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: 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