SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The U.S. Senate has passed a provision that would require women to register for the draft, but don't expect any changes soon:
On Tuesday, the Senate passed a defense authorization bill that would require young women to register for the draft — the latest development in a long-running debate over whether women should sign up for the Selective Service. The provision would apply to women turning 18 in 2018 or later and would impose the same requirements and rules that currently apply to men.
The policy is still far from being law. The House, after considering a similar provision earlier this spring, ultimately passed an authorization bill that omitted it; the two branches of Congress now must resolve the differences between their bills. And the bill faces a veto threat from President Obama over other elements of the legislation, such as the prohibition on closing down the Guantanamo Bay military prison. But the bill's passage brings women a step closer to Selective Service registration — a historic change that has bipartisan support in Congress but is firmly opposed by some conservative lawmakers.
For decades, the U.S. policy of having a draft for men, and not women, was approved as constitutional by the Supreme Court. But as NPR's David Welna reported last year, the court's reasoning relied on the fact that women were barred from combat roles. Now that women are eligible for combat duty, "Congress seems to have lost its court-endorsed rationale for limiting Selective Service registration to males only," David wrote.
Previously: Women Warriors Coming Soon to US Forces
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @11:04AM
Registering for the draft is one thing, but they're not going to implement a draft for a very long time, if ever, so it doesn't really matter.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @11:27AM
While its true that there may never be a draft in the US, this is still a pretty big win for feminism.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday June 16 2016, @12:25PM
Nothing like a little selective service to make everyone feel equal.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by cubancigar11 on Thursday June 16 2016, @01:03PM
Nothing can be farther from the truth! God, feminist propaganda has really been successful in the west.
It was NCFM (national coalition for men) which sued selective-serivce [ncfm.org] for not requiring women.
Most feminists don't want [sheknows.com] draft for women. The cunning ones have instead opted to say draft itself is bad [slate.com] instead of answering in yes or no.
Now, conservatives don't want women to be in war because for them, it is all about 'honor' and shit like that. I personally want women at the front until history forgets it wasn't the case ever. Call me a misogynist if you will :D
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday June 16 2016, @01:41PM
LOL, I actually read the AC's comment as sarcastic. I know in general feminism calls for equality and I'm on board with that, but I think we all know what "feminism" calls for and what a lot of "feminist" call for (obviously not all feminist) are two different things. I honestly don't want to see anyone at war, men or women, and am glad Canada doesn't have a draft.
I highly respect our military personal, but I think it has to be voluntary. Taking some kid that's not prepared to kill people and doesn't want to fight, putting them in the middle of combat and forcing them to go against everything they were ever taught (killing is wrong) is a pretty sure fire way screw them up for life and/or get them killed. That said, I doubt the draft will ever be brought back in the states, more than anything it's a last resort contingency plan for the special case that every thing does go to shit. If the states ever does bring back the draft, I'll join the military willingly because that's a sure sign we're in extremely dire straits.
If I thought we were in a world war II type situation and I was required to lay down my life to protect my family and friends I'd sign up in a heartbeat. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think a lot of people feel that way. I also don't think you need to force women to serve, I believe in the past women would have if they weren't being held back, for their own good, from even trying. Whether "feminist" will admit it or not, it was for their own good. It wasn't because of misogyny, it was because we love our women and want them safe. We love our men too, but someone has to do the dirty work and that's what men are, use to be, brought up to understand and even take pride in. It's our job to give our lives (both metaphorically and literally) to protect our families.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday June 16 2016, @04:52PM
>more than anything it's a last resort contingency plan for the special case that every thing does go to shit
Well, so long as by "everything" you mean "the elite's plans for empire building". A draft has never been necessary for a defensive war, there's ever been a shortage of volunteers when imminent threats are at hand. Where you need a draft is when you want to throw away people's lives killing folks halfway around the world that never did anything against your nation, for fear of what they might do in the years to come if you let them live their own lives as they see fit.
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Thursday June 16 2016, @07:49PM
"and am glad Canada doesn't have a draft."
No we have conscription to force you to join used both in WW1 and 2 when mainly the French in Canada would not join in to defend their European brothers we were fighting and dying for.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 2) by khchung on Friday June 17 2016, @03:35AM
I highly respect our military personal, but I think it has to be voluntary.
Some would argue, and I agree, that if military were drafted from the general population, then *everyone* in the country would think long and hard before starting any war cuz they or their sons may have to fight it personally and possibly die in it.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Friday June 17 2016, @09:41AM
It's a good thought in theory, but you know the ones that actually make the decision to go to war or istigate it would have exceptions for themselves and their families and friends.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:50PM
> It was NCFM (national coalition for men) which sued selective-serivce for not requiring women.
And NOW (the largest feminist group in the country) plus 12 other feminist organizations filed briefs in support of the NCFM (which, at the time was actually named the National Coalition of Free Men):
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/22/us/women-join-battle-on-all-male-draft.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @04:04PM
Then apparently the National Coalition for Women has a time machine.
The lawsuit was filed against the U.S. Selective Service System in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 4, 2013
What's more of issue is the stance of feminist now.
Misrepresenting the positions of NOW over 30 years after the fact is disingenuous.
They were completely silent when 2013 lawsuit took place.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 16 2016, @05:18PM
For over thirty years the largest feminist organization on the planet has supported a female draft
Sorry anti-feminists, you are simply wrong on this one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @05:29PM
Again with the misrepresentation.
Was NOW also a complainant for NCFM lawsuit? Did they offer ANY support in favor?
Might as well be discussing Republicans as the only party against racism since it was the party of Lincoln.
(Score: 1, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 16 2016, @05:33PM
Was NOW also a complainant for NCFM lawsuit? Did they offer ANY support in favor?
Yes they did. Did you even look at the GP's reference?
From the 1981 NYT article:The case against the all-male military draft was brought by men on the ground that being singled out for compulsory service violated their rights to equal protection. But a number of women's groups have filed briefs with the Supreme Court arguing that the all-male draft also violates the constitutional rights of women.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 16 2016, @05:36PM
On the other hand, as Eleanor Smeal, the president of the National Organization for Women, observed the other day, when she lobbies state legislatures in behalf of the equal rights amendment, male legislators frequently say to her, ''When you women fight in a war, then we'll talk about equal rights.'' 'Argument of Entitlement'
That ''argument of entitlement,'' as Mrs. Smeal calls it, was one of the factors that persuaded her that exclusion from the draft hurt the interests of women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @08:17PM
> Most feminists don't want draft for women. The cunning ones have instead opted to say draft itself is bad
You can't just win with some people, eh?
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday June 17 2016, @06:17AM
I don't really care about draft, and I don't think it should be enacted. Especially in a country like USA which doesn't have any major disputes with its neighbors. Israel? May be... but USA? No.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @11:32AM
If your expectation is that congress should be doing things that matter, then you will be thoroughly disappointed any time you check CSPAN.
If the government is going to bother requiring men to register then they should either extend that to women or get rid of it entirely.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @01:46PM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:13PM
While all true, they are not going to re-implement a draft, probably ever. The volunteer system is working in the sense that they have enough people to fill their needs. It would take a WWII-level of personnel involvement before they start needing very large pools of people.
There are very good arguments for requiring people to serve in the military, because it means people have skin in the game. When there's discussion of sending troops somewhere, it makes more of a difference if your son or daughter will be sent over. Just like the concept of public transit; people greatly support the idea that YOU should use it, but, you know, as much as I'd LOVE to use it all the time, it just isn't convenient for me. No public sacrifice means indifference to policy.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 16 2016, @07:00PM
It doesn't matter? The fact that we're wasting money on this nonsense matters. More fundamentally, the fact that we apparently tolerate the mere idea of government thugs forcing people into indentured servitude and sending them off to fight and possibly die in some war is absolutely disgusting. It's completely unfitting for a country that is supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave'. Even if the draft did have some uses, the ends do not justify the means. The government should not have the power to call for drafts at all, ever.
With that said, I can only hope that this will bring about a more speedy destruction of the Selective Service.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @08:01PM
Good. Female soldiers cost lives. Just look at Israeli troops. Those who are with women are more likely to catch a bullet.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Gaaark on Thursday June 16 2016, @12:23PM
1. There will never be a draft again, so 'meh'.
Or
1. Congress is doing this because the Military Industrial complex hasn't been making it's profit numbers lately and something is brewing.... oh, let's say, maybe, the Ukraine.
2. Go to war in the Ukraine with Russia, expand that war into Russia, fight a long, long battle that uses up a lot of weapons/missiles/bombers/ships/etc +PERSONNEL
3. Lots of weapons/missiles/bombers/ships/etc need to be re-purchased
4. Lots of new personnel are needed to continue the war, so draft is enabled
5. PROFIT on weapons/missiles/bombers/ships/etc (etc includes body bags (remember +PERSONNEL?)
6. Just PROFIT. Lots of PROFIT. Yup.
7. Lots.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @01:16PM
Really?
This was kicked off because a republican idiot thought he could make a point about men and women being different by introducing a bill he thought no one would support. Turns out he was out of sync with modern feminism and the bill passed despite his voting against it.
So grand conspiracy or social progress that even the most ardent MRAs can get behind.
Seems clear to me.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday June 16 2016, @02:04PM
I realize your likely just taking potshots and trolling, but can you point me to one case where a prominent feminist called for drafting women, as well as men, and received any significant support for it?
I hate both MRA and feminist equally because I think they're like children fighting over who gets the TV remote when they both want to watch the same show anyway. Then they smash the remote so neither of them, nor anyone else, can use it because they can't agree.
But, I have to give credit here. Wanting women to be drafted (because men are already expected to be) is something I hear from MRA or egalitarians, it's not something I think I've ever heard a feminist call for. Feminist typically argue for abolishing the draft altogether, which actually makes more sense to me than requiring women to sign up. Because you know it's never going to be enacted again, and if it is, we're likely all up shitscreek anyway.
Maybe the issue here is that you haven't realized people, who aren't necessarily MRA, don't always side with feminist, but are for common sense policies that, on occasions, are things MRA have also called for.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 5, Informative) by quintessence on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:24PM
To be fair, during the early campaign for the ERA, the official position of the National Organization for Women was to have women eligible for the draft (equality across the board), which in part lead to the lukewarm response to the ERA (which is a shame, as many of issues between men and women could be addressed in one fell swoop with a legal requirement for equality).
Now we have a patchwork of laws attempting many of the same functions that aren't nearly as cohesive, which is where the ire between MRAs and feminist really stems from.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:45PM
> can you point me to one case where a prominent feminist called for drafting women, as well as men, and received any significant support for it?
In 1980 the National Organization for Women explicitly said that if the draft must be reinstated, then women should be included.
http://now.org/about/history/highlights/ [now.org]
NOW and twelve other women's groups like the League of Women Voters all filed briefs in support of female inclusion in the 1981 SCOTUS case:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/22/us/women-join-battle-on-all-male-draft.html [nytimes.com]
> it's not something I think I've ever heard a feminist call for.
Notwithstanding your regular protestations, your posting history suggests you are too incurious as to what feminism actually entails.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @04:53PM
These cases don't involve anyone that would be considered a prominent feminist and neither had significant support on top of nothing ever came of them.
So looks like you lost.
From the times article:
"The case against the all-male military draft was brought by men on the ground that being singled out for compulsory service violated their rights to equal protection."
"Feminist groups did not participate in the lower court proceedings, and for many the issue posed a dilemma. Many of the groups, including the National Organization for Women, which calls itself the largest feminist organization in the world, were opposed to any draft. The notion that the proposed equal rights amendment might require that women fight alongside men has long been raised by opponents of the amendment, a fact that injected political risk to any focus of attention on the issue. "
NOW pushed for no draft at all and didn't want women signing up for the draft. What did GP say "Feminist typically argue for abolishing the draft altogether"
It was an after thought because no one was taking feminist seriously. They know the US will never get rid of the draft and are willing to send men to war to die while protecting women. It didn't receive any significant support and was overall opposed. Then nothing was done about it again for over 30 years when a man had to bring it up again.
> Notwithstanding your regular protestations, your posting history suggests you are too incurious as to what feminism actually entails.
Quite trying to discredit people poking gigantic fucking holes in your sinking ship and go smoke some sausage.
skimming guys history it looks like he thinks feminism is about equality but most feminist are shitbag hypocrites throwing tantrums because demanding special protection isn't the same thing as equality. I don't know about him but I've been told plenty of times feminism is about "equality" and if you believe in "equality" that's all that's need to be a feminist. Until you agree. Then you're required to support segregation (safe spaces), censored speech, mob mentality, #killAllMen, #maleTears, #manSpreading, lick boots and take abuse because you're "privileged". And you wonder why people are "incurious".
Fuck. That.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @05:40PM
> These cases don't involve anyone that would be considered a prominent feminist and neither had significant support on top of nothing ever came of them.
Jesus christ. When the largest feminist organization puts support behind the case, it doesn't get any more "significant."
>NOW pushed for no draft at all
True.
> and didn't want women signing up for the draft.
False.
> skimming guys history it looks like he thinks feminism is about equality but most feminist are shitbag hypocrites throwing tantrums
That's called "concern trolling." Its the mo of hypocrites.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @07:48PM
Yes, all those links and facts are very nice, but Vanderhoth still has never heard of any feminists calling for women being equal to men, and he is not a MRE, he's more of a C-Ration. So where does that leave us? Ask question. Get answer. Ask same question again. Repeat.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:59PM
If you think the MRAs and feminists are equal, you should shut the hell up on these matters until you've educated yourself.
It always bothers me that this kind of ignorance is allowed to persist. The MRAs are not trying to destroy things for women. We're just trying to get equal rights in the numerous areas that feminists have gotten extra rights. For example, it would be nice to have actual reproductive rights. That's something that women have and men don't. Our right to determine our fatherhood is limited to choose not to have sex. After that point the woman has 100% of the power.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday June 16 2016, @04:52PM
Exactly the point I made. Children fighting over the remote. Both want to watch the same thing, then they smash it so no one can use it.
"Unless you care about all the things I care about and denounce that other dirtbag says, even if they say they want the same things as me, you should shut the hell up."
I don't want to be in either camp. I have my on opinions, sometimes I agree with what feminist want, sometimes I agree with what MRA want, but I get to decide and have just as much right to voice an opinion and/or explain my point of view as anyone else.
Yeah, that's biology for you. I agree that men should have equal right to awarded custody, but fact is if you get a women pregnant, it's her body so it's her choice to have the baby or not. Forcing her to have an abortion, which I'm pretty sure is the only way you could avoid fatherhood after getting her pregnant, would be like someone forcing you to get your nuts cut off. Which isn't a bad idea anyway if you don't want kids. Then if someone tried to falsely claim you were the father you can laugh in their face and confidently demand a DNA test.
No one has a right to force you to do anything to your body you don't want done. And yes before you go off on the circumcision shit, I agree, that should be illegal. If you don't want to deal with a women having the right to decide if she wants to keep a baby or not, then don't have sex or, edge cases aside, use protection.
Equality is happening regardless of which group you think should be holding the remote, stop dragging people into your feud demanding they "educate" themselves or "shut the hell up", maybe now you can team up with aristarchus and stalk me around insisting I'm a feminist in denial while they insist I'm an MRA.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0, Troll) by Francis on Thursday June 16 2016, @05:30PM
I see I hurt the special snowflakes feelings by pointing out that you shouldn't be talking if you don't understand what you're talking about. Freedom of speech is not obligation of speech. If you don't know what you're talking about and you do so anyways, you are the problem.
It's not biology that restricts men's freedoms with regard to babies, it's the law. There's no reason why men couldn't be permitted to terminate their rights and responsibilities for the baby in cases that he doesn't want it. There's also no reason why there shouldn't be protections against paternity fraud where just signing the birth certificate makes you the legally the father even if it's obvious to everybody else in the room that you're not. Two blue eyed people do not generally have brown eyed children.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday June 16 2016, @06:12PM
Hasn't crossed your mind that you could be the one that doesn't know what they're talking about, and you likely wouldn't know enough to know it if you were.
Thanks though, I enjoy it when people prove my points.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 21 2016, @03:51AM
Nope, I'm sorry, I didn't prove any of your points. You're coming off as one of those butthurt veterans with an ego complex.
In any organization there's going to be a large number of people engaged in the logistical aspect of it. Whether that be a company selling things or a military killing people. It's down right disrespectful to the veterans that were enaged in the logistical aspect or who had roles that could lead to combat in areas where there was no fighting.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday June 16 2016, @07:52PM
Two blue eyed people do not generally have brown eyed children.
Interesting. What beyond genetics do you also not understand?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Frost on Friday June 17 2016, @08:16AM
Eh? He's not wrong about the genetics of eye color. If both parents have blue eyes then their children are very unlikely to have brown eyes. It's not impossible, just very unusual.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 17 2016, @08:35AM
Really! Wow! You must be a genetic genius. Of course, how unlikely? Enough for some rapey type prep-school wannabe to deny paternity? Yeah, if you are looking for a way out, you irresponsible excuse for a man, you can find one, and go back to your "fraternity" parties. Yes, we all know what that means. But when it comes to Men's Rights, I really think these bros need to check up on the Art of Manliness website. Yes, if you do not want to be responsible for your progeny, do not have sex, or even leave your genetic material laying around where some one might possibly be impregnated by it. Basis man manners, man! Outside of that, men complaining about reproductive rights? Give me a break! You should be so lucky that some of your genetic material resulted in another human being, and feel honored to be a father. Now if you are such a dick that the mother, and the courts, and everybody, thinks the only thing you are able to contribute is money, you should be honored to at least do that. Happy Father's Day, you incompetent sperm donor!
Of course, what really worries me, is the flipside. Some of these pathetic excuses for males think they are entitled to reproduction? Hard to do all by yourself, as a male, though no doubt you have tried mightily. But do you think you can commandeer the body of another, and force them to carry to term? Of course, usually it is worse than this, and the alleged male is only saying that they are "entitled" to sexual relations. Nobody owes you sex, boy, unless you want to come over here. It's OK, no paternity suits. Might be butthurt for a bit though. But isn't that better than having to be a man and take responsibility for your actions?
And oh, did I mention? I suspect that both your parents had different eye colors than you. Unlikely?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Frost on Saturday June 18 2016, @01:43AM
This thread is weird. Am I missing some irony here?
http://genetics.thetech.org/how-blue-eyed-parents-can-have-brown-eyed-children [thetech.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Saturday June 18 2016, @02:11AM
Read a few posts back, to the part where some innocent male can be falsely accused of paternity, forced to pay child support, all because of very wicked womens. This is what is know as MRA, the Men's Rights Association, who are anti-feminist, because of wicked, very bad, abusive women. You are correct about the eye-color, but not when it is obviously being used as an excuse by some poor put-upon guy who doesn't want to man up. Context matters.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday June 21 2016, @03:48AM
Context does matter idiot.
Bottom line here is that if a woman with blue eyes is telling her also blue eyed love interest that the brown eyed child is his, then he shouldn't accept paternity without being tested as it's highly unlikely to be his child. Just because people like you choose to be ignorant, doesn't make it any less true. Parents with blue eyes do not generally have children with brown eyes. It's somewhere between rare and impossible and assigning that poor guy responsibility when it's clear that it's not his child, at least not to the normal legal standard is ridiculous.
And posts like yours are why people hate feminists. No man should be forced to pay support on somebody elses child. And certainly not sent to prison if he can't afford to pay support.
And, I'd say not being the father is a perfectly satisfactory reason not to be paying support.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday June 21 2016, @06:33AM
Francis, this has been a long and sorted exchange. Evidently, it has impacted you personally, and for that I am sorry. But if anything, I am making the case that being a man, and being a father, are not property relations.
And, I'd say not being the father is a perfectly satisfactory reason not to be paying support.
Being a Father means being a parent, a mentor, a protector, a guide and a refuge. It has nothing to do with genetic material. If a man undertakes being a father, none of that matters.
I have noticed a tendency to use the word "cuck" by conservatives of late. Short for "Cuckold", no doubt. But my point again is that this is not a matter of "blood", or "genes", or lineage: humans are social creatures, and what children are is not determined by DNA, it is determined by those who make a difference in their lives. So the joke is actually on the Cuckoo birds, because we are going to raise their progeny to be Robins! OK, to fast with the bird analogies.
So, do you get it? Forced to pay child support for someone else's child? How could that be? Is the genetic father surreptitiously being an actual father? Do they claim paternity? No? Well, then it is yours, mostly because the mother chose you as a competent mate. Whoa! Yes, this could take a while to process. Why you, and not the bastard that knocked her up? Evidently you have qualities, good qualities. You may think it is material resources, but I find that is never enough. And a child does not care about genetics (at least until later when the genetic sequencing exposes genetic predisposition to disease, but that is not a parent's concern), they only care about who took care of them, in whatever way they could. And they will thank you for it, which will be more than enough, on Father's Days in the future.
To end our exchange, I hope you let go of any animosity that you have acquired. It does no one any good, especially an innocent child, and even less to you. And maybe you could extend your experience to others who have been coerced, something that has no particular gender bias, and work for justice for all? Just asking. It is possible.
Peace,
Aristarchus
(Score: 2, Insightful) by rts008 on Friday June 17 2016, @12:56PM
Failed the genetics part of jr. high science class, I see.
Your statement would cause hysterical laughter to be directed at you, if uttered at one of my family reunions. (both my parents are brown-eyed brunettes, and all five of us kids are blue-eyed blondes- this is the rule, rather than the exception, for many generations in my family)
Family notwithstanding, observations over most of my almost 60 years provide strong evidence that you are overstating the tendency way too strongly to even be considered seriously.
I would suggest 'practicing what you preach', so you don't appear as yet another clueless idiot, bragging about their stupidity to the world.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday June 21 2016, @03:44AM
Nope, I know damn well how genetics work. People who have blue eyes have two copies of a recessive gene making two blue eyed people exceedingly unlikely to have anything other than blue eyed children. Just because you don't personally understand how genetics works, doesn't mean that it's any less true.
It's somewhere between rare and impossible for two blue eyed parents to have children who don't have some form of blue eyes. And certainly not brown eyes as those are dominant genes.
BTW, if you were actually informed about genetics you wouldn't be calling me a clueless idiot. It's pretty well established by years of research that blue eyes are a recessive gene and brown eyes are a dominant one. Things have gotten somewhat muddied in recent years in terms of genetics, but cases that don't follow that pattern are rare enough that a paternity test is in order.
Just because you're too lazy to do any research on the topic doesn't make it any less true.
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Thursday June 16 2016, @07:57PM
"Our right to determine our fatherhood is limited to choose not to have sex."
Vasectomy or condom for the winning of your rights.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @02:03PM
Back when I was a young buck, I was facing down up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $250,000 for not signing up and also giving up the chance to go to college for having moral reservations about Bush the Elder's plans in Iraq (I believe the chant then was "no blood for oil"). The idea that there was never going to be a draft again was less clear.
A few decades of war later, it turns out having a strictly volunteer armed forces isn't such a great idea unless you want forced tours that were longer than required for Viet Nam and suicide being the number one killer of servicemen. The idea of there never being a draft again is even more in doubt.
I'll grant the notion of civic duty is perverse given what the government has turned into, but there you go, and as were the criticisms of the well-connected in Viet Nam: you can't have the moral hazard of one group of people voting to have the other sent off to the lines who bear no risk. Hence the lowering of the voting age.
And now it seems requiring women to bear some of the burden as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @02:57PM
AFAIK most states auto-register you with the federal government, giving the SSS the information they need and still leaving the door open to selective prosecution if you fail to register yourself.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:56PM
That's probably true. That's how the degenerates running recruiting for the Navy got my contact info when I was in high school. I had to put up with several years of abuse over the phone from the Navy, even though I wasn't yet old enough to enlist and wasn't old enough to be required to register for the draft.
It really casts the Navy in a bad light that the kind of people that are enlisting are stupid enough to fall for the lies and the abusive recruiting efforts.
Contrast that with the Army recruiter that handled things like a professional.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:59PM
The states don't "auto-register" you. You have to register yourself because there is language you have to agree to. Nobody can auto-register for you.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 16 2016, @12:29PM
In the official legal description of the US military forces, all military-aged able-bodied men are considered to be in the "unorganized militia". That provision is in there to attempt to preserve some semblance of a military command structure if most of the military doesn't exist anymore and you have just pockets of US resistance under the command of a National Guard sergeant or something.
They really should have changed that from "men" to "people" along with this move. But this is significant, no question, because the draft is one of a very tiny number of remaining legal differences between men and women in the US.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 16 2016, @01:16PM
They can draft you before you're old enough to purchase beer.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @01:18PM
outlaw beer
legalize pot
make love
not war
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @02:47PM
They can draft you before you're old enough to purchase beer.
Curiously enough, the military did think about this and for a long time allowed anyone in active duty to drink. Unfortunately for the enlisted, organizations like MADD got mad about this, and got the rules changed in the 80's. The rules are a bit more complex [about.com] then before, but you'll be glad to know that outside of the US the minimum drinking age for all US active duty members is still 18. So, if you are drafted at 18, there's a good chance you'll get to (legally) enjoy that drink while on the front lines.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday June 16 2016, @04:04PM
No, it was the right call. And they should strip basically any and all other special rights associated with military enlistment as well. With obvious exceptions for services that are specific to cleaning up the mess that they're often times left with when they leave their service.
It's not in the best interests of military personnel to get all this soldier worship. All it does is strip them of their humanity and make it easier to send them into places we have no business having a military presence and make it easier to pretend that these people are different from the rest of us.
Considering how many military roles don't involve combat, there really needs to be a rethink about bravery and the military as there's plenty of folks in the inner city with more actual combat experience than military personnel. Granted, they're mostly gangbangers and really don't deserve more than the bare minimum of respect, but they do exist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 17 2016, @12:31AM
You're an idiot. Do you really believe the vomit that just rolled off your keyboard? Pray tell, what enlightened fantasy books and leftist propaganda did you read to come to your conclusions?
Idiots popping shots at one another over a colored handkerchief is not combat. It is street violence. Do you even realize that organized crime is sending its enforcers to the military to learn basic infantry tactics?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Francis on Friday June 17 2016, @03:35AM
I see, so the one of the two of us, the one that realizes that the military has a massive number of noncom roles is the idiot. It must be nice to not have to deal with reality.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 16 2016, @01:26PM
It's a good move toward gender equality in America. From a male perspective there are a couple other areas where things could use equalization. One is standing in child custody battles. Women win that fight most of the time in the courts because of outdated notions of parenting and gender roles. Another is sexual harassment--I've been sexually harassed a couple times in my career and the companies and lawyers couldn't give a crap; had I been a woman, they'd have taken immediate measures and thrown handfuls of cash at me.
Feminist issues get plenty of coverage, legislation, and action. Consideration of male issues (in the sphere of gender issues) gets short shrift in every quadrant.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:08PM
And domestic violence (as if the Violence Against Women Act wasn't a clue) and sexual assault (can't even use the word rape given how some statues are written).
Of course that is going to tear down about the last 50 years of feminist advocacy, which understandably some feminist are not to happy about.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:35PM
Thank you, good addenda. I ran into my graduate advisor on the subway in New York who as being physically abused by his wife. He was incredibly depressed because nobody in government took his complaints seriously. And this was a guy who had the equivalent of a black belt in capoeira. She put him in the hospital twice without consequences, because legally he could not strike back.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:57PM
Anecdotes are seductive.
Statistical analysis isn't so fun.
Women 3x more likely to be arrested in domestic assault incidents than men. [theguardian.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @04:29PM
Neither is misrepresentation.
"Men and women are equally likely to be arrested as long as both committed equally serious crimes."
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/222679.pdf [ncjrs.gov]
Also:
While the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are men,
Oh really?
http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/ [saveservices.org]
In fact, it was the lies promulgated by feminist concerning domestic abuse that turned me from ever identifying with them again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @06:10PM
> In fact, it was the lies promulgated by feminist concerning domestic abuse that turned me from ever identifying with them again.
It's revealing that you have to cite spin from a group that puts victim-blaming front and center.
Female initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of subsequent violence. [saveservices.org]
"Shes started it" is not an excuse for escalation and it is definitely not an excuse to come back and start beating on someone the next day.
> "Men and women are equally likely to be arrested as long as both committed equally serious crimes."
That report says that fleeing the scene means the abuser is 4x less likely to be arrested.
What that report does not indicate is how often men flee versus women.
Since women are more likely to feel like they can not leave their children behind, they are less likely to flee.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @06:27PM
It's equally revealing you critique the messenger and not the message, which incidentally was a study conducted by the CDC.
That report says that fleeing the scene means the abuser is 4x less likely to be arrested.
What that report does not indicate is how often men flee versus women.
What the report also doesn't state is the percentage of arrests that plays a role, and anything beyond is pure speculation on your part. I note you lack the same degree of scrutiny for the other report, which even at 4x reduction is at extreme odds against criminal justice reporting.
I didn't even touch upon the Duluth Model, which given it is the most common intervention in domestic abuse cases, puts further doubt on the rates of domestic abuse if arrests are equivalent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @06:38PM
> It's equally revealing you critique the messenger and not the message, which incidentally was a study conducted by the CDC.
Of course I critiqued the messenger, he put a massive spin on the study. He even admits in his own words that the study doesn't say what he said. What you linked to is basically him complaining that the study does not agree with his beliefs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @07:10PM
nobody in government took his complaints seriously.
"Men and women are equally likely to be arrested as long as both committed equally serious crimes."
Sounds like you disagree with phoenix too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 17 2016, @12:14AM
Arrest and prosecution are two different things, not to mention rates of arrest doesn't have any bearing on incidences of domestic violence.
Further a study that uses
96 examples from 692 "perpetrator profiles" tracked from 2001 to 2007
compared to standard criminal justice statistics is extremely suspect. And of course the standard "men abuse more than women" which has been proven time and time again to be false.
http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm [csulb.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @07:43PM
Great. Even if that's true, how does that help the men who are being abused? The laws are fucked up and need to be changed. The end.
(Score: 3, Funny) by mojo chan on Friday June 17 2016, @07:45AM
Um, you realize that feminists such as myself advocate and fight for the equality you want, no? For example, feminism is quite active in tackling domestic violence against men and the reasons why it often goes unreported, and the higher suicide rate among males etc. Feminism has developed a large body of study and theory looking at these issues, and created language to describe the problems (e.g. "toxic masculinity"*, "patriarchy").
* Before someone says it, this does not mean that masculinity is toxic. It's like "toxic chemicals", it doesn't imply that dihydrogen monoxide is bad.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 17 2016, @09:16AM
True.
Here is a feminist support group for suicide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:42PM
I'm curious. When you say "harassed", do you mean "unwanted attention", someone following you around, unwanted physical contact...?
It's hard for me to imagine situations when men feel threatened by women, and in my head harassment is associated to a pysical threat of some sort.
By the way, my assumption is that the scenario of a woman (boss) just wanting to have sex with someone in a lower hierarchical position and threatening workplace repercussions is not something that can happen in real life.
So far, I have only heard of one instance of a man being (quite literally) followed around by a woman who kept trying to end up alone with him. I *think* there was no contact outside of the work environment though (the guy's solution was to leave campus as early as possible and choose random paths).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @05:53PM
By the way, my assumption is that the scenario of a woman (boss) just wanting to have sex with someone in a lower hierarchical position and threatening workplace repercussions is not something that can happen in real life.
Good for you, Sparky. Which universe do you live in and can I immigrate? It sounds significantly rosier than mine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @08:53PM
Consideration of male issues (in the sphere of gender issues) gets short shrift in every quadrant.
Must be sad to be such a sad puppy. I would feel sorry for you, but I am female, so all I can do is laugh! Ha ha!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @01:33PM
Of politically well-connected families? They never seem to be drafted, or if they are, they manage to serve stateside.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday June 16 2016, @01:42PM
They become the incompetent portion of the officer class, and direct the poor into deadly situations.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday June 16 2016, @02:56PM
Funny, isn't it, that we have special subsidies for college education for those that work in the military, rather than a citizenship-wide subsidy like the rest of the mature world.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 17 2016, @08:00AM
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday June 16 2016, @03:33PM
i love that this was submitted as a joke thinking it would be rejected but completely backfired because it's really common sense. the only reason to reject it is based on pure internal biases. i would be interested in knowing what various gender feminist groups think about all this.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16 2016, @04:00PM
> i would be interested in knowing what various gender feminist groups think about all this.
none of them support treating women differently from men, that is the literal definition of feminism
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 17 2016, @02:17AM
Except for when they do, like pressing for special sentencing guidelines for women
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6045 [campusreform.org]
Wanting to put a special tax on men
https://womenfortaxjustice.wordpress.com/about/why-is-tax-a-feminist-issue/ [wordpress.com]
And denying men equivalent reproductive rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o [youtube.com]
But other than that, they want to be treated equal to men.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 16 2016, @04:45PM
This particular feminist is all for it, if that counts for anything :) Equality means equality. ...and saying things like this is why I piss *everyone* off, and simultaneously get called "man-hater" on one side and "traitor to the lesbian race" (think about that last one a moment...) on the other. Ahhh, identity politics.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday June 16 2016, @10:35PM
> the only reason to reject it is based on pure internal biases
Or thousands of years of civilization, where men are expendable but women not, because producing the next generation requires only a handful of penises but a lot of healthy wombs.
Also, the average man being stronger than the average woman makes him a better asset in any part of a war where physical attributes may tilt the balance in your favor (100% of the time until we invented the rifle, and still a decent amount today).
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday June 16 2016, @10:08PM
When I first read about this, I figured it'd never go anywhere.
I look forward to being able to remove an item from the list of reasons I despise cisfemales.
For the next trick, can we either abolish infant genital mutilation all together or strike down laws against female circumcision?
Cisfemales will never have equality as long as they can hide from life's unpleasantries by going, “It's different 'cause Imma hunny!”
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday June 16 2016, @10:44PM
Free advice: Put the "cisfemale" to rest. Never say or write it again.
You might then notice people's eyes can be a lot less prone to rolling, and your points can be taken a lot more seriously.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 17 2016, @01:22AM
I'll do that once bathroom laws are no more and we can talk about access to health care for trans women in terms of “omg controlling bodies!.”