In this day and age of equality, why don't US women have to sign up for selective service system (draft)?

Fatty got schooled.

Fattttty B wrote:

PlsPrvdThnx wrote:

This list sounds really inspiring... can you let me know where I can access it? The 2018 version would be fine if the 2019 version hasn't been published yet.

Also, full disclosure, I'm an irregular human. But I'm still interested in reading this list nonetheless.

No - you show me heroic acts performed by women because they are few and far between. Show me!

Hey, I really appreciate you being so thoughtful and socratic to help me learn more about your Top 20 Regular Human Heroic Acts list. I shouldn't have burdened you in asking for a source. That was wrong.

I took your advice and did a quick web search for "women heros." I found something call the CNN Heros, but it must not be the same thing you are referencing. Because 2019's list was 40% women and 2018 was 60% women.

From one random internet stranger to another, any help? I'd really love to see the TOP 20 REGULAR HUMAN HEROIC LIST that you mentioned earlier.

"I just read a book about 9/11 and there were at least a dozen comments from women - even some 1st responders - about how the genders quickly reverted to roles that we traditionally think they hold."

What an extremely vague comment. What did these women say? They saw people injured and their motherly instinct to help kicked in? They saw the fire and explosions and ran back to the kitchen?

What are women's responses during combat that are naturally instilled?

Fattttty B wrote:

Slaterton wrote:

+1

If you look at the top 20 heroic acts each year in which regular humans saved the lives of another with no consideration that they may die, it is always 98% male. Again, 98% male. Women are not here to save others. They are selfish. Men are the ones who will risk their lives to save people they have no idea who they are. Men are really great often. Women are usually very selfish and only care about themselves.

How many women died while giving birth or as a result from complications of childbirth in the year you are referencing? Would you consider giving their lives to create (/save) a life to be a " very selfish" act?

Jefe in the CO wrote:

Last time I checked, women are still the only humans carrying babies to term.

This is deeper than some might consider. In a prolonged war a nation needs the women to stay home and reproduce to supply the nation with future troops. Thus, it is counter intuitive to draft women. Men are the pawns that go to the front line and die and women produce the pawns with a little help from the pawns before they die.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

Jefe in the CO wrote:

Last time I checked, women are still the only humans carrying babies to term.

This is deeper than some might consider. In a prolonged war a nation needs the women to stay home and reproduce to supply the nation with future troops. Thus, it is counter intuitive to draft women. Men are the pawns that go to the front line and die and women produce the pawns with a little help from the pawns before they die.

Another way to look at this is that males can produce several million sperm per day. Women have a finite number of eggs to ovulate in their reproductive life cycle, around 300 to 400 all told.

So, based on this information - who is more expendable?

So to all you incels whining about inequality and how unfair life is, improve yourself physically, mentally, and spiritually, and go find yourself a girl.

Not until they eliminate women's track and field as separate from the men.

If you take 20 acts, you could conceivably get 90%, 95%, or 100% male, if they are individuals, but not 98%. Understand that many feminists wanted and want women to serve in combat, that there are many women who could serve ably in combat roles, particularly if you lessen the nonsensically ever-growing burden of gear our military has decided to profit off and weigh down our soldiers, and that women can serve many of the non-combat roles in the military as well.

Fattttty B wrote:

Slaterton wrote:

+1

If you look at the top 20 heroic acts each year in which regular humans saved the lives of another with no consideration that they may die, it is always 98% male. Again, 98% male. Women are not here to save others. They are selfish. Men are the ones who will risk their lives to save people they have no idea who they are. Men are really great often. Women are usually very selfish and only care about themselves.

Don't want my daughters drafted and especially don't want them or any other women in combat roles.

blamb61 wrote:

Don't want my daughters drafted and especially don't want them or any other women in combat roles.

I am game with this because it opens up my playing field even more as I approach 40.

" Lastly, U.S.M.C. which does a lot of the fighting and dying ..." is very misleading when it comes to the dying part. In the last 3 decades of war by USA against majority Muslim countries, USMC war deaths might well exceed 1000, but likely far fewer than 10K. Deaths of people in the target countries caused by these wars are in the several millions. (Most of the deaths were not directly caused by bombs and bullets, but they are war deaths, just like leaving a baby in a car in the sun for a day in hot weather is a homicide, although in the latter case the homicide is not intentional but careless.)

It is fair and accurate to claim one of the reasons USMC casualties are so much fewer is that there are nowhere near as many Marines as people in target countries, and one should look at death rates. I do not have a good estimate of death rates of USMC infantry, but I recall one news article that gives some indication. It stated a certain Pendlelton based battalion had about 60 war dead in a period of about 5 years or so. I do not recall the battalion size, but 500 is near the middle of the current range. This yields a death rate of 12%. When it comes to war caused death rates of pre-school aged children in Iraq during significant portions of the last 30 years, 12% is near the middle of the range of the best estimates. (In 1996, US Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright accepted the medical study that produced that rate estimate, with a total around half a million young child deaths, and commented "we think the price is worth it".) (As I recall, that battalion was described as one that had one of the highest death rates, not average, but I may recall incorrectly.)

When one drafts people who think like law abiding civilians, whether male or female, that group is likely to have many who question the wars and note who is really dying. These people may "infect" their units with the idea that what they are trained to do, and likely to do, is kill civilians including babies, in huge numbers for reasons and results that are counter-productive to the cause of national defense.

Precious Roy wrote:

Nixon came up with the selective service as a way to try to stop opposition to the Vietnam war. The theory was that the country would not care as much about war if it was fought with an all volunteer armed forces. With that in mind, I would absolutely agree with adding women to selective service. Mainly because it would prevent the US from committing to large regional conflicts because everyone would flip out if the draft was reinstated and their daughters had to report for duty.

That's odd - I was drafted by Lyndon Johnson.

macdaddy wrote:

"I just read a book about 9/11 and there were at least a dozen comments from women - even some 1st responders - about how the genders quickly reverted to roles that we traditionally think they hold."

What an extremely vague comment. What did these women say? They saw people injured and their motherly instinct to help kicked in? They saw the fire and explosions and ran back to the kitchen?

What are women's responses during combat that are naturally instilled?

You sound like a SOB who would get his wire a peloton for Christmas.

women almost never start the wars

We need them in the country to keep an eye on the men who started the war in the first place. Those men hardly ever go to war either.

well for one thing wrote:

women almost never start the wars

We need them in the country to keep an eye on the men who started the war in the first place. Those men hardly ever go to war either.

Have you ever seen Real Housewives?

We will only need the draft when we are in a high-casualty war where the military needs cannon fodder. Many men, perhaps most men, are unsuitable for service in direct combat in this kind of a war. Very few women are suitable for such service. We're not talking about noncombatants here, or drone operators or even fighter pilots. What we need from the draft is the ability to compel people to serve in the most hazardous (and highest fatality rate) positions in the military. It would be a non-productive and criminal act to force women to serve in those positions. Service in the military should remain forever voluntary for females.

beezatches bee crazy wrote:

well for one thing wrote:

women almost never start the wars

We need them in the country to keep an eye on the men who started the war in the first place. Those men hardly ever go to war either.

Have you ever seen Real Housewives?

No, I'm not a moran.

well for one thing wrote:

beezatches bee crazy wrote:

Have you ever seen Real Housewives?

No, I'm not a moran.

Put one of them housewives in the Oval Office and she will launch nukes with the smallest provocation.