A special post just for the Warbler: Hazel Findlay FA

I think if you look at her training and efforts and philosophy and approach, it's like ecofeminism 3.0.

I know a woman [Merle Lefkoff] who did mediation and conflict resolution in the Balkans about 25 years ago. She told me that the strongest method of outreach was to work with the women, because as child bearers and family builders, they were the better people to reach out to as change agents, in that in many ways, it's men that are imbued with the tendency toward retaliation and war and that endless cycle of aggression.

It's the women who are more likely to seek change and to rebuild. If anybody remembers what Werner said a while back, "when the men fail, the women start leading".

Another example that has always held strong within me comes from a novel by Jon Fowles called The Magus. In it, he describes war as essentially a total breakdown by men of an understanding of relationship; of relationship to self, to partner, to family, to environment, and to everything that matters.

So you go for the women when you want that kind of productive change!

That's it. Simple, isn't it. Equal rights and opportunities.

6 Reasons Women Shouldn't Register For Selective Service

AP Photo/John Bazemore
ByAMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO
@amandapresto
February 12, 2016
Last week, four U.S. military leaders voiced their support for women registering for Selective Service at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Since women are now allowed in combat and such endorsements were made, the issue has made its way to the forefront in the media, even rearing its head in the latest Republican Presidential debate.

Unfortunately, many have backed this idea—on both sides of the aisle. But here’s the truth: Women registering for Selective Service is an all-around bad idea any way you slice it. This would be damaging to both our servicemen and servicewomen and would be morally reprehensible. Not to mention, the entire proposal is a stunt to appease the politically correct “social justice” agenda lauded by liberal elites who in no way have the best interest of women or our country in mind.

Here are the top six reasons, in no particular order, why women shouldn’t register for Selective Service:

1. This will create a weaker military where both servicemen and servicewomen pay the price in precious blood, because YES, women are different than men physically.

As mentioned before, combat roles are already open to women, but of course, if women registered for Selective Service and a draft was in fact implemented, the number of females on the military front lines could skyrocket (currently women only comprise about 14 percent of the military overall). This would weaken our forces and unnecessarily cost both male and female blood.

The obvious reason being: men are more equipped physically than women on the battle field. Yes, men are generally stronger than women, by a lot. This is not only borne out through every piece of anecdotal evidence ever, but also through biological studies.

Further, a study from “The Marine Corps Force Integration Plan” confirmed that this translated to the military, finding that “a mixed-gender unit was injured twice as often as an all-male unit, was less accurate with infantry weapons, and was less efficient at removing wounded troops from the battlefield.”

Here’s exactly what the study found:

Overall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews. Gender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events.

Speed All-male squads, regardless of infantry MOS [Military Occupational Specialty], were faster than the gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement. The differences were more pronounced in infantry crew-served weapons specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew-served weapons and ammunition.

Lethality: All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%, M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%.

All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.

All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties.

Bottom line, a weaker military would cost lives and injuries. Creating a weaker military purposefully all so liberal elites can pat themselves on the back would be grotesque.

2. All positions of the military are currently open to women; mandating military conscription will only force unwilling female participants, not advance “equality” as suggested.

As of December, all positions, including combat roles, within the military are open for women who meet the requirements. Thus, if a woman would like to serve her country in any role at all, and is capable, she can. With no restrictions on access, mandating women to register for Selective Service would, again, only force unwilling participants in the name of “equality.”​

3. Daughters, sisters and wives serving will be targeted.

America has been engaged in a war in the Middle East for over a decade, and as much as the left denies it, our enemies' cultures are vastly inferior to that of the West. Simply taking a look at how women are treated would clear this up. Because this is true, imagining what would be done to a woman who is captured is completely terrifying. And to pretend that barbaric groups like ISIS and Boko Haram—who have cut off the heads of Christian children and captured Nigerian school girls—would not specifically target women is truly moronic. Women will be targeted and men will risk their lives at all costs to save women because this is America.

Not only would it be irresponsible to put a woman, and the men who would subsequently fight for her, in such obvious risk would be morally repugnant.

4. Standards will be lowered.

As mentioned above, women are generally physically weaker than men. If/when huge numbers of women are in the military (if the draft were to be implemented) you can bet physical standards will be lowered in the name of group justice. Here’s why: the same “social justice warriors” who are pushing women to register for Selective Service will be there counting every promotion and measuring enrollment of women in all positions, and when the same number of women aren’t promoted as men in combat, or unequal percentages of gender hold a position, the "warriors" will "fix" this "inequality" by implementing quotas and lowering standards. (By the way, female firefighters have already been admitted even though they have failed the fitness test and women in the police force already have lower physical standards than men.)

The truth is, the military already has quotas for women in the military, they are called "gender diversity metrics." Also, women already get promoted in the military at a rate greater than or equal to men and there is no way that's not inflated for reasons of "equality." Thus, this idea that standards will in fact be lowered becomes all the more plausible. Again, lowering standards across the board (which is more likely to happen, because “equality”), would only weaken our military.

5. A majority of women oppose a mandate for women to register for Selective Service.

According to a Rasmussen survey, only 38 percent of women agreed that women should register for Selective Service. While this is already a low number, it is likely inflated for two reason: one, the report surveyed women of all ages and not women who would potentially be mandated to serve if said draft were to be implemented, and two, the survey was taken earlier this month, a time when the draft was (and still is) dormant. Arguably, if women who were liable to the mandate were exclusively surveyed, or if this survey was taken at a time when the draft was active and thus more of a reality, the already low 38 percent of women in favor of the mandated would be even lower.

Clearly, mandating women to register for Selective Service would force women to participate in something they overwhelmingly reject.

6. It's morally reprehensible.

Obviously, this notion that fixing mythical "inequality" trumps safety of both men and women is morally reprehensible. To sum it up in one line from a man who served this fine country: “The moral point that a country which sends its wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters into the meat grinder of combat has preemptively surrendered a vital portion of its own humanity.”

For some more thoughts, read Matt Walsh’s take on the moral deficiencies involved with women registering for Selective Service here.

When Male Ducks Hang Out Together Their Dicks Get Longer

and Tarbuster: man, i say this with sincerity, cause i love your presence on this board [and so while we’ve never met, it’d be a pleasure and an honour to buy you a beer someday]. but if i hear you second hand report the thoughts of the women in your life, based on your telling of what is happening on this board, i think i’ll be inspired to devote my life's energy to working on developing a teleporting computer solely so i can throw a book at my screen and it’ll pop out of your screen and smack you in the face… :) [it’s ok it’ll be a paperback…]

shIt, i bet you if you explained to me what The Warbler was saying, i’d agree with him too…

Women don't play blues with the feeling the great male blues players do

F -- Everyone should be equally obligated to register with the selective service and sent off to die as cannon fodder in meaningless conflicts. But they aren't. Why is that?