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, @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