Senate Votes to Require Women to Register for the Draft

>The Supreme Court ruled in 1981 that women did not have to register for the draft, noting that they should not face the same requirements as men because they did not participate on the front lines of combat. But since Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said in December that the Pentagon would open all combat jobs to women, military officials have told Congress that women should also sign up for the draft.

>“It’s my personal view,” Gen. Robert B. Neller, the commandant of the Marine Corps, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, that with the complete lifting of the ban on women in combat roles, “every American who’s physically qualified should register for the draft.”

>While most Republican senators — including Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, and the women on the Armed Services Committee — agree with the move, it has come under fierce attack from some of Congress’s most conservative members.

>“The idea that we should forcibly conscript young girls in combat to my mind makes little sense at all,” Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas and the father of two young daughters, said on the Senate floor last week.

>After voting against the bill on Tuesday, Mr. Cruz said in a prepared statement: “I could not in good conscience vote to draft our daughters into the military, sending them off to war and forcing them into combat.”

>The debate will now pit the Senate against the House, where the policy change has support but was not included in that chamber’s version of the bill.
...

>In April, Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, offered a provision related to women and the draft for the House version of the defense policy bill to highlight the issue, even though he opposes the idea — then voted against his own amendment. It passed with bipartisan support but was stripped from the final bill in a procedural move.

>“If he didn’t do this in the committee and spur the national debate, who was going to do it?” Joe Kasper, Mr. Hunter’s chief of staff, said. “So, mission accomplished.”

>Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, made a mild attempt to strip the language from the Senate bill on the floor after the Armed Services Committee overwhelmingly rejected a similar effort, but his amendment never received a vote.

>The two bills will now be reconciled in a conference committee between the House and the Senate, where a contentious debate is expected.

>“It may well be a topic of great controversy,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, who serves on the Armed Services Committee. “But it should not be.”

>Military experts say that even if the efforts to compel women to enlist fails in Congress, the issue is not going away.

>“I think the change is inevitable,” said Nora Bensahel, a military policy analyst at American University’s School of International Service, “whether in this debate or through the courts. It just seems that now that you have women allowed to serve in any position in the military, there is no logical basis to say women should not be drafted.”

>Conservative groups, which threatened to target senators who voted for the policy bill, reacted with anger on Tuesday to the bill’s passage. “Allowing our daughters to be forced into combat if there is a draft is a clear example of Washington placing more value on liberal social engineering than military objectives and preparedness,” one such group, Heritage Action for America, said in a news release.
...

>But supporters of the policy change say opponents are oversimplifying the issue. “What people don’t seem to understand is just because there is conscription, that does not mean that all women would serve in the infantry,” Senator Deb Fischer, Republican of Nebraska, said. “There are many ways to serve our country in the event of a national emergency.”

>The Senate is expected to hold its ground as conservative members defend the status quo. Mr. McCain, whose family has a long and storied history in the military and whose daughter-in-law is a captain in the Air Force Reserve, said to Mr. Cruz on the Senate floor: “I respect the senator from Texas’s view. Too bad that view is not shared by our military leadership, the ones who have had the experience in combat with women.”

Welp, feminism is kill.

>>104369
If the draft doesn't exclude women then I guess we'll all be more equal

I'll be very interested to see how hardcore feminists react to Ted Cruz saying "we shouldn't send young girls into combat"

In a war bad enough to require the draft, the great majority of women would be a hindrance at the front. A lot of women can't even run an 8 minute mile or do one pull-up.
Most girls are also raised there entire lives being told that being meek and emotional is fine, it would take many months just to beat that out of them before you could get them to a state where they wouldn't just freeze up in combat.
When you have screaming panicking women on the front lines, the men are going to forget about the task at hand and try to keep them from getting killed, this is all around a terrible idea.

>>104401
>I'll be very interested to see how hardcore feminists react to Ted Cruz saying "we shouldn't send young girls into combat"

They already did. For one thing they say "Then either stop supporting shit like Iraq, because that's where all the female soldiers (MPs usually) are getting killed on the line, or pay some respect to those who have already given their lives in that capacity, or don't be a retard and recognize that less than half of the modern military is 'front-line.'"

>>104451
>female soldiers get killed

By obesity?

>>104445

The draft still has fitness standards, this is why you didn't have blind guys being drafted and why rich kids could pay off doctors to give themselves medical deferments. Unless they force an arbitrary 50:50 gender ratio most women would probably fail out of the draft (or fail out of boot camp). Obviously such standards would get lower as the situation gets desperate, but if you're down to that it's do or die and fitness no longer matters.

>>104401
Drafts are based on averages, and the average male can be trained up to a sufficient standard with less resources and time invested then the average woman. Drafting an equal amount of women to men for something like infantry is a bad idea because you'll have way more washouts unless you lower standards to push females through. It's why we have an age and disability preclusion for drafts.

Drafting women for other positions isn't necessarily a bad idea though (which is where most females in the military volunteer to go anyways), but knowing how we do things today, conscription would target women for frontline combat positions as much as it targets men for noncombat.

>>104526
Looking at Vietnam, they'll push through a lot of shitty, under-qualified draftees to feed to the meat grinder.

>>104529
Haven't the marines or army just reduced their fitness standards or something along those lines?

>>104264
well, according to one army general who appeare in the COlbert report, the draft is making a society more democratic, in the sense that it socialsies responsibility, making everyone have a stake at wars, not just army families and rich people. So if women protest against it, maybe it will also go away for men.

>>104264

This is great. Having women in the draft should prevent the draft from ever being used again for any unessisary war.

In the event that a "real war" broke out, we would simply draft women for support jobs and train our men to be the best on the field.

>>104529
If we're in a situation desperate enough to require another draft political correctness will be completely forgotten.

>>104806
it's called fascism, what you describe.

>>104812
Would you consider the U.S. during world war II fascist?

>>104815

In many respects it had similarities, which became a big part of the defense used by Germans and Japanese in the War Crimes tribunals: "USA had a 16-year president, USA had internment camps, USA had national socialist programs (TVA, etc), US+Britain+France are all hyper-imperialist and expansionist and jealously guard their colonies."

Of course none of these arguments held weight for many top brass, even with the USSR's behavior (invasion of Finland, ignoring civilians) brought in, though it probably made a bulk of difference for the lower-tier brass who were mostly acquitted if they weren't associated with the SS or the Holocaust.

So I would say that by modern definition, if the US's behavior was viewed entirely in isolation of context in WW2, it could easily be argued to be borderline-fascist. The difference is that the true fascist nations of the time had zero legal opposition parties or press.

>>104264
Equal rights, means equal lefts.

>>104445

they can do other things though.

only the most fit and ready would be on the front lines, the other women can be operators or w/e...

>>104806
You mean like Vietnam or Korea?

>>105627
No, drafts push through underqualified people into combat positions. Deal about the draft is is that you might have a /fit/ god be assigned an admin job while some 4-foot girl who can barely ruck gets pushed into a foxhole. Drafts are about quickly getting bodies out onto the battlefield, not necessarily producing the best soldiers. If they ever draft, they'll also have issues with wives/gfs getting drafted, and then their husbands throwing a fit from all the historical and societal conditioning that they are more expendable then women (because women are the reproductive bottleneck and are on average weaker and all that other crap).

>>105627
Well I'm not against the idea of giving women some consideration for military service under condition of a draft.
But if you're going to have 1 woman serving for every 15 soldiers, there's an added cost given that different genders are going to have different needs in terms of unique facilities, toiletries, training, medical attention, that the added overhead may outweigh any benefit from the added manpower.

>>104445
>Most girls are also raised there entire lives being told that being meek and emotional is fine, it would take many months just to beat that out of them before you could get them to a state where they wouldn't just freeze up in combat.
Men aren't really that different in that regard, male socialization doesn't even come close to preparing you for combat. Most of military training is taken up with indoctrination to get you to follow orders and kill people without question.

>>104529
>Drafts are based on averages, and the average male can be trained up to a sufficient standard with less resources and time invested then the average woman.
It still makes sense to make them register for the draft, because it does at least somewhat increase the pool of qualified candidates for the draft. Plenty of men have basically zero chance of ever becoming an effective soldier, but they're still required to register, even if it's obvious they'll be rejected before the military actually invests any money in training them.

More importantly, why are there no women on the NBA draft?

>>105673
They would probably prioritize women being sent only to areas where a large portion of them could be effective.

>>105769
Because until now women weren't forced to sign up for the draft.

>>105766
I agree with having everyone register for the draft, with the caveat that standards are kept. Drafting women for administrative and many (but not all) maintenance jobs isn't a huge deal. Drafting for more strenuous mos like infantry may.

Additionally, attempting to gender norm these jobs to produce an equal ratio of men to women will be a recipe for disaster.

It's just equal rights lol

Females btfo

I won't be satisfied with equal rights until women share at least half of workplace mortality rates.

Haha, they'll be changing their tune shortly. A female draft is ludicrous, just think about it. Most women can't run an 8 minute mile or do 10 pull-ups. The army insures that the man to your side can drag you to safety if need be. We don't need weaker men on the front lines where not having strength can get better men killed, so why would we put women on the front lines? The result would be the same.

Of course, that's talking about the front lines. The women can cook and clean the shitters so that the men focusing on war don't have to.
>and for any of the sympathizer's out there, put down the political bullshit. it's not going to get your dick sucked.

>>107984
>The women can cook

Nah I'd rather eat mres, a lot of modern Western women can't cook for shit

>>107993
Fair point
>and well played

>>104264
Probably the only thing this Congress will do that I agree with.

cunts btfo

>>104264
I like me this equality.
Equal rights for equal responsibilities.

>>104264

this story is from June, bro

A man is unlikely to go sterile during deployment. A woman is very likely depending on purely genetic factors. This law's only purpose is to be the counterweight to low male biodiversity in Indo-European populations. It is breeding, population control, selecting-out of the population those most readily able to perform feats of armed rebellion. Even if not the intent, this is the result; Westerners train harder than real combat, and consequently the ones who really matter, women in the top echelon, probably won't have very many kids at all.

You fucking stupid white people continue to astound me at your persistent efforts at breeding warrior spirit and creativity out of your race.

Oy vey it just happens that this could never happen until Trump served as a distraction.

>>104772
lo and behold! sexism!
sending your men to fight while having your women work from their desks just won't do
do not be sexist! equality for all!

Send both men and women to die. No segregation. Death is the one try equalizer for all.

>>111087
i think we should give them affirmative action personally

women are criminally under-represented in the "dying in combat horribly" role

why is it i never hear screeching about that from the local feminist choir i wonder

most of them will probably be deemed unfit for service anyway