chair warm until she decides that she no longer wishes to breast feed her rug rat.


Why should we have to put a family on hold for the military when males don't have to do the same thing?

The SECNAV agrees with you. That's why the SECNAV has decided that the reproductive choice of a female sailor takes priority over the mission of the Navy.




I honestly think males should get longer paternity leave .

That's a nice thought, but I don't see that happening.

USN - Retired
03-09-2016, 06:11 PM
I see you failed to notice this in your "source."

"Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly said that in 2010, two out of three enlisted female soldiers became pregnant while in the Navy. The data came from a 2010 survey, but the pregnancies occurred during the women’s full tenure in the Navy, not just that year. This version has been corrected."

I see that you failed to notice that my post DID include the correction and not the previous version.

USN - Retired
03-09-2016, 06:29 PM
You still failed to show any type of claim or support on "deployment dodging.".

I didn't fail because I'm not really trying prove anything. I'm just making observations.

(Also cite your sources, not site).

Thanks for the correction. I see that you are a member of the spelling and grammar police. I'm sure that you will have lots of fun with MikeKerriii's post.

Well, since you want to nitpick stupid little shit...


But you're not on light duty for all of maternity leave or post partum PT.
Does the Navy have something different for post partum recovery..

it is "postpartum" not " post partum", i.e. one word, not two.

garhkal
03-09-2016, 06:39 PM
Women in the military make men's pee-pees drip and burn...that's about it.

Seriously, though..if women choose to register for the draft, let them. I've no problem with that. Don't force them all to do so, however. Just because your vagina (you do seem to love using that word, though use the word "pee-pee" for men, so I can already see where you stand on pretty much everything male/female) is "open" to being drafted, don't force it on everyone.

Women want choice, and that is awesome. So why is it you get so pissed off when women make the choice to fall into the traditional female role? Is choice only good when it's the choice you would make?

So women get the choice to register or not, but men still have to regardless..??

sparks82
03-09-2016, 06:52 PM
If women get all that time off for pregnancy then why shouldn't men? Why can't the husband be on a profile during the same time that the spouse is? They both share equally, right? If it's good for women then it's good for men, right?

Do you see how ridiculous this is? This may come as a shock, but men and women are different. We have different strengths and different weaknesses. To throw everything under one blanket rule (including the draft) is as dumb as thinking that a man should be on profile for 18 months while his wife is pregnant/recovering from child birth.

Or are double standards only bad sometimes?

Are you serious? Why would the husband be on profile for his wife's pregnancy? I think they should extend paternity leave like they did maternity leave. THAT makes sense. 10 days for paternity leave does not make sense.

This was a horrible and ridiculous argument and I have already stated about the draft that they should either get rid of it or make it mandatory for everyone. We haven't needed a draft for years and IF we need it I feel that the state of our country is so dire that every single man, woman and child better be picking up arms to defend the country if we are so desperate to fill our military we have to draft.

When did I say men and women are the same? I didn't. Nice try though.

USN - Retired
03-09-2016, 06:54 PM
Rainmaker will guess 1 (only because the other 2 were gay)

Now, Anyone Who's spent any significant time in the military has plenty of stories like these of females winding up pregnant (sometimes intentionally) and becoming unfit for a deployment or duty.

Given this reality.... One of the questions that needs to be studied is what is the likely percentage of Females that would "self-inflict" a pregnancy to avoid being drafted?

Two got pregnant. One had a miscarriage shortly after getting pregnant, so she was allowed to stay on Diego Garcia. Only one of the three was medevac'ed off the island for pregnancy. I extended on Diego Garcia for many years, and I saw many other female sailors medevac'ed off island because they were pregnant. It is just part of the Navy's charm.

The population on Diego Garcia was approximately 3000. Half the population was military (mainly US Navy) and the other half were civilians (mainly civilian contractors from the Philippines). There was no native population on Diego Garcia. If a female Filipino civilian contract worker became pregnant, her employment was immediately terminated, and she was immediately sent home to the Philippines. As far as I know, nothing has changed out there. I wonder if American women really realize just how good they got it here in the US?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/diego_garcia1.jpg

I miss Diego Garcia...

sparks82
03-09-2016, 06:55 PM
I didn't fail because I'm not really trying prove anything. I'm just making observations.


Thanks for the correction. I see that you are a member of the spelling and grammar police. I'm sure that you will have lots of fun with MikeKerriii's post.

Well, since you want to nitpick stupid little shit...



it is "postpartum" not " post partum", i.e. one word, not two.

I pointed out a word that has a huge difference in spelling when you spell site vs cite.

What observation were you making? That there are women who are in the military who plan out having a family with their spouse? That doesn't prove anything. You basically just proved that you can copy and paste a link AND that you copied and pasted a link you didn't even read. So you basically can't correctly source your arguments.

sparks82
03-09-2016, 06:58 PM
A male service member doesn't get to skip deployment when the wife gets pregnant.



A female sailor is removed from sea duty (and arduous shore duty) as soon as she is pregnant and won't return to sea duty for at least a year after she gives birth. So that's close to two years. But wait, there's more... If a woman is breast feeding, she can't work around toxic materials (fuel, oil, etc). Just about every Navy work center is loaded with toxic materials. So if a sailor is breastfeeding, she will be sent to some admin office to answer the phone, take messages, and keep a chair warm until she decides that she no longer wishes to breast feed her rug rat.



The SECNAV agrees with you. That's why the SECNAV has decided that the reproductive choice of a female sailor takes priority over the mission of the Navy.



That's a nice thought, but I don't see that happening.

Except that most females who actually plan out having a family do it around deployments. But sometimes shit happens and people have an accident. Again why do males get to have families but no one wants females to have a family? You can have your opinion about it all you want but you don't get to determine when someone decides to have a family.

Not every woman breastfeeds.

sparks82
03-09-2016, 06:59 PM
I see that you failed to notice that my post DID include the correction and not the previous version.

You posted the incorrect excerpt from the link.

USN - Retired
03-09-2016, 07:03 PM
You posted the incorrect excerpt from the link.

I did not.

sparks82
03-09-2016, 07:04 PM
... according to a 2010 survey, two of every three enlisted female sailors became pregnant during their tenure in the Navy. Of those who got pregnant that year, 36 percent said their pregnancies were planned, a slightly lower proportion than in women of similar age in the general population. Navy officers fared better: 70 percent said their pregnancies were planned.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/rates-of-unintended-pregnancies-in-the-navy-are-surprisingly-high/2013/07/01/b8f86630-b0dc-11e2-baf7-5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html




Please provide us with some examples (and please site your sources).

This excerpt is what the correction is about - that it was not in 2010 that the percentages happened. It was over their careers.

USN - Retired
03-09-2016, 07:05 PM
but no one wants females to have a family? .

No one wants females to have a family?!? Not even YOU?!?!

sparks82
03-09-2016, 07:07 PM
No one wants females to have a family?!? Not even YOU?!?!

Well I can tell you have nothing substantial to add to your point of view or to make an argument so moving on.

USN - Retired
03-09-2016, 07:10 PM
This excerpt is what the correction is about - that it was not in 2010 that the percentages happened. It was over their careers.

C'mon now, try to focus... My post includes the word "tenure". I could not have copied the incorrect version because the incorrect version was removed years ago. The article states: This version has been corrected. I copied from that version.

sandsjames
03-09-2016, 07:11 PM
So women get the choice to register or not, but men still have to regardless..??

Yes...now you're getting it. Men and women are different. I know it's a shocker, but it's true. There's no need to "ban" women or not include women. Make it optional. Allow them to register if they want to push the "equality" crap. Watch how many choose not to while, at the same time, bitching that things aren't equal.

USN - Retired
03-09-2016, 07:16 PM
Make it optional. Allow them to register if they want to push the "equality" crap. Watch how many choose not to while, at the same time, bitching that things aren't equal.

Interesting idea...

sandsjames
03-09-2016, 07:17 PM
Are you serious? Why would the husband be on profile for his wife's pregnancy? I think they should extend paternity leave like they did maternity leave. THAT makes sense. 10 days for paternity leave does not make sense.

This was a horrible and ridiculous argument and I have already stated about the draft that they should either get rid of it or make it mandatory for everyone. We haven't needed a draft for years and IF we need it I feel that the state of our country is so dire that every single man, woman and child better be picking up arms to defend the country if we are so desperate to fill our military we have to draft.

When did I say men and women are the same? I didn't. Nice try though.

You have yet to give a valid reason as to why it should be mandatory for everyone if we have it. Is it to make things "fair"? Who is upset by it NOT being mandatory for women? Are there really people out the who legitimately think women should be drafted? I know that politicians have said it, but they are only saying it because they aren't sure which position to take to keep as many people as possible happy.

Garkhal only says it because he has a tendency to play extreme devil's advocate on this type of thing, even though he knows that it's only a vocal minority of feminine challenged women mentioning this stuff.

Rainmaker
03-09-2016, 07:25 PM
While not as harsh as i would have said it, i give this 5 claps!



Sounds like both the Med cruises we had on the USS America.. First one, we had just over 300 females assigned to the ship, by the end of the cruise (and this was after all the carrier quals, Oppies and other stuff ahead of it as well), we were down to just under 200.. All cause of pregnancies. Two of our destroyers in our battle group had issues just keeping manning up cause of pregnancies there too.

Doesn't your egalitarian spirit fly in the face of your direct personal experience serving aboard The USS America (were over 1/3rd of the female crew got knocked up, nearly causing your ship to become combat ineffective)?

What would be the benefit to the services by increasing the ratio of Females to males even more than it already is?

Because based on what you're telling us, just a 5% 'Vagina rate' was enough to bring you to the brink of a mission failure.

Mjölnir
03-09-2016, 07:58 PM
The draft exists to provide a system to keep track of those people potentially eligible for conscription in the event of 'national crisis'. That being said, generally what is needed when a 'national crisis' occurs that would require conscription is personnel for combat arms. Females have now been approved for combat arms roles. That being said:

Background: 12 years in the Marine Corps. GySgt: Infantryman, Reconnaissance Marine. (13 years in the Navy. LCDR)

Generally in the Marine Corps, if you enlist or are sent to a technical (ie non-combat arms MOS) school for your entry level training and attrite, you are reassigned to some type of combat arms MOS (typically infantry since the training is the shortest and they are trying to get you out of the training pipeline quickly since you are eating up funds from a different 'pot' of USMC money). While infantry school was / is hard, it is not impossible. But, physiological difference in males and females are a legitimate concern. In general a male can carry more weight, can carry that weight further, can climb walls that are higher, has a higher reach etc. A lot of mundane stuff, but tasks that are required of the infantry.

Some women have completed the School of Infantry, but at a much larger completion rate than males. No female officers have completed Infantry Officers Course. So, if women are conscripted, but studies are showing that the majority of them cannot complete the School of Infantry:

1. Are they sent to technical fields instead of where the dearth of Marines are needed in a 'national crisis'?

2. What happens to a female that attrites from an entry level technical training course? Is she sent to another technical training course when the majority her male peers are sent to infantry?

3. If she is sent to infantry school where she stands about 5 times the chance of attriting from the school even though she passes the Physical Fitness Test is she being set up to fail?

To be clear, I am not against women in combat arms; I am against tailoring the standard to allow more of them to pass. I tend to dismiss a lot of the arguments about gender roles etc. since I know women who have excelled in this type of work; but I cannot dismiss the reality that 25 years of being in the military (18 deployments -- multiple combat tours etc.) have shown me that the rigors of combat are unforgiving. The issue of females and selective service amplifies the issue of women in combat arms since combat arms is what would need people if we were to initiate a draft.

Mjölnir
03-09-2016, 08:01 PM
Doesn't your egalitarian spirit fly in the face of your direct personal experience serving aboard The USS America (were over 1/3rd of the female crew got knocked up, nearly causing your ship to become combat ineffective)?

It sounds like 1/3 of the females got pregnant ... not 1/3 of the crew. 300 Sailors (female or not) is far from 1/3 of the crew on a carrier when deployed.

Rainmaker
03-09-2016, 08:08 PM
It sounds like 1/3 of the females got pregnant ... not 1/3 of the crew. 300 Sailors (female or not) is far from 1/3 of the crew on a carrier.

To clarify what I said commander is that, 1/3rd of the female crew got knocked up. 100/300 = 1/3rd.

And 300/5000 = a 5% 'Vagina Rate' (actually 6%) and was enough to bring the USS America to the brink of msn failure.

Mjölnir
03-09-2016, 08:12 PM
That's what I said. 1/3rd of the female crew got knocked up. And 300/5000 = a 5% 'Vagina Rate' (actually 6%) and was enough to bring them to the brink of msn failure.

My mistake ... I thought it said "1/3 of the crew"

Max Power
03-09-2016, 10:17 PM
http://i.imgur.com/hlnwo.gif

garhkal
03-09-2016, 10:28 PM
Except that most females who actually plan out having a family do it around deployments. But sometimes shit happens and people have an accident. Again why do males get to have families but no one wants females to have a family? You can have your opinion about it all you want but you don't get to determine when someone decides to have a family.

Not every woman breastfeeds.

Maybe cause the dependent having kids doesn't hurt mission readyness, where having the servicewoman having them does hurt it..


Doesn't your egalitarian spirit fly in the face of your direct personal experience serving aboard The USS America (were over 1/3rd of the female crew got knocked up, nearly causing your ship to become combat ineffective)?

What would be the benefit to the services by increasing the ratio of Females to males even more than it already is?

Because based on what you're telling us, just a 5% 'Vagina rate' was enough to bring you to the brink of a mission failure.

Which is why i did argue against opening up ships to women, same as i do getting them in combat units.. BUT IF YOU are going to do that, giving them the 'option to go into those units' then hit them with the equal requirement to sign up for SS..

Basically it boils down to "i would rather them not be in those units, but if you are going to push for equality, then push it for ALL aspects, not just hand picked ones"..

sandsjames
03-10-2016, 12:23 AM
Basically it boils down to "i would rather them not be in those units, but if you are going to push for equality, then push it for ALL aspects, not just hand picked ones"..But what you aren't realizing is that MOST don't want this "equality".

MikeKerriii
03-10-2016, 01:13 AM
How is it not relevant?

Becasue over the course of two decades people an cultures changed, When entered the USAF, women were just starting to be allowed in most career fields , and doom was being forecast, by the time I retired except for a few troglodytes nobody really gave it much thought anymore, Genitalia doesn't make a difference for a Crypto tech or a Loadmaster for example, but in the early 70s opening those jobs to women was considered by some a recipe for disaster.

I have never seen much difference between men and women working for me, with the slight exception of men seeming to lose their clearances for stupidity, like DUI or drugs, more often.

sandsjames
03-10-2016, 10:59 AM
Becasue over the course of two decades people an cultures changed, When entered the USAF, women were just starting to be allowed in most career fields , and doom was being forecast, by the time I retired except for a few troglodytes nobody really gave it much thought anymore, Genitalia doesn't make a difference for a Crypto tech or a Loadmaster for example, but in the early 70s opening those jobs to women was considered by some a recipe for disaster.

I have never seen much difference between men and women working for me, with the slight exception of men seeming to lose their clearances for stupidity, like DUI or drugs, more often.

There's a big difference between crypto and combat. Big difference between looking at a computer screen and carrying a ruck/weapon,engaging in battle and having the physical capabilities to do so without putting everyone else on your team in danger.

Rainmaker
03-10-2016, 03:46 PM
I cannot dismiss the reality that 25 years of being in the military (18 deployments -- multiple combat tours etc.) have shown me that the rigors of combat are unforgiving. The issue of females and selective service amplifies the issue of women in combat arms since combat arms is what would need people if we were to initiate a draft.

In a war for National Survival, what in the Hell would we gain by drafting teenaged girls while leaving 26 year old men at Home?

There's absolutely no Military Necessity or beneficial reason to do this.

The Millennial Generation is the 2nd largest Generation in History and already has plenty of able bodied Men to pull from. Rather than expanding the selective service roles to include women If there wasn't enough they could just expand the age group and open it up to a wider range of Men. My Grandfather got drafted in 1943 when he was 36 and working in a Steel mill.

The whole damn thing began after a couple of PC Hacks (posing as General Officers) tried to score brownie points when they responded to a question from a Politician (Claire McCaskill) who's made a career out of Graft and wouldn't know a Left face from a Right face.

"McCaskill said opening up the draft to women might encourage more women to consider a military career."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/us-military-leaders-agree-women-should-register-draft

The correct response to this would've been "Hell No!, Ma'am". Because, The issue is far too grave to even entertain Social engineering concerns from a bunch of Insane SJW asshats.

sparks82
03-10-2016, 04:27 PM
sparks, your time with the Army hardly projects much experience with the USMC. So, nice try, but I do believe that the US Army and USMC are different in a lot of ways, to include the willingness to go fight whenever they are called up.

So, again, nice try. I don't believe that you are entitled to speak as someone knowledgeable about the USMC.

I did serve with the Marines, as a Marine, before I became a corpsman with the USN, and having the privilege of spending all of my time in the Navy, with the Marines.

I never said I had experience with the Marines did I? Why do you keep saying "nice try?" Nice try at what? I posted on my experience as you did yours.

sparks82
03-10-2016, 04:29 PM
Yes...now you're getting it. Men and women are different. I know it's a shocker, but it's true. There's no need to "ban" women or not include women. Make it optional. Allow them to register if they want to push the "equality" crap. Watch how many choose not to while, at the same time, bitching that things aren't equal.

Either get rid of the SS or make everyone register. That's what is going to be equal.

sparks82
03-10-2016, 04:35 PM
You have yet to give a valid reason as to why it should be mandatory for everyone if we have it. Is it to make things "fair"? Who is upset by it NOT being mandatory for women? Are there really people out the who legitimately think women should be drafted? I know that politicians have said it, but they are only saying it because they aren't sure which position to take to keep as many people as possible happy.

Garkhal only says it because he has a tendency to play extreme devil's advocate on this type of thing, even though he knows that it's only a vocal minority of feminine challenged women mentioning this stuff.

Yes there are people who have been upset about it - men:

The exclusion of women from the registration process was challenged in the courts. A lawsuit brought by several men resulted in a 1980 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision that the MSSA’s gender-based discrimination violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the District Court enjoined registration under the Act. Upon direct appeal, in the case of Rostker v. Goldberg (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0453_0057_ZS.html), 453 U.S. 57 (1981), the Supreme Court reversed the District Court decision and upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion, ruling that there was no violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html). The Supreme Court based its decision largely on DoD’s policy that excluded women from combat. The Court reasoned that since the purpose of registration was to create a pool of potential inductees for combat, males and females could be treated differently. The Court also noted its inclination to defer to Congress since draft registration requirements are enacted by Congress under its constitutional authority to raise armies and navies, and observed that Congress had in 1980 considered but rejected a proposal to expand registration to women.

So yes there are people, including men, who think women should be drafted. In fact, on several different forums regarding this topic I have seen an overwhelming majority of men say that women should be forced to sign up now.

What's the big deal if women are forced to sign up and face the same penalties as men if they don't? We haven't used the draft in a long time. As I have stated repeatedly if we are so desperate that we can't sustain with a volunteer force and have to return to a draft, don't you think the country is probably on its way into rapid decline and everyone probably better take up arms anyway?

Not one person has given a reason for women NOT to sign up for something that will likely never be utilized in the foreseeable future. All men have to do is go fill out a form. That's it. If you don't, you can face stiff penalties. Well women should have to as well. Otherwise they need to just get rid of the whole damn thing because we don't use it anyway.

sparks82
03-10-2016, 04:38 PM
In a war for National Survival, what in the Hell would we gain by drafting teenaged girls while leaving 26 year old men at Home?

There's absolutely no Military Necessity or beneficial reason to do this.

The Millennial Generation is the 2nd largest Generation in History and already has plenty of able bodied Men to pull from. Rather than expanding the selective service roles to include women If there wasn't enough they could just expand the age group and open it up to a wider range of Men. My Grandfather got drafted in 1943 when he was 36 and working in a Steel mill.

The whole damn thing began after a couple of PC Hacks (posing as General Officers) tried to score brownie points when they responded to a question from a Politician (Claire McCaskill) who's made a career out of Graft and wouldn't know a Left face from a Right face.

"McCaskill said opening up the draft to women might encourage more women to consider a military career."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/us-military-leaders-agree-women-should-register-draft

The correct response to this would've been "Hell No!, Ma'am". Because, The issue is at hand is far too grave to even entertain Social engineering concerns from a bunch of Insane SJW asshats.

If we are in a war for national survival EVERYONE better be contributing with or without a fucking draft.

Why are people so scared to use women? If we are in a situation where our very survival is at issue, that means the current gov't structure as we know it is probably obsolete as is the draft and everything with it. So in that case it won't matter because every single man, woman and child is going to do what they can to survive or they will die.

Rainmaker
03-10-2016, 04:41 PM
it is not fair

This is your whole argument distilled down to its basic message. But, the purpose of a draft is not to be "fair". The purpose is to provide forces to successfully execute the mission (and hopefully survive the rigors of Combat).

Wouldn't it be infinitely better to pull from the demographic pool that has the lowest rate of attrition and is therefore the most likely to be able to do this? Which is why since the beginning of History, All Nations have sent Young MEN.



"No. I said I was fine with being drafted, but that I'd probably die within the first five minutes of combat."

Thanks. But, in the words of the immortal General Patton "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country"

So, I doubt that most of the society really wants or even needs for you to die.



"How would you study the percentage of women who would try to get pregnant to avoid a draft?"

Don't know how to go about it . However, I stand ready to answer the call and help in whatever capacity that the country needs me to. I ain't as good as I once was. But I'm as good once as I ever was.

sparks82
03-10-2016, 04:54 PM
This is your whole argument distilled down to its basic message. But, the purpose of a draft is not to be "fair". The purpose is to provide forces to successfully execute the mission (and hopefully survive the rigors of Combat).

Wouldn't it be infinitely better to pull from the demographic pool that has the lowest rate of attrition and is therefore the most likely to be able to do this? Which is why since the beginning of History, All Nations have sent Young MEN.




Thanks. But, in the words of the immortal General Patton "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country"

So, I doubt that most of the society really wants or even needs for you to die.




Don't know how to go about it . However, I stand ready to answer the call and help in whatever capacity that the country needs me to. I ain't as good as I once was. But I'm as good once as I ever was.

Why do you only copy a portion of a quote? That takes it entirely out of context and I have zero time to go scrolling through 11 pages of this thread to find out what I originally said.

I'm not repeating myself on this shit. I've already stated several times either get rid of the draft or pull from everyone. There are women who would be able to be drafted just as much as men. Just like there are plenty of capable men who don't volunteer to join there are just as many capable women who could but don't.

This is just going in circles now.

Rainmaker
03-10-2016, 05:11 PM
This is just going in circles now.

The reason it's going in circles Honey is because as soon as anyone posts a differing opinion or gives a personal example ( counter to yours) you immediately appear and jump on it, Repeatedly arguing the same point over and over.

And on that note... Rainmaker has noticed something about the tactics these 2 "ladies" are using here. seems eerily similar with the Troll patrol (Absinthe Anecdote/Bos Mutus) Propaganda routine. Nomsayin?

Mjölnir
03-10-2016, 05:16 PM
In a war for National Survival, what in the Hell would we gain by drafting teenaged girls while leaving 26 year old men at Home?

Not saying I entirely agree with the concept, but if you were to conscript females and stock the combat support roles with them, and then took those most likely to complete combat arms training and pumped more of them into combat arms, then you are not taking the 'able bodied' and putting them in roles were they are likely never to see combat (the same concept used for recruiting females in WWII etc).

The combat support roles still need to get done, I don't see a problem in stocking those roles with folks who are statistically shown to not be able to complete basic infantry or combat arms training.

http://semperfiparents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Female-Marine-Recruiting-Poster.jpg

sandsjames
03-10-2016, 05:17 PM
Either get rid of the SS or make everyone register. That's what is going to be equal.

Men and women aren't equal. This is the point you just refuse to concede. It doesn't mean that one sex is better than the other, it just means that we have, in general, different strengths and weaknesses. If we were equal, we'd all give birth, we'd all have the same genitalia, etc.

We are different and, whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, that fact doesn't change. Men and women were evolved/were created to play different roles in society. If that wasn't true, then women and men would have the same size, strength, speed, capabilities. We don't.

sandsjames
03-10-2016, 05:19 PM
Not saying I entirely agree with the concept, but if you were to conscript females and stock the combat support roles with them, and then took those most likely to complete combat arms training and pumped more of them into combat arms, then you are not taking the 'able bodied' and putting them in roles were they are likely never to see combat (the same concept used for recruiting females in WWII etc).

The combat support roles still need to get done, I don't see a problem in stocking those roles with folks who are statistically shown to not be able to complete basic infantry or combat arms training.

http://semperfiparents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Female-Marine-Recruiting-Poster.jpg



It's because we live in a civilized society and any man worth his salt is going to do what he can to protect the women around him in far different ways than he does to protect the men. Amazingly, this is the one point that RM, Rusty, and myself agree on. And we are at 3 adjacent corners of a political triangle.

sandsjames
03-10-2016, 05:20 PM
And on that note... Rainmaker has noticed something about the tactics these 2 "ladies" are using here seems eerily similar with the Troll patrol (Absinthe Anecdote/Bos Mutus) Propaganda routine. Nomsayin?

I did find it odd that two women showed up on this site at the exact same time when there hasn't been any for quite some time.

UncaRastus
03-10-2016, 05:47 PM
OK, we get your point. You are a feminist, and we all think that is just so darn cute!

;)

Rainmaker
03-10-2016, 08:47 PM
If we are in a war for national survival EVERYONE better be contributing with or without a fucking draft.

World War II was a war for national survival. Everyone played an important role. However, Not everyone was drafted.

Thankfully, the SJW's weren't around then, so Teenage girls weren't forced to freeze their eggs and run off to go Storm the beaches of Normandy.




Not saying I entirely agree with the concept, but if you were to conscript females and stock the combat support roles with them, and then took those most likely to complete combat arms training and pumped more of them into combat arms, then you are not taking the 'able bodied' and putting them in roles were they are likely never to see combat (the same concept used for recruiting females in WWII etc).

There's already plenty of men to do both. If we needed more then we can expand the age bracket.

The whole notion being made (by some in DoD) that we can't find enough fit or intelligent men, so we're going to have to draft women to fill out the ranks is ludicrous and should be taken as an insult to all Millennial aged males.

This latest Bullshit is just another, in a long list of major headaches inflicted upon the Military By Liberal Maniacs for who the Primary mission of the Armed Forces is to give 'Career Opportunities' for a numerically small clique of Feminist women.

Who couldn't have seen it coming that as the USMC was going about objectively proving (what anyone with a brain already knew) that gender integrated Combat Units are Less effective, they'd be scouring the depths of the Army looking for a few SuperChicks to get through Ranger school, so that the Service Chiefs (who've ALL got the PC religion) could use that as the justification to recommend unanimously that teenage girls should now be subjected to being Conscripted.

FuelShopTech1
03-10-2016, 09:02 PM
I did find it odd that two women showed up on this site at the exact same time when there hasn't been any for quite some time.

You do realize that I was a member of this site for a long time prior to forgetting my password and recently re-joining, right?

And is it really that odd that women comment in a topic concerning women? Seeing as how dead this site has become, I'd think it would be the more the merrier at this point.

FuelShopTech1
03-10-2016, 09:05 PM
It's because we live in a civilized society and any man worth his salt is going to do what he can to protect the women around him in far different ways than he does to protect the men. Amazingly, this is the one point that RM, Rusty, and myself agree on. And we are at 3 adjacent corners of a political triangle.

Aaaannnddd, on an unrelated note, I've been researching male/female disaster survival statistics recently, and, as it turns out, when the shit hits the fan, men have a much better chance of making it out alive.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't play the damsel in distress in the hopes that a white knight will come save me.

Rainmaker
03-10-2016, 09:06 PM
You do realize that I was a member of this site for a long time prior to forgetting my password and recently re-joining, right?

And is it really that odd that women comment in a topic concerning women? Seeing as how dead this site has become, I'd think it would be the more the merrier at this point.

Some people can never be happy sweetie

FuelShopTech1
03-10-2016, 09:07 PM
Not saying I entirely agree with the concept, but if you were to conscript females and stock the combat support roles with them, and then took those most likely to complete combat arms training and pumped more of them into combat arms, then you are not taking the 'able bodied' and putting them in roles were they are likely never to see combat (the same concept used for recruiting females in WWII etc).

The combat support roles still need to get done, I don't see a problem in stocking those roles with folks who are statistically shown to not be able to complete basic infantry or combat arms training.

http://semperfiparents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Female-Marine-Recruiting-Poster.jpg

That is pretty much my thinking as well.

FuelShopTech1
03-10-2016, 09:08 PM
Some people can never be happy sweetie

Tell me about it.

I'm tempted to sell my Prozac to some of these folks in the hopes they'll lighten up.

FuelShopTech1
03-10-2016, 09:18 PM
You have yet to give a valid reason as to why it should be mandatory for everyone if we have it. Is it to make things "fair"? Who is upset by it NOT being mandatory for women? Are there really people out the who legitimately think women should be drafted? I know that politicians have said it, but they are only saying it because they aren't sure which position to take to keep as many people as possible happy.

Garkhal only says it because he has a tendency to play extreme devil's advocate on this type of thing, even though he knows that it's only a vocal minority of feminine challenged women mentioning this stuff.

To clarify: yes, I've heard plenty of men bitching that women should have to register for the draft. Usually, this tends to be followed by the sentiment that, because women don't have to register for the draft, they shouldn't be allowed to vote/drive/scratch their ass/ect.

If certain men want to challenge my basic rights as a U.S. citizen because of the draft, yes, I'm going to agree that women should be eligible.

Rainmaker
03-10-2016, 11:25 PM
If certain men want to challenge my basic rights as a U.S. citizen because of the draft, yes, I'm going to agree that women should be eligible.

Horseshit. Rainmaker runs in some pretty manly circles and No one's ever suggesting that. Now we know you're shilling!

sandsjames
03-11-2016, 12:48 AM
Aaaannnddd, on an unrelated note, I've been researching male/female disaster survival statistics recently, and, as it turns out, when the shit hits the fan, men have a much better chance of making it out alive.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't play the damsel in distress in the hopes that a white knight will come save me.

That's your loss.

sandsjames
03-11-2016, 12:49 AM
You do realize that I was a member of this site for a long time prior to forgetting my password and recently re-joining, right?

And is it really that odd that women comment in a topic concerning women? Seeing as how dead this site has become, I'd think it would be the more the merrier at this point.

It definitely is more the merrier.

sandsjames
03-11-2016, 12:50 AM
To clarify: yes, I've heard plenty of men bitching that women should have to register for the draft. Usually, this tends to be followed by the sentiment that, because women don't have to register for the draft, they shouldn't be allowed to vote/drive/scratch their ass/ect.

If certain men want to challenge my basic rights as a U.S. citizen because of the draft, yes, I'm going to agree that women should be eligible.

I'm not challenging any of those rights. I just don't think women should be drafted and don't believe that has anything to do with equality.

garhkal
03-11-2016, 04:09 AM
There's already plenty of men to do both. If we needed more then we can expand the age bracket.

The whole notion being made (by some in DoD) that we can't find enough fit or intelligent men, so we're going to have to draft women to fill out the ranks is ludicrous and should be taken as an insult to all Millennial aged males.

None of us are advocating that there is not going to be enough men, so lets draft women. What we are saying is if they want the equality they push for, of being given roles in combat arms units, then accept the same RESPONSIBILITY of signing up. If they don't wanna sign up, then don't push for acceptance in the combat units..

Normally me and you are eye to eye, but on this we are at opposite ends rainmaker.. And your rants are sounding just like what i would expect from a spoilt brat.

sandsjames
03-11-2016, 10:49 AM
None of us are advocating that there is not going to be enough men, so lets draft women. What we are saying is if they want the equality they push for, of being given roles in combat arms units, then accept the same RESPONSIBILITY of signing up. If they don't wanna sign up, then don't push for acceptance in the combat units..

Normally me and you are eye to eye, but on this we are at opposite ends rainmaker.. And your rants are sounding just like what i would expect from a spoilt brat.

What you are so wrong about on this the large majority of women are not saying that they want equality on this. You can't let the vocal few cloud your judgement. I'd wager a guess that if you were to ask every American woman, 98% would say that they don't want it. Yet your willing to put them all in harms way just to spite a small minority.

Oh, and RMs argument is no different now than it ever is. His rants always sound like this and you usually agree with him. Have a think about that.

Mjölnir
03-11-2016, 11:29 AM
What you are so wrong about on this the large majority of women are not saying that they want equality on this. You can't let the vocal few cloud your judgement. I'd wager a guess that if you were to ask every American woman, 98% would say that they don't want it. Yet your willing to put them all in harms way just to spite a small minority.

Oh, and RMs argument is no different now than it ever is. His rants always sound like this and you usually agree with him. Have a think about that.

Really weird that RobotChicken liked and thanked for this post ... since ... y'know.

FuelShopTech1
03-11-2016, 11:46 AM
Horseshit. Rainmaker runs in some pretty manly circles and No one's ever suggesting that. Now we know you're shilling!

Didn't say they were particularly "manly."

I'm guessing you don't hang with many "men's rights activists."

FuelShopTech1
03-11-2016, 11:48 AM
That's your loss.

Actually, I'll be gaining a survival advantage over women who depend on men for everything.

SomeRandomGuy
03-11-2016, 12:48 PM
So, this thread reminded me of something. About 5 years ago I was NCOIC of customer service. Our door was the main entry to the building but other units shared it with us. Our building manager came up to me and said that a contractor in one of the other units had been fired, left base, and made some threats that he was coming back to harm people. He told me that I needed to provide someone to stand at the door and check IDs, we would give this person the name of the person who they would make sure does not enter the building.

Of course, this person would be unarmed and it probably would have been a bad situation if the contractor did show up armed and this person tried to stop him. That said, do you guys think I asked for one of the ladies in our unit to go guard the door? Would you have? Is it sexist to expect that a larger stronger man would have stood a better chance stopping a disgruntled former employee?

I feel the same way about women in combat. If Ronda Rousey happened to be in our unit I might have felt ok asking her to stand guard. Otherwise, I think it should have been a man standing up there. Men have different strengths than women do.

Mjölnir
03-11-2016, 01:26 PM
Recognizing that there are differences between men and women, I do my best to treat people equally within their abilities, to afford the people who work with me equal opportunity for success. What I cannot do much about without possibly being biased or unfair is control or dictate equal outcomes.

sparks82
03-11-2016, 02:22 PM
World War II was a war for national survival. Everyone played an important role. However, Not everyone was drafted.

Thankfully, the SJW's weren't around then, so Teenage girls weren't forced to freeze their eggs and run off to go Storm the beaches of Normandy.





There's already plenty of men to do both. If we needed more then we can expand the age bracket.

The whole notion being made (by some in DoD) that we can't find enough fit or intelligent men, so we're going to have to draft women to fill out the ranks is ludicrous and should be taken as an insult to all Millennial aged males.

This latest Bullshit is just another, in a long list of major headaches inflicted upon the Military By Liberal Maniacs for who the Primary mission of the Armed Forces is to give 'Career Opportunities' for a numerically small clique of Feminist women.

Who couldn't have seen it coming that as the USMC was going about objectively proving (what anyone with a brain already knew) that gender integrated Combat Units are Less effective, they'd be scouring the depths of the Army looking for a few SuperChicks to get through Ranger school, so that the Service Chiefs (who've ALL got the PC religion) could use that as the justification to recommend unanimously that teenage girls should now be subjected to being Conscripted.

When have women been forced to "freeze their eggs" to go storm the beaches of Normandy or any war? That is a pretty asinine comment.

The USMC did not objectively prove anything with that biased study. Independent researchers - whose job it is daily to research things - pointed out the many, many things wrong with that study.

You make it sound like underage girls are going to be sent. It's 18 or older. Yes technically 18 is a teenager but it's also legally an adult. So if adult males can be forced into war, so can women.

Also we did not have a volunteer Army during WWII which is why they had to draft. Now we have an established all volunteer military. That's why if we get to the point of using the draft again means something has happened to the volunteer Army. That means shit has hit the fan and that we all have to contribute. It also would mean something worse than WWII.

I have noticed a trend in males who seem afraid of women succeeding. These arguments used to keep women out of combat MOSs, and before that the military, were the same arguments used to keep blacks out of the military. Many thought blacks were "inferior" and incapable physically of being able to perform with whites and so on and so on. Then the same arguments were used to keep homosexuals out. And all those have been shown to be false.

sparks82
03-11-2016, 02:24 PM
The reason it's going in circles Honey is because as soon as anyone posts a differing opinion or gives a personal example ( counter to yours) you immediately appear and jump on it, Repeatedly arguing the same point over and over.

And on that note... Rainmaker has noticed something about the tactics these 2 "ladies" are using here. seems eerily similar with the Troll patrol (Absinthe Anecdote/Bos Mutus) Propaganda routine. Nomsayin?

First off I'm not yours or anyone else's "honey." No I don't jump in immediately on anyone else's differing opinion. I've mostly replied to those who jump on my differing opinion.

Why is "ladies" in quotes? I mean I guess I'm not a lady but I am a woman. I don't know what you're talking about with "troll patrol" or "Absinthe Anecdote/Bos Mustus." I'm not trolling. Having a differing opinion is not being a troll.

sparks82
03-11-2016, 02:26 PM
Men and women aren't equal. This is the point you just refuse to concede. It doesn't mean that one sex is better than the other, it just means that we have, in general, different strengths and weaknesses. If we were equal, we'd all give birth, we'd all have the same genitalia, etc.

We are different and, whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, that fact doesn't change. Men and women were evolved/were created to play different roles in society. If that wasn't true, then women and men would have the same size, strength, speed, capabilities. We don't.

I never said men and women are equal. But there's no reason to not make women sign up for the draft when we never use it. The likelihood that we use it is small. So either we get rid of it because it's not necessary (which they have gotten rid of it before) or make everyone sign up (as was suggested in the 70s-80s).

You actually don't know how or why men and women were created. Did you create humanity? I don't think so. So you really don't know what the purpose is and as you stated, we have all evolved over time.

Society does create roles that is true. That doesn't mean those roles are intended.

sparks82
03-11-2016, 02:28 PM
OK, we get your point. You are a feminist, and we all think that is just so darn cute!

;)

If I'm going to get chastised for not using quotes, you better too. Who are you talking to? I'm sure as hell not a feminist.

sparks82
03-11-2016, 02:30 PM
I did find it odd that two women showed up on this site at the exact same time when there hasn't been any for quite some time.

Same as the other - I forgot my old username and password because I haven't been on here in a few years. So I made a new one. I had found other forums on FB but I can't access FB at work so I came back on here. Took me a few days to be able to post. So playing catch up.

I don't know who the other female is at all. But as stated, why is it odd to you for women to have opinions and want to make comments? Sorry if we interrupted your little sausage fest but you guys still get to have man-love Thursdays if you'd like.

sparks82
03-11-2016, 02:30 PM
You do realize that I was a member of this site for a long time prior to forgetting my password and recently re-joining, right?

And is it really that odd that women comment in a topic concerning women? Seeing as how dead this site has become, I'd think it would be the more the merrier at this point.

Exactly same thing that happened to me.

sparks82
03-11-2016, 02:33 PM
Horseshit. Rainmaker runs in some pretty manly circles and No one's ever suggesting that. Now we know you're shilling!

So you know every single man on the planet? You talk to every single man in the world on a daily basis? You know what? I'll screen shot some of these comments for you and show you that men are saying if women are in combat jobs now they should be forced into the draft or just get rid of it. AND men were the ones who sued about women not being forced to draft. I even copied and pasted that for you from the SS website.

sandsjames
03-11-2016, 03:46 PM
Really weird that RobotChicken liked and thanked for this post ... since ... y'know.

And it says it happened in August of 2013. Odd.

sandsjames
03-11-2016, 03:51 PM
Same as the other - I forgot my old username and password because I haven't been on here in a few years. So I made a new one. I had found other forums on FB but I can't access FB at work so I came back on here. Took me a few days to be able to post. So playing catch up.

I don't know who the other female is at all. But as stated, why is it odd to you for women to have opinions and want to make comments? Sorry if we interrupted your little sausage fest but you guys still get to have man-love Thursdays if you'd like.

The odd part isn't that women are commenting on this thread. The odd part is that there haven't been any women on this forum in quite some time (months), then 2 show up at the exact same time. Did someone send for estrogen?

sparks82
03-11-2016, 04:14 PM
The odd part isn't that women are commenting on this thread. The odd part is that there haven't been any women on this forum in quite some time (months), then 2 show up at the exact same time. Did someone send for estrogen?

No it's just purely coincidence. That's all. Put the tin foil hat away.

sandsjames
03-11-2016, 06:45 PM
No it's just purely coincidence. That's all. Put the tin foil hat away.Well, either way, we're glad you're here. Pretty boring having the same arguments with RM and Garkhal over and over. At least this changes things up a bit. Plus, I may need tips on getting a tomato sauce stain out of a t-shirt.

FuelShopTech1
03-11-2016, 08:00 PM
Well, either way, we're glad you're here. Pretty boring having the same arguments with RM and Garkhal over and over. At least this changes things up a bit. Plus, I may need tips on getting a tomato sauce stain out of a t-shirt.

Burn it.

Anyway, if I wanted to create an alt to fuck with you guys, it would be PT GODDESS, and I'd spend all my time bragging about my 28" waistline.

sandsjames
03-11-2016, 08:06 PM
Burn it.

Anyway, if I wanted to create an alt to fuck with you guys, it would be PT GODDESS, and I'd spend all my time bragging about my 28" waistline.

Who said you created an alt to fuck with us?

PT God is missed dearly around here. But we have RM who took it to a new level.

FuelShopTech1
03-11-2016, 08:08 PM
Recognizing that there are differences between men and women, I do my best to treat people equally within their abilities, to afford the people who work with me equal opportunity for success. What I cannot do much about without possibly being biased or unfair is control or dictate equal outcomes.

Yeah, that's a good attitude to have.

My entire perspective on the "women in combat" thing is it's a problem that solves itself. 99.9% of women don't have the physical capabilities to get anywhere near the requirement for those roles, so it's a moot point. The only potential problem is dumbshit activists who would want standards changed to make it more "fair" in the misguided notion that "equality of opportunity" means "equality of outcome."

As for the draft, I don't see a problem with men questioning their supposed "role" and why they should expected to be cannon fodder because penis. Personally, if I became Queen of the Universe, the entire draft would get tossed.

MikeKerriii
03-12-2016, 01:30 AM
So, this thread reminded me of something. About 5 years ago I was NCOIC of customer service. Our door was the main entry to the building but other units shared it with us. Our building manager came up to me and said that a contractor in one of the other units had been fired, left base, and made some threats that he was coming back to harm people. He told me that I needed to provide someone to stand at the door and check IDs, we would give this person the name of the person who they would make sure does not enter the building.

Of course, this person would be unarmed and it probably would have been a bad situation if the contractor did show up armed and this person tried to stop him. That said, do you guys think I asked for one of the ladies in our unit to go guard the door? Would you have? Is it sexist to expect that a larger stronger man would have stood a better chance stopping a disgruntled former employee?

I feel the same way about women in combat. If Ronda Rousey happened to be in our unit I might have felt ok asking her to stand guard. Otherwise, I think it should have been a man standing up there. Men have different strengths than women do.

I spent most of my Carer in places that were Guarded, a female with a weapon makes ads good a guard as a male with one. We don't live in the day when Combat is normally decided by muscle anymore,

Rainmaker
03-12-2016, 02:02 AM
Really weird that RobotChicken liked and thanked for this post ... since ... y'know.

RobotChicken approves this thread!




Normally me and you are eye to eye, but on this we are at opposite ends rainmaker.. And your rants are sounding just like what i would expect from a spoilt brat.

Never Send A Woman To Do A Man's Job (and vice versa).


Did someone send for estrogen?

Probably garhkal. He says he likes to have the women do the fighting for him.


That is a pretty asinine comment.

Rainmaker don't use Sarc tags. You either get it or you don't


I'm not yours or anyone else's "honey."
Not surprising. You might want to try to Educate yourself on the lost art of femininity. Does your husband know that you're talking to strange men on the Internet?



I'm guessing you don't hang with many "men's rights activists."

You're kind of clever for a Bot. Please tell corporate to lose the repetitive nagging 'sparks82' application and send another one like you.

sandsjames
03-12-2016, 11:04 AM
Not surprising. You might want to try to Educate yourself on the lost art of femininity. Does your husband know that you're talking to strange men on the Internet? This is where I always find the most irony. "Feminists" hate femininity.

FuelShopTech1
03-12-2016, 03:03 PM
This is where I always find the most irony. "Feminists" hate femininity.

Hey, now!

As someone who is currently employed as a dishwasher/janitor at a restaurant, I spent my days cooking, cleaning, and washing dishes. I'm the embodiment of femininity distilled down to it's purest essence.

Seriously, though not a feminist, I do tend to suck at the being a "woman" thing. Ru Paul pulls it off better than I do.

sparks82
03-14-2016, 06:23 PM
Well, either way, we're glad you're here. Pretty boring having the same arguments with RM and Garkhal over and over. At least this changes things up a bit. Plus, I may need tips on getting a tomato sauce stain out of a t-shirt.

I don't know how to do that. I would just scrub it with laundry soap and then throw it in the washer.

sparks82
03-14-2016, 06:26 PM
I spent most of my Carer in places that were Guarded, a female with a weapon makes ads good a guard as a male with one. We don't live in the day when Combat is normally decided by muscle anymore,

I'm sorry but I have to correct this. It's just bothering me:

"I spent most of my *career* in places that were *guarded.* A female with a weapon makes *as* good a guard as a male with *a weapon.* We don't live in the day when *combat* is normally decided by muscle anymore *.*

I could correct more but we'll just stick with that.

sparks82
03-14-2016, 06:29 PM
RobotChicken approves this thread!



Never Send A Woman To Do A Man's Job (and vice versa).



Probably garhkal. He says he likes to have the women do the fighting for him.



Rainmaker don't use Sarc tags. You either get it or you don't


Not surprising. You might want to try to Educate yourself on the lost art of femininity. Does your husband know that you're talking to strange men on the Internet?



You're kind of clever for a Bot. Please tell corporate to lose the repetitive nagging 'sparks82' application and send another one like you.

Sarc tag?

Why do I need to *educate* myself on femininity? I've never been a feminine woman. I was raised by boys. Only girl out of five kids and mother was not around much. So..yeah.Good luck with getting anything feminine out of me. I'm a little more than I was then but not much - and that still has nothing with creepers like you calling me "honey."

I'm also divorced - I tend to not like to remain with drug addict, alcoholic abusive men. Even if I was with someone they aren't my boss. I can talk to whomever I want.

I'm also not "nagging" anyone. But nice try there trying to be clever.

sandsjames
03-14-2016, 06:54 PM
I'm also divorced - I tend to not like to remain with drug addict, alcoholic abusive men. Even if I was with someone they aren't my boss. I can talk to whomever I want.


This was obviously a horrible situation for you. Do you think that maybe your initial attraction to a guy like this is the result of not being raised as a girl, not knowing what to look for in a man, because you don't know the proper way a woman should be treated?

MikeKerriii
03-15-2016, 03:33 AM
Sarc tag?

Why do I need to *educate* myself on femininity? I've never been a feminine woman. I was raised by boys. Only girl out of five kids and mother was not around much. So..yeah.Good luck with getting anything feminine out of me. I'm a little more than I was then but not much - and that still has nothing with creepers like you calling me "honey."

I'm also divorced - I tend to not like to remain with drug addict, alcoholic abusive men. Even if I was with someone they aren't my boss. I can talk to whomever I want.

I'm also not "nagging" anyone. But nice try there trying to be clever.
The secret to posting here is to remember that many posters are living in the last Century mental, and one in the 19th Century. They DO NOT consider you, or any woman, their equal

FuelShopTech1
03-16-2016, 12:59 PM
This was obviously a horrible situation for you. Do you think that maybe your initial attraction to a guy like this is the result of not being raised as a girl, not knowing what to look for in a man, because you don't know the proper way a woman should be treated?

Do you seriously believe that only "unfeminine" women end up in abusive relationships?

sandsjames
03-16-2016, 04:35 PM
Do you seriously believe that only "unfeminine" women end up in abusive relationships?

Nope...and I don't believe I said that.

UncaRastus
03-16-2016, 04:57 PM
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but females marry 'bad guys', thinking that they can change them.

And males marry 'bad females', believing that they can change them.

In most cases, those beliefs are erroneous, at least in my observations.

sandsjames
03-16-2016, 06:14 PM
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but females marry 'bad guys', thinking that they can change them.

And males marry 'bad females', believing that they can change them.

In most cases, those beliefs are erroneous, at least in my observations.

I think you're wrong. Men marry "bad girls" thinking that they'll stay that way, but the very rarely do.

Rainmaker
03-16-2016, 06:37 PM
I think you're wrong. Men marry "bad girls" thinking that they'll stay that way, but the very rarely do.

Rainmaker don't understand this way of thinking. There's absolutely nothing to be gained for a man by marrying a 'sexually experienced' woman.

You can't expect to make a housewife out of a whore.

sparks82
03-16-2016, 06:49 PM
This was obviously a horrible situation for you. Do you think that maybe your initial attraction to a guy like this is the result of not being raised as a girl, not knowing what to look for in a man, because you don't know the proper way a woman should be treated?

No it has nothing to do with that. I'm just too much like my dad - care too much about people. My mom was the last person my dad should have married. People told him she was crazy (they met in college). The priest even told them they shouldn't get married because she was too immature. He didn't listen because he loved her.

My ex was the first guy I was with. That probably had a lot do with it. We dated or whatever when we were 19 - but he dated a lot of girls - and then we went our separate ways when I joined the Army. He went to prison. Married his psycho ex wife (yes she is psycho. She's bipolar and I've known her as long as him and I have seen her psychotic episodes. She literally stalked the guy in high school). They had another kid and I did my thing. I came back to the area when I was stationed at Riley. They got divorced. We got back together. I was pretty stupid and really only married him when I did because I was pregnant and didn't want to deal with Family Care Plan. I knew neither of us was ready. I've never been a fan of marriage. He had been doing better but then fell of the wagon. Spiraled down and I filed before we hit a year married. He finally got sober in Sept and has been since so I let him see our daughter since he's finally being an adult.

I know how women should be treated. My dad treated my mom better than anyone. She didn't appreciate it. I just basically ended up with the male version of her narcissistic ass. But my mom and dad didn't divorce until I was in college. She just wasn't around. She would go visit her boyfriend (now her husband) every other weekend she had off. My dad found out about it and they tried counseling but he couldn't afford a divorce. But anytime her car broke down, he fixed it. He bought her a couple new (newer used cars not brand new cars) over the years. One time she got stuck in a blizzard on her way to go see asshole and he went to go pick her up (mostly because my youngest brother was with her). She worked too but he worked two jobs to pay bills while she was running around. Took care of all of us - even took care of my youngest brother deep down knowing he wasn't biologically his but didn't find out for sure til the divorce when he was 12.

I know how people should be treated. I'm just too nice of a person most of the time and don't like to see people hurt or in trouble and a lot of people - including family - have taken advantage of that. So honestly if I had been raised by our mom (like if my dad had shot the bastard like he wanted to do but didn't because of us) I would probably be like her. Manipulative. Narcissistic. So on. Probably would've slutted it up and not been 20 when I lost my virginity. Who knows? Definitely wouldn't have been where I am and have been if she had raised me. So thank goodness for that.

That's our therapy session for the day folks.

sparks82
03-16-2016, 06:53 PM
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but females marry 'bad guys', thinking that they can change them.

And males marry 'bad females', believing that they can change them.

In most cases, those beliefs are erroneous, at least in my observations.

I never thought I could "change" him. It seemed like he had changed after the years I hadn't been around him. His ex told me some stuff but, again, I know that she's a lying psycho seeing her flip outs so I didn't believe her. She is still an epic c***. But either way I thought he had changed but found out he hadn't. Mistakes made. I dealt with those financially, emotionally and physically and it will never happen again especially with my daughter around.

Rainmaker
03-16-2016, 07:01 PM
Why do I need to *educate* myself on femininity?
You don't. Unless you decide to ever find a man to marry that's worth a damn.


I've never been a feminine woman. I was raised by boys. Good luck with getting anything feminine out of me.


So to illustrate a point, Let's reverse this. Would you be interested in dating (or marrying) a man that made the following statement: "I've never been a masculine man. I was raised by girls. Good luck with getting anything masculine out of me."?

Rainmaker
03-16-2016, 07:20 PM
-My mom was the last person my dad should have married.

-People told him she was crazy.

- The priest even told them they shouldn't get married because she was too immature.

- He didn't listen.

- My dad treated my mom better than anyone. She didn't appreciate it.

- She would go visit her boyfriend (now her husband) every other weekend she had off.

-My dad found out about it and they tried counseling.

- He couldn't afford a divorce. But anytime her car broke down, he fixed it.

- He bought her a couple new (newer used cars not brand new cars) over the years.

- One time she got stuck in a blizzard on her way to go see asshole and he went to go pick her up

-He worked two jobs to pay bills while she was running around.

- even took care of my youngest brother deep down knowing he wasn't biologically his.

So you're saying that he was her doormat.


I know how women should be treated.

Now, Dad may have been a nice guy and all that , and This may sound harsh. But, letting a woman run all over you, sets a bad example for your children to follow.

garhkal
03-17-2016, 04:57 AM
So you're saying that he was her doormat.


From looking at how most marriages seem these days with society (especially wives) pushing the whole "happy wife, happy life" mantra, aren't most hubbies, walking doormats these days?

Mjölnir
03-17-2016, 10:27 AM
From looking at how most marriages seem these days with society (especially wives) pushing the whole "happy wife, happy life" mantra, aren't most hubbies, walking doormats these days?

I thought perpetual bachelorhood was for me, then I met my wife. I am sure perpetual bachelorhood makes other people happy. I am also sure that folks who have had a divorce would argue that marriage (at least that one) is a bad deal. For me, being a husband and now a father make me better than I was before I met the Mrs. Yes, I strive to make & keep my wife happy -- not out of a mantra or as a doormat, I love her, otherwise I would not be married to her.

sandsjames
03-17-2016, 11:24 AM
I thought perpetual bachelorhood was for me, then I met my wife. I am sure perpetual bachelorhood makes other people happy. I am also sure that folks who have had a divorce would argue that marriage (at least that one) is a bad deal. For me, being a husband and now a father make me better than I was before I met the Mrs. Yes, I strive to make & keep my wife happy -- not out of a mantra or as a doormat, I love her, otherwise I would not be married to her.

Great post. I think people who say that they are happy to stay single their entire lives are not being honest with themselves and haven't found the right person. My worst day married is better than my best day single.

Rainmaker
03-17-2016, 12:42 PM
From looking at how most marriages seem these days with society (especially wives) pushing the whole "happy wife, happy life" mantra, aren't most hubbies, walking doormats these days?

No one's perfect and everyone has a bad day once in awhile. But, at a certain point people deserve what they tolerate.

Getting rid of 'No fault' divorce laws would be a good first step toward righting the ship.

FuelShopTech1
03-17-2016, 01:33 PM
Nope...and I don't believe I said that.

....which is why I was asking for clarification. Thank you for taking the time to respond.


It seems to me, and I could be wrong, but females marry 'bad guys', thinking that they can change them.

And males marry 'bad females', believing that they can change them.

In most cases, those beliefs are erroneous, at least in my observations.

I've observed that many of the women who keep getting caught-up in abusive relationships have a history of abuse reaching back into their childhoods. My mother had a series of bad relationships, but I suspect it has more to do with the fact she was physically and sexually abused by her own father for a number of years than any lack of femininity on her part.

FuelShopTech1
03-17-2016, 01:38 PM
Great post. I think people who say that they are happy to stay single their entire lives are not being honest with themselves and haven't found the right person. My worst day married is better than my best day single.

I'm non-sexual and aromantic; therefore, I'm a pretty big exception.

sandsjames
03-17-2016, 02:08 PM
I'm non-sexual and aromantic; therefore, I'm a pretty big exception.

I don't know what this means but it sounds depressing.

Rainmaker
03-17-2016, 02:14 PM
I don't know what this means


Frigid

adjective | frig·id | \ˈfri-jəd\

Simple Definition of frigid

1: very cold

2: not friendly or loving : lacking emotional warmth

3: of a woman : not wanting to have sex : not enjoying sex

FuelShopTech1
03-17-2016, 02:48 PM
I don't know what this means but it sounds depressing.

It means I'm free and clear of relationship drama and 100% immune to pregnancies and STDs. The usual term is "asexual," but that tends to lead to amoeba jokes.

heterosexual - attracted to the opposite sex

homosexual - attracted to the same sex

bisexual - attracted to both sexes

asexual - attracted to neither sex

Consider yourself schooled, home slice.

sandsjames
03-17-2016, 03:03 PM
It means I'm free and clear of relationship drama and 100% immune to pregnancies and STDs. The usual term is "asexual," but that tends to lead to amoeba jokes.

heterosexual - attracted to the opposite sex

homosexual - attracted to the same sex

bisexual - attracted to both sexes

asexual - attracted to neither sex

Consider yourself schooled, home slice.

Again, it sounds pretty depressing.

You really don't find anyone attractive, sexually or otherwise? This is completely outside my grasp of reality.

And, Bee Tee Dub, I knew the meaning of the word, I just didn't associate it with people.

Rainmaker
03-17-2016, 05:32 PM
You really don't find anyone attractive, sexually or otherwise? This is completely outside my grasp of reality.



It's important to understand that modern "Liberalism" is not just a world view. But, is actually a mental disorder.

And just like many other mental illnesses, changes in brain chemistry and hormonal imbalance can occur causing physical symptoms, as well as the psychological ones.

Taken to its extreme, Feminism often leads to a woman's ovaries drying up.

USN - Retired
03-17-2016, 07:20 PM
Again, it sounds pretty depressing.

You really don't find anyone attractive, sexually or otherwise? This is completely outside my grasp of reality.

And, Bee Tee Dub, I knew the meaning of the word, I just didn't associate it with people.

One person's hell may be another person's paradise...

USN - Retired
03-17-2016, 07:56 PM
I don't know what this means but it sounds depressing.

Here's our next president. Now THAT's depressing...

http://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/hillary-eye.jpg

UncaRastus
03-17-2016, 08:19 PM
Better to have the overies dry up, rather than the underies.

Now if the ovaries dry up, that's a different story, altogether!

FuelShopTech1
03-17-2016, 11:44 PM
Again, it sounds pretty depressing.

You really don't find anyone attractive, sexually or otherwise? This is completely outside my grasp of reality.

And, Bee Tee Dub, I knew the meaning of the word, I just didn't associate it with people.

Nope.

Never have and never will. And asexuals make up about 1% of the human population, so it's no surprise you haven't heard of it.

And I'm about as "depressed" as a gay guy who knows he'll never be able to rejoice in a big slice of pussy.

FuelShopTech1
03-17-2016, 11:46 PM
Here's our next president. Now THAT's depressing...

http://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/hillary-eye.jpg

I can't look at any of our potential leaders without becoming depressed.

BTW, I'm not voting for Hilary, va-jay-jay or not.

MikeKerriii
03-18-2016, 12:26 AM
Nope.

Never have and never will. And asexuals make up about 1% of the human population, so it's no surprise you haven't heard of it.

And I'm about as "depressed" as a gay guy who knows he'll never be able to rejoice in a big slice of pussy.
I love that last line

sandsjames
03-18-2016, 09:41 AM
Nope.

Never have and never will. And asexuals make up about 1% of the human population, so it's no surprise you haven't heard of it.

And I'm about as "depressed" as a gay guy who knows he'll never be able to rejoice in a big slice of pussy.

That makes no sense, because the gay guy is still going to enjoy intimate sexual relationships, but I think the point way more for you to try to shock with the phrase "big slice of pussy" and, apparently you hit the target with MikeKerriiiiiiiii

FuelShopTech1
03-18-2016, 10:54 AM
That makes no sense, because the gay guy is still going to enjoy intimate sexual relationships, but I think the point way more for you to try to shock with the phrase "big slice of pussy" and, apparently you hit the target with MikeKerriiiiiiiii

I'm not intentionally trying to shock anyone. I'm just crude and socially retarded.

As for sexual relations, I can't be depressed about not getting something I have no desire to have.

sandsjames
03-18-2016, 11:15 AM
I'm not intentionally trying to shock anyone. I'm just crude and socially retarded.

As for sexual relations, I can't be depressed about not getting something I have no desire to have.

I appreciate you trying to explain this to me. I'm not trying to get disrespectful at all, I just can't wrap my head around it.

Rainmaker
03-18-2016, 05:05 PM
The Services’ Women-in-Combat-Specialties Plans are Out…

http://weaponsman.com/?p=30437

FuelShopTech1
03-18-2016, 08:06 PM
I appreciate you trying to explain this to me. I'm not trying to get disrespectful at all, I just can't wrap my head around it.

No problemo.

A lot of people don't get it. I just liken it to olives: I can't stand the damned things and can't comprehend how anyone could voluntarily eat one.

Like I stated, asexuals tend to be in the extreme minority, so I'm accustomed to being the zebra in a herd of horses.

FuelShopTech1
03-18-2016, 08:17 PM
The Services’ Women-in-Combat-Specialties Plans are Out…

http://weaponsman.com/?p=30437

I predict the interest level of females in entering combat specialties will be equal that of the number of women who line up to drive garbage trucks, work on oil rigs, and sail on crab fishing boats.

Of those few interested, I further auger that .009% of them will come anywhere close to qualifying.

sandsjames
03-18-2016, 08:24 PM
A lot of people don't get it. I just liken it to olives: I can't stand the damned things and can't comprehend how anyone could voluntarily eat one.

Right, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any food you like. It just means you don't like olives. You do like food, just not that specific type.

Rainmaker
03-18-2016, 10:50 PM
I predict the interest level of females in entering combat specialties will be equal that of the number of women who line up to drive garbage trucks, work on oil rigs, and sail on crab fishing boats.

Of those few interested, I further auger that .009% of them will come anywhere close to qualifying.

Agreed. So,Is there anything to be gained militarily from making this change?

FuelShopTech1
03-19-2016, 07:15 PM
Agreed. So,Is there anything to be gained militarily from making this change?

It gets the feminists who were complaining about it to shut the hell up???

sandsjames
03-19-2016, 11:56 PM
It gets the feminists who were complaining about it to shut the hell up???

Nope...that'll never happen. They'll always find "inequality" with something.

garhkal
03-20-2016, 04:02 AM
Nope...that'll never happen. They'll always find "inequality" with something.

Agreed. Its the standard tactic of the left to push for 'equality', and once they get that, then push for 'special treatment;..

sparks82
03-23-2016, 01:42 PM
You don't. Unless you decide to ever find a man to marry that's worth a damn.



So to illustrate a point, Let's reverse this. Would you be interested in dating (or marrying) a man that made the following statement: "I've never been a masculine man. I was raised by girls. Good luck with getting anything masculine out of me."?

Yes I would. There's nothing wrong with a man raised by women. In fact, they are usually the better men to date. Who is to say they aren't masculine? I have some femininity. Just not super feminine. As in I didn't like to wear dresses and didn't wear makeup and don't wear makeup now. It's too much of a hassle. I don't need it. I don't mind dressing up once in awhile. But I'm more comfortable in T shirts and jeans.

I know what femininity is - I don't need it. I'm sorry if you need a 50s housewife but that's you.

sparks82
03-23-2016, 01:51 PM
So you're saying that he was her doormat.



Now, Dad may have been a nice guy and all that , and This may sound harsh. But, letting a woman run all over you, sets a bad example for your children to follow.

Really? Because two of my brothers are married to really great women and one is in a relationship with a great woman and she has a daughter from a prior relationship. My oldest brother has raised his stepson since he was 2 and is basically his dad.

Honestly he just didn't really have the energy to deal with her crazy after awhile. She finally left before I went to college which was a relief for us all. He is remarried and has been for 7 years. So it worked out for him eventually.

So to say he was a bad example for us is pretty much bullshit. My issue is just my ex husband was my first and that's why I think there's an attachment. Now we have a daughter too. But I didn't see him for like four or five years and had gotten over him. Just ran into each other again and after awhile it all came back.

All I was saying is my mom cheated on my dad with a raging piece of shit and no one knows why but oh well. Life goes on.

sandsjames
03-23-2016, 01:53 PM
I know what femininity is - I don't need it. I'm sorry if you need a 50s housewife but that's you.This is such a sexist statement and derogatory to millions of women who choose to be housewives. In case you're wondering, there's no difference between a 50s housewife and a 2016 housewife, but that doesn't fit your narrative.

sandsjames
03-23-2016, 01:55 PM
All I was saying is my mom cheated on my dad with a raging piece of shit and no one knows why but oh well. Life goes on.Probably because she didn't want to be a 1950s housewife.

sparks82
03-23-2016, 01:56 PM
Great post. I think people who say that they are happy to stay single their entire lives are not being honest with themselves and haven't found the right person. My worst day married is better than my best day single.

I can handle being single. I don't have time to date anyway. My daughter's medical issues take up my days. Plus I don't need the drama and I honestly don't know if I could trust to bring a new man into her life. I see too much crazy shit in the news especially lately. A lot of sexual assaults of children and abuse in my area lately in the news. I don't know how women or men can bring someone into their child's life as soon as some people I know have. Some engaged to someone in less than a month and have kids...no way. If I ever dated someone else they wouldn't meet her for at least 6 months. Maybe more. But right now, I don't need the bullshit so I'm very content being single.

sandsjames
03-23-2016, 02:02 PM
I can handle being single. I don't have time to date anyway. My daughter's medical issues take up my days. A partner to help you will give you more free time.


Plus I don't need the drama and I honestly don't know if I could trust to bring a new man into her life. A good relationship doesn't have drama...and as far as trusting a new man, we're not all woman beating child molesters...actually very few of us are.


I see too much crazy shit in the news especially lately. A lot of sexual assaults of children and abuse in my area lately in the news. I don't know how women or men can bring someone into their child's life as soon as some people I know have. Some engaged to someone in less than a month and have kids...no way. If I ever dated someone else they wouldn't meet her for at least 6 months. Maybe more. But right now, I don't need the bullshit so I'm very content being single.It's a shame that you are so paranoid of men. That sounds like a miserable life. You should quit watching Law & Order SVU and Criminal Minds so much.

There's nothing wrong with being single, it's just that things are much easier all around when you're in a good relationship. Parenting is easier, coping with daily life is easier, etc.

sparks82
03-23-2016, 02:04 PM
Probably because she didn't want to be a 1950s housewife.

She never acted like a 1950s housewife. She didn't even act like a wife at all whatever that even really means. I suppose she may have been happy at one point but I don't remember it. She started the affair when I was about 5. So all I remember is my mom being gone a lot to see him and taking my little brother with her. There were a few times she tried to stop seeing him and the guy threatened her, my dad and us. My dad went and talked to the guy (they were all friends at one point) to stay away from our family. This guy says "Wait a minute" and goes and gets a gun and points it at my dad. Then goes and tells the sheriff (who lived next door) that my dad came and threatened him. Everyone in town knew this guy was a nut anyway and knew my dad and the sheriff talked to my dad but knew the guy was full of it.

My dad said the only thing that stopped him from murdering this asshole was us kids. He knew if he went to prison we wouldn't have anyone. I don't want to imagine where I'd be in life had our mother raised us. She probably would have dumped us off on someone else honestly.

My mom is nuts. Her siblings say it. People who know her have said it. I talked to a chaplain about this once and he asked me if she was ever diagnosed with a personality disorder. She hasn't been but it wouldn't surprise me. It's pretty bad when even the priest who married my parents said they shouldn't get married...

Either way. My dad is happy now. He gets out a little more than he used to. He still has to work but at least he's not dealing with a crazy woman.

sparks82
03-23-2016, 02:08 PM
A partner to help you will give you more free time.

A good relationship doesn't have drama...and as far as trusting a new man, we're not all woman beating child molesters...actually very few of us are.

It's a shame that you are so paranoid of men. That sounds like a miserable life. You should quit watching Law & Order SVU and Criminal Minds so much.

There's nothing wrong with being single, it's just that things are much easier all around when you're in a good relationship. Parenting is easier, coping with daily life is easier, etc.

I know all men are not women beating child molesters. But I just don't have a lot of faith in people lately. Not just due to my ex either but a lot of people in my life have failed me in the last few years. So right now my primary focus is my daughter. She constantly has appointments and is in out of the hospital. So I don't have time for anyone else until her issues are resolved when she can get a transplant.

Just because it sounds miserable to you doesn't mean it is. It's my life. Not yours. Maybe things you do in your life sound miserable to me.

Why do you think parenting is easier if you're in a relationship? I probably wouldn't handle someone else trying to discipline my child. I've always been independent and taken care of myself. I actually find it a little irritating at times when someone else is around because I like things done certain ways. I cope with life just fine without a relationship.

I get it that you're a person who likes to be in a relationship but not everyone is like you. I'm sorry you can't understand other people's lifestyle choices but that's not really for you to decide. My life is just fine right now minus her medical condition. She's happy and thriving despite it and that's all that matters to me.

Oh and if I need a break, I have respite care for that.

sparks82
03-23-2016, 02:10 PM
No problemo.

A lot of people don't get it. I just liken it to olives: I can't stand the damned things and can't comprehend how anyone could voluntarily eat one.

Like I stated, asexuals tend to be in the extreme minority, so I'm accustomed to being the zebra in a herd of horses.

I think an example of an asexual to use would be Sheldon Cooper off Big Bang Theory - before he was put into a relationship on the show.

I get it. Some people are happy in a relationship. Some aren't. If you're not hurting anyone else I don't see what the big deal is if you're not having sex.

sandsjames
03-23-2016, 02:51 PM
I know all men are not women beating child molesters. But I just don't have a lot of faith in people lately. Not just due to my ex either but a lot of people in my life have failed me in the last few years. So right now my primary focus is my daughter. She constantly has appointments and is in out of the hospital. So I don't have time for anyone else until her issues are resolved when she can get a transplant. I can respect that.


Just because it sounds miserable to you doesn't mean it is. It's my life. Not yours. Maybe things you do in your life sound miserable to me. If you can honestly say that you wouldn't be happier if you were in a good relationship with someone (who you care about and who treats you and your child the right way) then I'll let this all go. But I'm pretty sure you that it wouldn't be honest.


Why do you think parenting is easier if you're in a relationship? Not just in a relationship, but in a good relationship. It's easier because there is more than just you trying to handle things.


I probably wouldn't handle someone else trying to discipline my child. Even if they did it in a way that you agreed with? That's odd.


I've always been independent and taken care of myself. Well that's a shame.


I actually find it a little irritating at times when someone else is around because I like things done certain ways. So you are controlling and selfish.


I cope with life just fine without a relationship. Don't you want to do more than just "cope" with life?


I get it that you're a person who likes to be in a relationship but not everyone is like you. I think you are very dishonest here. Everybody likes to be in a good relationship. The problem is that, because of the way some people are raised (back to our original discussion) so as not to be "labeled", they don't know what a good relationship is.


I'm sorry you can't understand other people's lifestyle choices but that's not really for you to decide. My life is just fine right now minus her medical condition. She's happy and thriving despite it and that's all that matters to me. My wife was a single mother for twelve years. She was enjoying her life immensely, as an "independent" single mother. Her life become much better after we got together and she had someone to share everything with.

I'm not saying that a person can't be happy without being in a relationship. I'm saying that everyone is happier if they are in a good, fulfilling relationship than they are if when they're single.


Oh and if I need a break, I have respite care for that.Why should you need a break if everything is so great?

sparks82
03-23-2016, 04:51 PM
If you can honestly say that you wouldn't be happier if you were in a good relationship with someone (who you care about and who treats you and your child the right way) then I'll let this all go. But I'm pretty sure you that it wouldn't be honest.
Yes I can honestly say that I would not have more joy in my life if I was in a good relationship than I have right now. My – life – is – great – the – way – it – is. Not sure why that’s hard to comprehend. Also not sure why you’re so concerned about it.

Not just in a relationship, but in a good relationship. It's easier because there is more than just you trying to handle things.
I have no problem handling things.
Even if they did it in a way that you agreed with? That's odd.

No not odd to me. Sorry it is to you.
Well that's a shame.

Why is being independent a shame? Why is it wrong for anyone – especially a woman - to handle taking care of herself?

So you are controlling and selfish.
I’m not controlling or selfish at all. I don’t see how that would be. Controlling and selfish would be forcing someone to do something they don’t like.

Don't you want to do more than just "cope" with life?
What I meant in coping with life is coping with the issues in my life. Right now the medical issues are my life.

I think you are very dishonest here. Everybody likes to be in a good relationship. The problem is that, because of the way some people are raised (back to our original discussion) so as not to be "labeled", they don't know what a good relationship is.
I think you have a serious problem about single people and I don’t get why they bother you so much. You are seriously projecting your insecurities in these comments. Some people like to be single. Someone else already stated that and you told her that was weird too. That it was weird for her to be asexual. That’s her life – and she’s happy and not hurting anyone. So why does it bother you so much when – in this case – women are single? No one seems to have a problem with men who are lifelong bachelors. Why can’t women be just as happy in the same situation? Well they can. Some people just don’t like romantic relationships for a variety of reasons.

My wife was a single mother for twelve years. She was enjoying her life immensely, as an "independent" single mother. Her life become much better after we got together and she had someone to share everything with.
Good for her. She’s not all of us. Why is independent in quotes? There’s nothing wrong with anyone being independent.

I'm not saying that a person can't be happy without being in a relationship. I'm saying that everyone is happier if they are in a good, fulfilling relationship than they are if when they're single.
But you have no basis for that applying to every single person on the planet. At all.

Why should you need a break if everything is so great?
The only reason I got respite care is to work out. I can’t take her to the gym. It’s a small gym in my apartment complex. If I could take her with me, I would. I have a great time with her and, at times, family visits and that’s fun too. I find it odd you keep pushing this topic – odd and creepy.

Rainmaker
03-24-2016, 02:55 PM
I'm sorry if you need a 50s housewife but that's you.

Mrs. Rainmaker is only in her 40's.

Now, any sane person has to admit that Men and Women were made for each other. Because, women are naturally the caretakers of society and Men are naturally the providers and the protectors . Rainmaker don't know what kind of sick deviants would want to screw that up. But, the rest of us are done living in a feminist police state.

Normal Men (not effeminate pussies) like women with Long hair, Heart shaped asses and Big tits. Normal Women (not man-hating feminists) like men with Broad shoulders, stubble, abs and sound decision making ability

Rainmaker's often wondered what purpose these tyrannical liberal maniacs (that are trying to destroy our society serve). Why did God create them? Just like Mosquitos and other nuisance pests, They must be serving some purpose in our ecosystem (other than causing misery)

Any woman that would put a military career before her children's welfare is probably mentally deranged, and could be subconsciously trying to take herself out of the gene pool.

Mjölnir
03-24-2016, 04:45 PM
Normal Women (not man-hating feminists) like men with Broad shoulders, stubble, abs and sound decision making ability

So your wife isn't normal :)

Rainmaker
03-24-2016, 04:57 PM
So your wife isn't normal :)

Actually, Mrs. Rainmaker was a great athlete. She ran the anchor on all the relay races and was the state record holder in the triple jump for several years after she graduated. Much more accomplished than Rainmaker who was an honorable mention class 2A all state safety, emergency 3rd string, backup qb and kind of a big deal in our little football crazy town.

Anyhow, on our 1st date (after much trash talking by me) we raced the 40 and I barely beat her by a couple of steps.

So it stands to reason that Rainmaker very likely could've been an olympic caliber athlete himself ( If only he wouldve been allowed to compete as a girl).

FuelShopTech1
03-24-2016, 08:25 PM
This is such a sexist statement and derogatory to millions of women who choose to be housewives. In case you're wondering, there's no difference between a 50s housewife and a 2016 housewife, but that doesn't fit your narrative.

Not true.

2016 housewives have microwaves and shit. And 1950s housewives had to clean the house while wearing pearls and high-heels.

Seriously, though, I don't have a problem with housewives. What I have a problem with is women who enter male-dominated jobs that involve dirt, danger, and physical exertion, and then act like spoiled princesses and expect the men (and me) to do all the hard work. If you want to stay home and push out babies, do that, but don't enter the work force, especially not the physically demanding side of it, and act like a helpless twit.

FuelShopTech1
03-24-2016, 08:34 PM
I think an example of an asexual to use would be Sheldon Cooper off Big Bang Theory - before he was put into a relationship on the show.

I get it. Some people are happy in a relationship. Some aren't. If you're not hurting anyone else I don't see what the big deal is if you're not having sex.

Yeah, I think they confirmed Sheldon was asexual at some point.

As to why it bothers some people, I don't get it. For full disclosure, I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome and ADHD at age 26 by an AF psychologist, so my brain is obviously atypical, and I don't have a normal understanding of social relationships.

What normal people consider "satisfying" is very strange to me. Personally, I couldn't handle some person living with me who never went away.....like a spouse. Ick.

sparks82
03-28-2016, 02:04 PM
Mrs. Rainmaker is only in her 40's.

Now, any sane person has to admit that Men and Women were made for each other. Because, women are naturally the caretakers of society and Men are naturally the providers and the protectors . Rainmaker don't know what kind of sick deviants would want to screw that up. But, the rest of us are done living in a feminist police state.

Normal Men (not effeminate pussies) like women with Long hair, Heart shaped asses and Big tits. Normal Women (not man-hating feminists) like men with Broad shoulders, stubble, abs and sound decision making ability

Rainmaker's often wondered what purpose these tyrannical liberal maniacs (that are trying to destroy our society serve). Why did God create them? Just like Mosquitos and other nuisance pests, They must be serving some purpose in our ecosystem (other than causing misery)

Any woman that would put a military career before her children's welfare is probably mentally deranged, and could be subconsciously trying to take herself out of the gene pool.

*1950s era housewife is what I meant and I believe you knew that but you are attempting to be sarcastic.

*Who are these "normal" men and "normal" women you speak about? Everyone is attracted to something different. Some men are attracted to other men. Some women are attracted to other women. Some men are attracted to thin women. Some like bigger women. Some like ditzy blondes. Some men like to have a conversation with a woman. Some women like asshole men. Some women like nice guys. Some women like idiot men and some like men they can have a conversation with too. Some men like women with short hair. Some like medium, some long. Same for women with men or whatever.

You are not the judge of society and who is attracted to whom.

I'm not sure who you are talking about with a woman putting her military career before her children. Are you talking about women who have a career and children? So it's okay for men to have a career and family balance but not women? Sounds pretty archaic to me. I don't know any women who put their careers before their kids although they do exist as are there men who do that.

I think you're trying to say any woman who is in the military with children shouldn't be there. Sorry we are. I was going to get out at 13 years even with my daughter to have a different career but at six weeks she was diagnosed with medical issues. I have to stay in because TRICARE has covered damn near everything except a few co-pays off post for medicine. I'm staying in and retiring FOR my daughter. I'm making sure that my daughter is provided for because her father can't seem to make up his mind when he wants to be an adult and for how long. I consistently put my daughter first every day. I don't go out and party. I don't even buy much of anything for myself.

I'm sorry that you still live in a different time period but women can and do have families and careers whether it is the military or something else. Women are not here just to be "caretakers" and rub your ego and make you feel better. If that's what your wife wants to do, that's why she's your wife. Not every woman wants to be a stay at home mom and housewife. Some of us have aspirations and goals in life. I'm honestly surprised you duped a woman into marrying you honestly.

I'm sure some of these "effeminate pussies" as you call them are 1000 times the man you are on any given day.

sparks82
03-28-2016, 02:11 PM
Actually, Mrs. Rainmaker was a great athlete. She ran the anchor on all the relay races and was the state record holder in the triple jump for several years after she graduated. Much more accomplished than Rainmaker who was an honorable mention class 2A all state safety, emergency 3rd string, backup qb and kind of a big deal in our little football crazy town.

Anyhow, on our 1st date (after much trash talking by me) we raced the 40 and I barely beat her by a couple of steps.

So it stands to reason that Rainmaker very likely could've been an olympic caliber athlete himself ( If only he wouldve been allowed to compete as a girl).

Now it all makes sense. You're one of THOSE guys from high school. I grew up in a small town. I know your type. I see where all your comments stem from now.

sparks82
03-28-2016, 02:31 PM
This is such a sexist statement and derogatory to millions of women who choose to be housewives. In case you're wondering, there's no difference between a 50s housewife and a 2016 housewife, but that doesn't fit your narrative.

Too bad he's banned but as stated there is a difference.

I also never said I have a problem with someone being a "housewife." I do find issue with men who want to fit them into this stereotype from the 1950s.

Also not sexist.

Mjölnir
03-28-2016, 04:36 PM
Let's stay (loosely) on topic and not make personally based insults.

sparks82
03-28-2016, 06:53 PM
Let's stay (loosely) on topic and not make personally based insults.

Now it's let's stay on topic? I'm just saying Rainmaker has been off topic for awhile now and making personally based insults for a week or so. I'm fine with that but I don't take lightly to when someone comes at me.

Mjölnir
03-28-2016, 07:41 PM
Now it's let's stay on topic? I'm just saying Rainmaker has been off topic for awhile now and making personally based insults for a week or so. I'm fine with that but I don't take lightly to when someone comes at me.

It wasn't necessarily directed at you, it was in general.

If he is 'coming at you', remember it is an internet forum and not like he is charging your personal space. If you feel it is personal, report it and the admins will look at it and issue an infraction or warning if needed; but please ... no tit for tat on personal insults; act like adults.