-

[Galloism]

Eh, we put it up enough times they'll take it just to make it go away.

The problem is, the penalties for defying the requirement to register are so severe, unless you are rich enough to afford a personal driver and pay for your own college, most men can't afford to defy the law and give rise to the equal protection claim.

(retrospectively, kinda wish I had done that back when I could, but hindsight's 20/20)

you keep saying it but it still doesn't convince me. women having to register wouldn't make those detriments any less.

No it doesn't, but it DOES give equal protection of the laws, which is currently lacking.

Picture if the selective service act only applied to african-americans. Still immune from an equal-protection claim?

the whole thing should be dumped. we don't need registration, the government knows who we are and where we live. an emergency draft would be no problem even if no one registered.

Probably true.

[Ashmoria]

you keep saying it but it still doesn't convince me. women having to register wouldn't make those detriments any less.

No it doesn't, but it DOES give equal protection of the laws, which is currently lacking.

Picture if the selective service act only applied to african-americans. Still ok?

the whole thing should be dumped. we don't need registration, the government knows who we are and where we live. an emergency draft would be no problem even if no one registered.

Probably true.

I'm not saying that its OK. I'm saying that no one is being HURT extra by having women not included. in order to have standing you have to be HARMED. no one is harmed by women not having to register.

[Emanita]

These penalties are still in place.

Again, it doesn't matter. Florida still has the legal authority to prescribe the death penalty for murder, but horse thieves in Florida are not injured by the law because that particular charge is never applied, meaning that it will be forever doomed to be a cocktail party anecdote. Also, again, if the idea that possession of a government ID as being basic to being a legal adult in the US is accepted, then that other form of challenge will have no standing either given automatic registration that comes with those ID cards.

[Galloism]

No it doesn't, but it DOES give equal protection of the laws, which is currently lacking.

Picture if the selective service act only applied to african-americans. Still ok?



Probably true.

I'm not saying that its OK. I'm saying that no one is being HURT extra by having women not included. in order to have standing you have to be HARMED. no one is harmed by women not having to register.

So if it was only African-Americans who had to register, or face severe financial hardships and rights penalties, there would be no one harmed.

Um, ok?

[Galloism]

These penalties are still in place.

Again, it doesn't matter. Florida still has the legal authority to prescribe the death penalty for murder, but horse thieves in Florida are not injured by the law because that particular charge is never applied, meaning that it will be forever doomed to be a cocktail party anecdote. Also, again, if the idea that possession of a government ID as being basic to being a legal adult in the US is accepted, then that other form of challenge will have no standing either given automatic registration that comes with those ID cards.

THESE PENALTIES ARE STILL ACTIVELY APPLIED.

Not sure how to make you understand that.

Thousands and thousands of dollars worth of penalties exist and are CURRENTLY ENFORCED for failure to comply.

[Ashmoria]

I'm not saying that its OK. I'm saying that no one is being HURT extra by having women not included. in order to have standing you have to be HARMED. no one is harmed by women not having to register.

So if it was only African-Americans who had to register, or face severe financial hardships and rights penalties, there would be no one harmed.

Um, ok?

no. they would sue to get rid of whatever stupid onerous bad thing you have forced them to sign up for. white people not having to be forced to do it would be irrelevant.

[Galloism]

So if it was only African-Americans who had to register, or face severe financial hardships and rights penalties, there would be no one harmed.

Um, ok?

no. they would sue to get rid of whatever stupid onerous bad thing you have forced them to sign up for. white people not having to be forced to do it would be irrelevant.

Well, that is one of the possible reliefs the court could grant - that the selective service act is invalid for violating the equal protection clause.

The fact that women are not required to sign up, however, is key to the equal protection claim. if everyone was required, there would be no equal protection claim, because equal protection would already be in place. It may be stupid, but it's stupid equally for everyone, and therefore complies with the 14th amendment.

Similarly, if black people were required to sign up but white people weren't, the fact that white people weren't is key to the equal protection claim.

Just as when DOMA was overturned because the fed wouldn't recognize gay marriage, the fact that it recognized straight marriage was key to the equal protection claim. If they fed didn't recognize straight marriage either, there would be no equal protection claim (hence why Oklahoma briefly toyed with the idea of abolishing all marriage).

Same thing applies to the integration of schools. White people had good schools. Black people had shitty schools. If both had shitty schools, there would be no grounds for an equal protection claim. The situation may be shit, but not unequal.

Equal protection claims inherently require comparison between the privileged group (in this instance, women) and the discriminated against group (in this case, men).

This is how equal protection claims work.

[Staythefout]

http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html
http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html
http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html

The strongest women who weigh 150 lbs can squat about 255...a man of the same weight who is "intermidately strong" can do the same. I know a guy who knew chris kyle, he was a big boy at 6'2" and 240. Maybe he was a big guy but to put that into comparison he could probably deadlift what an extremely strong 180 woman according to the chart could for about ten reps. Women are nowhere near as strong as men and that is kind of a bummer when you have to carry 100 or 200 lbs of gear in 110 degrees and fire with precision accuracy and potentially help a brother (or sister) in arms out of harms way. It makes no sense to have women in all combat roles, there are so few who could qualify that it would be ridiculous to accommodate them. There are plenty of combat roles that do not need physical strength, like being a pilot or vehicle operator. But to be completely fucking frank we do not require women to sign up for selective service because we have fucking men to do that. Estrogen makes you less aggressive and vice versa with testosterone. Men are stronger and more aggressive than women are. It's not like women shouldn't be allowed in the military but they are not usually designed by nature to go out and start killing 200 lb terrorists.

[Galloism]

http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/BenchStandards.html
http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html
http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html

The strongest women who weigh 150 lbs can squat about 255...a man of the same weight who is "intermidately strong" can do the same. I know a guy who knew chris kyle, he was a big boy at 6'2" and 240. Maybe he was a big guy but to put that into comparison he could probably deadlift what an extremely strong 180 woman according to the chart could for about ten reps. Women are nowhere near as strong as men and that is kind of a bummer when you have to carry 100 or 200 lbs of gear in 110 degrees and fire with precision accuracy and potentially help a brother (or sister) in arms out of harms way. It makes no sense to have women in all combat roles, there are so few who could qualify that it would be ridiculous to accommodate them. There are plenty of combat roles that do not need physical strength, like being a pilot or vehicle operator. But to be completely fucking frank we do not require women to sign up for selective service because we have fucking men to do that. Estrogen makes you less aggressive and vice versa with testosterone. Men are stronger and more aggressive than women are. It's not like women shouldn't be allowed in the military but they are not usually designed by nature to go out and start killing 200 lb terrorists.

I'd like you to meet Jo Gordon.



She's an Apache helicopter pilot. Quite good, too, by all accounts.

Most military roles do not involve lots of heavy lifting.

[Ostroeuropa]

So if it was only African-Americans who had to register, or face severe financial hardships and rights penalties, there would be no one harmed.

Um, ok?

no. they would sue to get rid of whatever stupid onerous bad thing you have forced them to sign up for. white people not having to be forced to do it would be irrelevant.

They tried this and the argument was "The state has a right to draft people, and it is necessary blah." basically.
This is the next step. "Okay, so draft everyone."
But apparently you aren't fine with that and would prefer they just try the same shit that failed in the 80s.

It's like if ONLY black people paid taxes and you sued to get rid of them, the government goes
"No, because we NEED somebody to pay taxes, and the state has an absolute right to levy them."

And you go
"Well, black people aren't harmed from white people not paying, so nvm, we'll just repeatedly smash our faces into a brick wall to try and get them to abolish taxes instead."

That's ridiculous. The only reason someone would use this line of reasoning is deliberately trying to avoid admitting an institutionally sexist rule against men.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

They are being denied the ability to do so, but you think it's unfair to you?

Maybe in 1994, but I'm talking about the present. Nowadays, they do have the right to serve if they want to, but males are forced into the face of death without any regard for the current life they are living (or cut off their finger/other draft dodging techniques), which is a big risk.

They can't serve in combat roles as of right now.

They can serve in support roles however.

[Ayreonia]

no. they would sue to get rid of whatever stupid onerous bad thing you have forced them to sign up for. white people not having to be forced to do it would be irrelevant.

They tried this and the argument was "The state has a right to draft people, and it is necessary blah." basically.
This is the next step. "Okay, so draft everyone."
But apparently you aren't fine with that and would prefer they just try the same shit that failed in the 80s.

It's like if ONLY black people paid taxes and you sued to get rid of them, the government goes
"No, because we NEED somebody to pay taxes, and the state has an absolute right to levy them."

And you go
"Well, black people aren't harmed from white people not paying, so nvm, we'll just repeatedly smash our faces into a brick wall to try and get them to abolish taxes instead."

That's ridiculous. The only reason someone would use this line of reasoning is deliberately trying to avoid admitting an institutionally sexist rule against men.

It's almost as if this is the case in half of this thread.

[Imperializt Russia]

nope. it doesn't convince me. women not registering is irrelevant to the harm suffered by men and that harm will not be alleviated by women registering.

as long as we don't have a draft.

Imagine if women - and only women - had to register with the federal government and continually update their addresses promptly upon each move or be cut off from educational financial aid, good jobs, and even driver's licenses, for the purposes of... oh, let's say the possible eventuality that teachers are needed they can be drafted as teachers. It hasn't happened in a while, but ONLY women are required to do this.

Would that give rise to an equal protection claim?

It gives rise to a claim certainly, but it will likely not be supported.

I won't claim to understand "equal protection" but I think Ashmoria is right. Since the harm men are (let's face it, only at risk of) facing will not be alleviated by requiring women to register, then it would not be covered by equal protection. Making more people face more risks is absolutely not "protection", even if "equal".
One would probably have more luck launching a claim of equal protection by having the draft abolished completely.

Legally that is, not politically.

you keep saying it but it still doesn't convince me. women having to register wouldn't make those detriments any less.

No it doesn't, but it DOES give equal protection of the laws, which is currently lacking.

Picture if the selective service act only applied to african-americans. Still immune from an equal-protection claim?

Obviously not, because that is a division of men that makes no sense. There are arguments for a gender division. Some of them weak, some of them poor. But they exist and can be justified.

Gender divisions are not equivalent to racial or other divisions that would divide within one gender for some reason.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/BenchStandards.html
http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html
http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html

The strongest women who weigh 150 lbs can squat about 255...a man of the same weight who is "intermidately strong" can do the same. I know a guy who knew chris kyle, he was a big boy at 6'2" and 240. Maybe he was a big guy but to put that into comparison he could probably deadlift what an extremely strong 180 woman according to the chart could for about ten reps. Women are nowhere near as strong as men and that is kind of a bummer when you have to carry 100 or 200 lbs of gear in 110 degrees and fire with precision accuracy and potentially help a brother (or sister) in arms out of harms way. It makes no sense to have women in all combat roles, there are so few who could qualify that it would be ridiculous to accommodate them. There are plenty of combat roles that do not need physical strength, like being a pilot or vehicle operator. But to be completely fucking frank we do not require women to sign up for selective service because we have fucking men to do that. Estrogen makes you less aggressive and vice versa with testosterone. Men are stronger and more aggressive than women are. It's not like women shouldn't be allowed in the military but they are not usually designed by nature to go out and start killing 200 lb terrorists.

I'd like you to meet Jo Gordon.



She's an Apache helicopter pilot. Quite good, too, by all accounts.

Most military roles do not involve lots of heavy lifting.

Turns out the modern military requires technical expertise more than raw strength. I should know, because I'm stuck at AIT until April. My training even counts as college credits.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd like you to meet Jo Gordon.



She's an Apache helicopter pilot. Quite good, too, by all accounts.

Most military roles do not involve lots of heavy lifting.

Turns out the modern military requires technical expertise more than raw strength.

It's almost like it's not 1854 anymore.

[Uxupox]

http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/BenchStandards.html
http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html
http://www.exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifti ... dards.html

The strongest women who weigh 150 lbs can squat about 255...a man of the same weight who is "intermidately strong" can do the same. I know a guy who knew chris kyle, he was a big boy at 6'2" and 240. Maybe he was a big guy but to put that into comparison he could probably deadlift what an extremely strong 180 woman according to the chart could for about ten reps. Women are nowhere near as strong as men and that is kind of a bummer when you have to carry 100 or 200 lbs of gear in 110 degrees and fire with precision accuracy and potentially help a brother (or sister) in arms out of harms way. It makes no sense to have women in all combat roles, there are so few who could qualify that it would be ridiculous to accommodate them. There are plenty of combat roles that do not need physical strength, like being a pilot or vehicle operator. But to be completely fucking frank we do not require women to sign up for selective service because we have fucking men to do that. Estrogen makes you less aggressive and vice versa with testosterone. Men are stronger and more aggressive than women are. It's not like women shouldn't be allowed in the military but they are not usually designed by nature to go out and start killing 200 lb terrorists.

I'd like you to meet Jo Gordon.



She's an Apache helicopter pilot. Quite good, too, by all accounts.

Most military roles do not involve lots of heavy lifting.

Most combat MOS's do require heavy lifting though. Inf, Art, tank op and not to mention that schools like air assault, airborne, ranger, pathfinder and others.

[Uxupox]

I'd like you to meet Jo Gordon.



She's an Apache helicopter pilot. Quite good, too, by all accounts.

Most military roles do not involve lots of heavy lifting.

Turns out the modern military requires technical expertise more than raw strength. I should know, because I'm stuck at AIT until April. My training even counts as college credits.

BCT also counts as college credits I think.

[Imperializt Russia]

The only heavy lifting involved in artillery and tanks are the job of loader, outside of maintenance.
Artillery guns have multiple loaders and both gun crews and tank crews have roles not loader.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I'd like you to meet Jo Gordon.



She's an Apache helicopter pilot. Quite good, too, by all accounts.

Most military roles do not involve lots of heavy lifting.

Most combat MOS's do require heavy lifting though. Inf, Art, tank op and not to mention that schools like air assault, airborne, ranger, pathfinder and others.

Most MOS's aren't combat though.

[Uxupox]

The only heavy lifting involved in artillery and tanks are the job of loader, outside of maintenance.
Artillery guns have multiple loaders and both gun crews and tank crews have roles not loader.

If you want to achieve squad sergeant status you will need to pass through every single role. I was made ammo bearer when I newly arrived to my unit and I'm pretty sure the new guys that arrive at their duty stations at an artillery post as the loader.

[Uxupox]

Most combat MOS's do require heavy lifting though. Inf, Art, tank op and not to mention that schools like air assault, airborne, ranger, pathfinder and others.

Most MOS's aren't combat though.

True.

[Ayreonia]

The only heavy lifting involved in artillery and tanks are the job of loader, outside of maintenance.
Artillery guns have multiple loaders and both gun crews and tank crews have roles not loader.

There being ten hours of maintenance to one hour of driving. With tanks, at least. Not to mention super happy fun times like track dislocation in the field in half a meter of mud, camo netting, whenever something gets stuck... all of which need strength. It's not the cushy sitting job people make it out to be.

Besides that, tankers get basic infantry training, too.

[The Archregimancy]

It's almost like it's not 1854 anymore.

And not a day goes by that I don't regret the passing of Aberdeen's Peelite-Whig ministry, and Gladstone's first spell as Chancellor.

[Meinkraft]

.....What draft?

[Imperial City-States]

The only heavy lifting involved in artillery and tanks are the job of loader, outside of maintenance.
Artillery guns have multiple loaders and both gun crews and tank crews have roles not loader.

There being ten hours of maintenance to one hour of driving. With tanks, at least. Not to mention super happy fun times like track dislocation in the field in half a meter of mud, camo netting, whenever something gets stuck... all of which need strength. It's not the cushy sitting job people make it out to be.

Besides that, tankers get basic infantry training, too.

But no one likes Tankers.