Posted on 10/27/2017 6:55:03 AM PDT by C19fan
The Pentagon recommended that women be required to register for the draft to boost military enrollment, according to a Defense Department report addressed to Congress. The report, obtained by the Washington Times, said the Selective Service System would increase enrollment by 11 million people if the U.S. required women to sign up for the draft.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Like saying upthread that chastity before marriage, and marriage young, is the way to go.
(Quick, where's my fainting couch?)
Try this on for size:
I hadn’t seen her for years. Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint after my Asian traumas and the break-up of my marriage. I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability. And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.” It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice: “Why are we here today?” she asked. “To make revolution,” they answered. “What kind of revolution?” she replied. “The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted. “And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded. “By destroying the American family!” they answered. “How do we destroy the family?” she came back. “By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly. “And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied. “By taking away his power!” “How do we do that?” “By destroying monogamy!” they shouted. “How can we destroy monogamy?” Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people? “By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded. They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system. It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.
From the sister of a deceased feminist icon.
“When a man complains about anything of that nature, there are soon a bevy of idiot women who show up and say he must be a repressed homo, or that attractive women rejected him.”
You shouldn’t have said that. You are soon going to be accused of being a repressed homo or that pretty girls ignored you in high school.
Who knows, they might even ask you when you stopped molesting children.
Thanks for an intelligent reply.
Who’s going to read your italicized crap? Clean up your act.
Really, Billie?
Are you talking about my three daughters, church-goers from birth, (one married with two children), three BAs, three Master’s, and one Doctorate between them? All productive, tax paying patriots. Maybe I can arrange a meeting between them and you so you can discuss your enlightened opinions with them? Or does your courage end with the closing call at the bar?
I hadn’t seen her for years. Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint after my Asian traumas and the break-up of my marriage. I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm.
With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability. And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”
It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China.
We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church.
But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice: “Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society.
The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system. It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.
These guys all stick together with their nutty screeds. It’s all over FR these days and it’s very rare for a decent male freeper to confront them.
Of course there are decent American mothers and daughters! Obviously, your family is a good example of this. But don’t expect these miserable guys to back down; they never do.
I don’t want to get even with anybody.
Ideas?
Sure.
You need to smarten up.
I don’t think women should be in combat. Mixed gender military unit have had higher casualty rates.
But there was a Supreme Court case in the early 80’s that said women could not be drafted because they are not in combat. So technically if they are eligible for combat they could be drafted. PIAPS was all for drafting women.
You give it a rest. This guy goes on every thread he can find where he can start bashing women. I’ve gone after him before for it and I’m doing it today. Actions incite consequences.
I’m also on record sticking up for men who I happen to think are just swell with a few exceptions on FR. :-)
Thanks for the heads up.
Gutless cowards, all.
I remember the atheist flamers like Orion Blam Blam years ago here on FR, and the same undertones of 10th grade condescension existed in those threads, too, until JR showed them the door.
One can only hope.
I highly doubt that Mattis wants women on the front line. I see some 4D chess going on here. Consider: feminism, transgenderism, etc...this forces a reality discussion. War doesn’t care.
Day drinking looks bad on you. :-)
I’ve complained, they do nothing about it. About 3 times a week, a thread will start about women and divorce and these creeps come in. Same names, same awful stuff. Now it’s starting to hit threads that have nothing to do with divorce.
Its funny. I hang out with bad azz gun guys and none of them ever talk smack about women. So its not hard to form a mental image of the one who do. :-)
Guys with guns don’t have to talk smack about anybody. Oddly enough, if you look at the men who post on the Facebook FR page, it’s the same old bald, paunchy guys you can see anywhere. Here, they post as if they look like Cary Grant.
Women are *hypergamous* -- they marry up.
But --women *always* make the mistake, that, whatever it is they are attracted to in men -- they think men are attracted to the same thing in women.
Since women's pride generally forbids them from marrying a man they see as inferior to her, the college educated women (and more so, the Masters' and PhD women) are going to be competing for an ever-shrinking pool of what they see as eligible men.
St. Supercilia
St. Supercilia, born in Paris about the year 1400, was a maiden of remarkable erudition, who steadfastly refused to marry anyone who could not defeat her in open disputation. When the best scholars of all the universities in Europe had tried and failed, her unworthy father brutally commanded her to accept the hand of a man who, though virtuous, sensible, and of a good estate, knew only six languages and was weak in mathematics. At this, the outraged saint raised her eyebrows so high that they lifted her off her feet and out through a top-story window, whence she was last seen floating away in a northerly direction.
St. Supercilia is the patron of pedants. Her feast, Eyebrow Sunday, falls in Cacophony, between Lowbrow Sunday and Derogation Day.
...that was written by Dorothy Sayers, one of the first female Masters' graduates at Oxford University. Try Googling her essay "The Lost Tools of Learning."
...who, incidentally, had an out-of-wedlock child with a motorcyclist. /bad boy tingles>
Caffeine is a *vitamin*.
Click on my Freeper homepage and start reading the essays, dear.
DesertRhino: "Then Suzie and Ann can volunteer.
The answer isn’t for a man to support drafting Americas petite daughters.
And a trite response isn’t changing a thing..." I'm seeing a lot of trite responses here, and nobody seems to "get" the real issue.
As conservatives we believe in Founders' Original Intent, as modified by ratified amendments.
In the case of our military, what Founders indented was that every full-citizen had as duties of citizenship the following obligations & rights:
You may add to this list (i.e., respond to census), but these are the basics.
The issue here is that at the time of our Founding, not every American was considered a full voting citizen.
Those who could not vote included the poor, women, slaves, native Americans & others.
But beginning almost immediately, the pool of voters expanded, first by eliminating property ownership requirements, then racial & gender discriminations.
And, as each new group was added to the list of full-voting citizens, each was also, by implication, added to the list of those to be called for military service if required.
Note here, I'm not saying young women should be drafted into the infantry -- that's insane, period.
I am saying that as full citizens, they can and should, in time of need be drafted into such services as they were fit to perform.
And the list of such services is both long and honorable.
Not every young man is fit for the infantry, and very few women are -- but most anyone can well perform other military-related duties no less honorable.
That's what this whole issue is about: our Founders' original intent regarding the duties of full citizenship.
Those who want the privileges & rights of full-citizenship must also be prepared to bear its burdens, including military service, if needed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.