Post: #1

District court judge strikes down male-only Selective Service in court victory for MRAs

Quote:"A federal judge who ruled the Selective Service System's men-only registration unconstitutional late Friday rejected the reasoning of a 1981 Supreme Court decision, opting for the recent women's rights rationale of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the contemporary court.

US District Court Judge Gray Miller, based in Houston, spurned the government's argument about excluding women, based partly on their interest and readiness for combat, by declaring, "this argument smacks of archaic and overbroad generalizations about women's preferences."

Miller said that while "historical restrictions on women in the military may have justified past discrimination," men and women now have many similar roles."

I don't care much for MRAs...but occasionally you've got to hand it to them. Explicitly using the logic---a term I have choice but to use loosely these days---of feminist icon RBG to fit the sisterhood for bodybags on behalf of oil companies, the Big Banks and globohomo is some masterful trolling that is long overdue. Additionally, in a time where men can theoretically evade military service just by identifying as women, a ruling like this closes that loophole as well.

Yes, we all know that women will not actually be recruited to serve on the front lines in any real numbers. They will be given exemptions galore to avoid that. But rulings like this---and the mental/verbal/legal gymnastics that feminists engage in to make sure women are generally not drafted---will make it increasingly difficult for blue-pill men to ignore the obvious: that feminism is about acquiring rights/privileges/authority while ignoring the commensurate responsibilities & burdens.

The mask slips a bit more. Just another day in a degenerate country.

Post: #2

They will just get pregnant to draft dodge.

Post: #3

^^ and the baby boom caused by the multi year Venezuelan American war will surely save the white race

Post: #4

At first glance, I applaud this judge’s ruling.

After a second thought, doesn’t this further entrench us in feminist degeracy? Now they can say that they are taking the responsibilities (e.g. eligible for draft) so of course they are entitled to the rights.

Also, it opens the floodgates for more masculine women (short hair, large tattoos, etc.).

Post: #5

Guess there won't be another draft.

Post: #6

(02-25-2019 02:43 PM)Jetset Wrote:  Guess there won't be another draft.

Ya right. There will be when the Globalists want themselves a new war and this bullshit law will go straight out the window.

A. (((Globalist powers/bankers))) will continue to send young men into shitty war conditions with little pay and less supplies than needed, dooming them to debt and injury/death, for their own gain.

B. Broads won't have to go.

Post: #7

(02-25-2019 01:04 PM)Buck Wild Wrote:  we all know that women will not actually be recruited to serve on the front lines in any real numbers.

Neither will men, most likely. The draft is mostly symbolic. Hasn't been used since Vietnam.

Post: #8

As much as find the idea of women in the military let alone combat arms branches absolutely detestable and disgusting, I can't help but crack a schadenfreude smile and hope little Cynthia has to register for the draft because her feminist sisters and overlords demanded equality.

Here you go ladies...Yes there probably won't be another draft in all likelihood. But just know that if shit ever truly hits the fan, and bodies are needed, you too can be used.





#willnotraisedaughtersinUSA

Post: #9

(02-25-2019 01:46 PM)Enoch Wrote:  They will just get pregnant to draft dodge.

This would happen, no joke. I have known girls in the military who have intentionally gotten pregnant so they could avoid going on deployment.

Post: #10

(02-25-2019 02:42 PM)CaptainCup Wrote:  At first glance, I applaud this judge’s ruling.

After a second thought, doesn’t this further entrench us in feminist degeracy? Now they can say that they are taking the responsibilities (e.g. eligible for draft) so of course they are entitled to the rights.

Also, it opens the floodgates for more masculine women (short hair, large tattoos, etc.).

I know drafts are supposed to be 'random' / 'fair' & all. Yet if we only just happened to draft the Soycialists first...

Post: #11

(02-25-2019 07:26 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 02:42 PM)CaptainCup Wrote:  At first glance, I applaud this judge’s ruling.

After a second thought, doesn’t this further entrench us in feminist degeracy? Now they can say that they are taking the responsibilities (e.g. eligible for draft) so of course they are entitled to the rights.

Also, it opens the floodgates for more masculine women (short hair, large tattoos, etc.).

I know drafts are supposed to be 'random' / 'fair' & all. Yet if we only just happened to draft the Soycialists first...

I would carpet bomb Venezuela with soycialists if I could.

G

Post: #12

Men get even more screwed by this. Imaginge WW2 and you head out to storm into France. You look around your boat as it takes heavy fire and instead of seeing the scared yet determined faces of young men ready to die in order to see the team succeed, you instead see the cowering, crying faces of girls slowly putting the large males between them and the danger.

This shit is so out of touch its bordering insanity.

Post: #13

^^ Agree totally

That and men would not be able to fight seeing womens' heads get blown off on their left and right.

If I was on the boat and there was hot 9 with hair down to her waist beside me cowering, I'd have to rescue her. The blue haired chick with the nose ring and tats not so much. The men would feel like they have to rescue all the chicks THEN kill the enemy. We would be getting into action superhero territory here.

The more women enter into the military, cops, firefighters, the weaker these forces are.

Post: #14

Very interesting comments about seeing women in battle. On point actually. Believe it or not, studies show that if guys see women suffering in battle they will risk their lives to save them, even to the detriment of the mission or orders they were given by superiors.

Post: #15

^^^^^

Soldiers are already dealing with the issue of women getting injured. Looking up the issue, I came across an article titled "Female amputees are changing the image of combat veterans."

When you have articles in mainstream U.S. newspapers about female Marines losing their legs, it really underscores the point of this ruling. Women are already playing a big role in the U.S. armed forces. It's hypocritical to say they're capable of being in life-threatening situations on the one hand, yet to "feminine" to draft on the other.

What's going to change with this ruling is the way the average girl perceives more powerful women. All of a sudden, the female veteran all the girls once admired is going to become "the bitch who got us drafted."

Post: #16

Unfortunately "taking it on the chin for the wahmen so we can get the job done" just stretches out the decline and lends them a sense of total cultural dominance.

Don't go to war for zionists. Even if you're serving. Better to rot in jail than get fragged for Schlomo and Stacey. Worse, to get fragged for Schlomo BY Stacey because she can't toss a grenade further than her own feet.

ZOGynocracies are precisely that. Fighting their battles these days is akin to signing up for a gay pride parade where everyone has to share needles. Ironically US troops will apparently be sent abroad to fight to the death for the right of fags to hold said pride rallies. Maybe they will be known as the Gaytest Generation.

Post: #17

(02-25-2019 09:58 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Female amputees are changing the image of combat veterans.

That is an important antidote to SJWs in the sense that...

THERE ARE NO MARY SUES IN THE REAL WORLD

All those women who feel empowered by Mary Sues like Rey who go from nothing to mad skillz and breeze through each challenge like it's a videogame on easy-mode are going to get hit by a reality-stick if they wind up in the military.

Post: #18

This is dumb and short sided. If these lame ass MRAs actually cared about men instead of resenting women, they wouldn't want men to fight with women. Everyone knows that's going to lead to death for a lot of men and women. A military unit is meant to be as strong as possible to crush enemies. If you include women you already failed that.

Post: #19

(02-25-2019 08:09 PM)NoMoreTO Wrote:  ^^ Agree totally

That and men would not be able to fight seeing womens' heads get blown off on their left and right.

If I was on the boat and there was hot 9 with hair down to her waist beside me cowering, I'd have to rescue her. The blue haired chick with the nose ring and tats not so much. The men would feel like they have to rescue all the chicks THEN kill the enemy. We would be getting into action superhero territory here.

The more women enter into the military, cops, firefighters, the weaker these forces are.

Not many 7+ women joining the military. It's really an option of last resort. For anybody..guys included. (I know that gets lost in the muh flag drivel)

I applaud the judge. He's either a 1st rate troll or a sincere egalitarian.

Feminism will be tested because of this, and I doubt it will withstain the fallout if there was a draft again the near future.

Post: #20

Isn't this just Israel?

Post: #21

It's kind of a sad "win" in some sense. Bittersweet. Do any of you want to see your daughter come back home missing limbs because equality? (Its enough already that it could happen to our sons.)

MRAs have some twisted sense of schadenfruede in this. Yea I get it as a kind of, "You want equality, you got it" attitude that permeates from the culture wars to issues like this.

Seeing that society doesnt care about men having their limbs blown off and lives wrecked from battle, it will care much more about this when it affects women.

This will probably help stave off a potential future draft, though a draft was always unlikely anyway.

It's a good strategy overall if you want something done. If it starts to really affect women, people finally start to give a shit. Women coming home with missing legs and limbs motivate people to do something about it more so than it ever has or would with men in the 20th century in particular.

Now that's not something we can do much about from a biological and historical sense. You're village needs women to keep itself alive for the future.

There would be alot of exceptions though to any draft for women such as pregnant women, young mothers, etc.

Post: #22

Let's be realistic. If there was such a sufficiently savage war that the draft had to be reinstated then all the feminist garbage is already going to be out the window. The draft letter will arrive and Stacey will report as required. A physician will look her over and say "that looks like a bad case of gynocitis you have there" and she'll nod and be dismissed.

All this is right now is a smart shot across the bow of women who feel entirely insulated from any of the responsibilities that ought to be arriving with all these lovely rights. It's indeed expert trolling and a nice psychological punch but completely irrelevant in terms of actually being implemented.

Post: #23

Its discrimination against men..now lets get on with building those unisex prisons

This will also cause a backlash against feminist as its the fit chicks who will be called up not the fat feminist..

All those Femnazis will hide so get your white feathers ready

Post: #24

(02-25-2019 02:59 PM)RIslander Wrote:  Ya right. There will be when the Globalists want themselves a new war and this bullshit law will go straight out the window.

I don't buy it. A professional army with few other prospects is better for bullshit wars. That's why far-left Democrats were frantically pushing a draft in the run-up to Iraq, trying to sabotage it by rallying the gullible.

You know who was most surprised to hear that, in my experience? College-age women. Democrats were pushing talking points, with a straight face, that there were bills before Congress to re-institute the draft, without disclosing that they were sponsored by Democrats.

In Charlie Rangel's own words, the motive was to terrorize parents.

Look at World War II propaganda. More than a few campaigns revolved around convincing men that avoiding service would make them unfuckable and convincing women that it was romantic for their sweetheart to get shipped off and that they should nag him into it. The hard left caught on to this during Vietnam and ran their own campaigns along the same lines.





More than a few 20-year-old woman will play along with the attention-getting drama of having their man get shot up overseas while they cheat on him in perfect safety. None will tolerate the thought of ruining their selfies with shrapnel scars, no matter how easy it is to con their way out of it.

A meaningful threat of universal conscription is the end of conscription.

Post: #25

Let’s just say there was a draft. Let’s just say 50% of women actually get drafted. Looking at women ages 18-25 how many of them do you really see making it into a combat unit. From what I’ve heard most women do ok with the running portion of basic and any test, but the large majority fail or barely pass the rest (push ups and especially pull ups)

What I’m saying is, most of these women would be put into the least threatening and least important jobs. The requirements for certain groups will go up (such as SEALs)

If there was a real war that required a real draft all the PC nonsense and feminism would not be tolerated.