Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Senate Bill Says Women Must Register For The Draft

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    What we did in WW2 was allow women to volunteer for non-combat roles. The vast majority of them stayed home and raised the kids. Many also went to work in Industry and replaced the missing men. I get a bad feeling that any Generals/Admirals that want a women draft think they will only get the cream of the crop and no non-hackers. I see them being told they have to take the 4'10" 90 pounders as well as the six foot Amazons. The Defense Department had also better start building daycare infrastructure as draft age females will have lots of children that need care. The days of sending them to live with Granny are over.

    Pruitt
    We already have the 4'10" 90 pounders. And we also have a lot of day care. Family care plans are normal these days. What's your next concern?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Well, I know of one actual case with a unit I was in where a single mother (volunteer service) was sent to mast then discharged with an OTH for failing to have provision for child care for her kids as required by a document in her contract she signed required. I have heard of others that are similar.
      I also have seen cases where single mothers have gotten slammed at mast (article 15 for the other services) for not being at their duty or post because of child issues they were supposed to have a means to cover.

      The military isn't completely stupid. Single parents are required to sign an agreement that says they will have the means to have their children cared for when deployed, or when required to perform service or duties that require them. They can't and they get hit with NJP or a court martial and discharged less than honorably.
      There is more to the story because failure to maintain a family care plan isn't going to get you an OTH discharge. A discharge yes, OTH, no.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
        There is more to the story because failure to maintain a family care plan isn't going to get you an OTH discharge. A discharge yes, OTH, no.
        It gets you an OTH if you do something that is contrary to the UCMJ. If you are assigned to say a ship in the Navy and that ship is deploying, and you suddenly claim you can't deploy because of issues with child care, you'll end up at mast before being discharged with an OTH.

        In most cases, failure to have child care in place for deployment will result in NJP followed by an OTH, or in some cases, just the OTH without NJP. But, you won't be getting out with an honorable in any case.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
          Ah, the draft. A useless holdover from a past-era that still manages to convince people it's somehow significant.
          Seems largely symbolic. A gesture that insists that equality is a two way street.
          ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

          BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

          BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post
            Seems largely symbolic. A gesture that insists that equality is a two way street.
            Pretty much. Symbols have power, but the idea that this is going to have real implications for personal safety or military matters is laughable.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
              Not all parents will be able to keep their designated "sitter" they have in mind when signing the contract. Some will die or get jobs that preclude taking care of children. Some soldiers lose their "sitter" when they transfer to another base. I don't have a good solution and I wish it did not have to be a OTH discharge. I recall a female soldier at my second BT Company at North Fort Polk. Her name was also Pruitt. You can imagine some of the conversations I had with her on the phone when I had to leave the Company area.

              "Hello Private Pruitt, this is Private Pruitt!.."

              She had a kid without visible signs of a spouse.

              If you are going to draft females, there will have to be another solution than a OTH discharge or all the Mothers will go that route! I had a neighbor on the next street that got out of being drafted early. He hit his commanding officer! He was back working construction before you knew it. I paid attention because his sister Yolanda was fine! Yolanda I hope you have done well out there...

              Pruitt
              Correct me if I am wrong but I thought single mothers were not allowed to go active duty? A friend of mine is a single mom and she had to join the Puerto Rico National Guard because her recruiter told her that the regular Army does not allow single mothers unless they sign away custody to a grandparent or other relative for their first enlistment.

              Comment


              • #22
                That may be something recent or something the Recruiter used to get her to sign up for the Guard. Recruiters will say anything to get you to sign. Mine told me he could get me in as an E-2.

                Pruitt
                Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                  Pretty much. Symbols have power, but the idea that this is going to have real implications for personal safety or military matters is laughable.
                  Agreed on all counts. The symbol is important however. If women cannot be dragged into enlistment and then forced into the infantry kicking and screaming. ....even if only in theory. ...then there is not equality.

                  This whole women in combat thing has largely been the shrill feminist types with a smattering of officers and officer candidates. ......the former because they're effing morons, the latter because they need a combat billet in order to get fast track on promotion to flag rank. There are some others for various reasons, but those are the ones invested. And the thought of a rotc female freshman getting drafted into a leg infantry unit as a private rifleman is just deliciously hilarious.
                  Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
                    Agreed on all counts. The symbol is important however. If women cannot be dragged into enlistment and then forced into the infantry kicking and screaming. ....even if only in theory. ...then there is not equality.
                    Agreed. It's a good move because it suggests greater gender equality with literally no actual political risk.

                    Though it's still a waste of money to maintain the draft, but that's a different issue.

                    This whole women in combat thing has largely been the shrill feminist types with a smattering of officers and officer candidates. ......the former because they're effing morons, the latter because they need a combat billet in order to get fast track on promotion to flag rank. There are some others for various reasons, but those are the ones invested. And the thought of a rotc female freshman getting drafted into a leg infantry unit as a private rifleman is just deliciously hilarious.
                    Like most things involved in this, all you need are simple, gender neutral requirements that reflect reality. All soldiers, regardless of gender, should be allowed into any position... as long as they meet the necessary requirements.

                    Some of the most extreme feminists might gnash their teeth that women aren't at a forced 50% equal rate in every role, and some of the most die-hard misogynists might bemoan the state of the military for putting women in combat positions, but it's the most practical solution that meets both military and political/social demands.

                    Remove gender from the equation entirely. Treat them as people, and if a person can't carry what is necessary or haul required loads then that person can't take that position.

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X