Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Drafting Soi-Disant (LOL) Women
OK, ladles and gentlespoons, and (perhaps even) diverse others, such as ye may be:
I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that I’m not the only person on Ricochet who needed to hear on “Tucker,” via Chip Roy, or elsewhere that there’s a provision in the latest House-passed — endorsed by the Armed Services Committee — defense bill that mandates, on the part of “all Americans,” registration for selective service. I actually knew this was coming, because I pay attention to current events. So, no surprise, or even outrage, that this was “slipped past me” (because it was not).
The language in the bill sidesteps the difficult distinction (for some) between men and women by saying simply that the Selective Service System should be “modernized” to amend its applicability from “male citizens,” expanding its reach to just “citizens,” and to replace any offensive male pronouns in the descriptors relating to how the process goes with other words or phrases that might be less triggering to those with delicate sensibilities.
While I do understand that the proposed legislation isn’t quite the same thing as “drafting women,” no matter what any may say, it’s still a step in the wrong direction, IMHO. I mean, really. What if I identify as something else? Like a doorknob? Or a chicken sandwich? In that case, would I still be considered a “citizen” under the proposed legislation? And should I have to register for selective service then, just because doorknobs and chicken sandwiches should be considered as “citizens” and will add diversity to the social experiment that is the modern armed services?
I think not. (Although, in contemplation, I can envision some unintended consequences here, and this cheers me up!)
I don’t know about you, but I’m utterly fed up with the matter. As we all know, studies by any and all branches of the military (particular shoutout to the USMC) have shown that mixed-sex units and companies do less well in direct combat and even in preparedness exercises than do single-sex (male) groupings.
So I can’t, for the life of me, understand why conservatives might find this matter problematic. Or why any conservatives should pretend to being on the fringe, or to being reviled by their fellows, merely because they stand firmly against it. I think we’re pretty much all on the same page here, whether our reason for being there is biblical, political, pragmatic, or simply rational.
Am I wrong?
And so I ask you, therefore, why 135 Republican House members voted in favor of such a thing (including the provision that ALL AMERICANS [this includes women, ICYC] register for selective service), and I also ask for the temperature of the site (on the basis that we might be regarded as conservative) with regard to the idea.
Thanks.
Published in General
LOL, what a relief!
On my own part, I’m going with Marie Antoinette’s advice: “Let them wear cake.”
Ornamented with silver stars and rainbow ribbons.
From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.
Does “all Americans” include senior citizens? I assume age limitations still apply.
Why is it limited to “citizens?” Why not require registration of legal and illegal aliens? In fact, why not require all migrants to 1) register and 2) immediately serve? Or, since Joe Bonehead is all in on a path to citizenship, why not make volunteering for service a prerequisite to citizenship?
I’ve been asking my college students this now for a while, as this has been working its way to reality for a while. While well over 70% of Americans age 18-30 are not eligible at all for military service per criminal records, physical disabilities, sheer obesity (an alarming number), they say “sure.” They view it as an “equality” issue, though many of them can’t do a sit-up and maybe think they’re exempt?
Aw C’mon!
Don’t you people know that ‘gender” is an artificial construct of the White Supremacist Patriarchy?
Our hallowed Supreme Court Justices have said so in effect:
From Wiki regarding Bostock vs Clayton County:
“Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in this case on June 15, 2020.[32] In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that Title VII protections pursuant to § 2000e-2(a)(1) did extend to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. The decision then involved the statutory interpretation of Title VII (specifically the original meaning of “sex”),[2] not constitutional law as in other recent landmark cases involving the rights of LGBT individuals such as Obergefell v. Hodges.[33][34] The Court further held that Title VII protections against sex discrimination in the employment context apply to discrimination against particular individuals on the basis of sex, as opposed to discrimination against groups.[35] Thus, Title VII provides a remedy to individuals who experience discrimination on the basis of sex even if an employer’s policy on the whole does not involve discrimination. Gorsuch wrote:
Is not the Armed Services an employer? Hmmm…. I think so.
It seems now that discrimination “for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex” is now verboten by our wondrous, enlightened Supreme Court Justices who obviously feel a terrible need to keep up with latest trendy fashion positions. Traits like greater strength and the ability to defend oneself in combat obviously can no longer be a standard that can be used for employment or deployment in our woke cleansed military.
Too bad the Supremes couldn’t have just said the case had no standing.
Oops, my very bad for even thinking such a thought or implying that the Supreme Court could have ruled another way.
Anything that reduces the combat effectiveness of the United States Military is a net positive for the cause of liberty, but my daughters will never serve in the government at any capacity.
I think that will trickle down to other areas of employment (may have already done so; I’ve been out of the game for a decade). But it was all the rage, years ago, to set objective standards by which employees could be measured and to draw up a list of competencies which they would have to demonstrate in order to pass their probationary period and move into regular employment. So my network technicians had a list of physical proficiencies without which they could be judged unable to do their jobs. On that list were things like “the ability to lift and carry equipment weighing up to 55lbs as necessary to meet installation or repair requirements” and “the ability to make two rounds of the nursing units on foot, pushing a cart, delivering paper and re-stocking the printers.” In the course of about 15 years as their boss (there were half-a-dozen on my staff at any one time), I had three or four women who did the job well, I fired several women for poor performance, and a several women quit after having a tantrum. It wasn’t a job for everyone, and clearly, guys were better suited to its physical nature. (TBPC, I’d take a turn at it myself on occasion, just to demonstrate that it could be done.)
I’m not sure even such minimal standards would hold up today in the face of accusations that the requirements, in and of themselves, might be sexist or misogynistic.
I read somewhere that Israel actually stopped using women in combat units with direct enemy contact. (i.e. not planes, ships, artillery, etc.) Apparently fellow soldiers would protect the women instead of focusing on the objective, and the enemy would not surrender to women.
I’ve read that, too, but it’s been many years.
The central question isn’t, ‘can women do as good of a job as men’, but rather, ‘can a co-ed military do as good of a job as a male-only military. The military isn’t there to serve its members, indeed, it is quite the opposite.
Good point, but I would change one word in the central question: Instead of “can a co-ed military do as good of a job…” I’d change it to “will a co-ed military do as good of a job.”