Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 226

Thread: Bush, Rubio, Christie: Women should be eligible for Selective Service

  1. #11
    Administrator UncaRastus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    MTF-HQ
    Posts
    1,196
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    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.
    Theirs not to question why, theirs but to do and die, into the valley of spam, rode the Super Moderators

  2. #12
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by UncaRastus View Post
    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.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    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.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  4. #14
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    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.

  5. #15
    Administrator UncaRastus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    MTF-HQ
    Posts
    1,196
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Can we fit in the 'Entitlists'?
    Theirs not to question why, theirs but to do and die, into the valley of spam, rode the Super Moderators

  6. #16
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by UncaRastus View Post
    Can we fit in the 'Entitlists'?
    Pretty sure that's included in all of those groups.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    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.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,326
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    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?

  9. #19
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    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.

  10. #20
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •