Why Feminists Ignored Being Forced To Sign Up For The Draft

It’s official, starting in two years all women 18 years of age must register for Selective Services, meaning they can legally be forced to go spread Agent Orange and kill villages full of babies overseas or be sentenced to prison.

There wasn’t any measurable response from the feminist movement. Mostly because it’s understood that the US carries out its slaughtering of civilians through a drone strike program now so there will never be enough boots on the ground to necessitate another draft.

But also, they don’t care about war. They care about complaining that reading about war might be a Trigger Warning. They care about themselves. Not the people dying in the wars.

This is the Hillary crowd, those who demand equality at all costs. If a man can be a war pig, we should have our own war pig goddamn it! They will chastise your use of gender pronouns though because that’s the world’s leading cause of suffering behind Hillary Clinton taking out your turban clad nephew with a Boeing.

Also, women are extremely selective when it comes to advocating equal rights. At the end of the day, self-interest makes the world go ’round. When it comes to World War III, I wouldn’t be picketing to be conscripted either. Same way you can go on a date with some girl who will lecture you about equality the entire time and not offer to split the bill.

We’ll keep that one.

Progressiveness would be abolishing the draft. Not making women sign up too.

I have a theory: The Colin Powells and Dick Cheneys of the world think there may end up being another draft.

There are various ways to get out of actually going to war if you are drafted. You can fake a mental illness or physical disability. Those options are on the table. But now that you can legally change your gender from Male to Female, any dude with a decent head on his shoulders would just hit up the DMV and identify as a woman if shit got close to going down. For that reason the war pigs leveraged some of the self-righteous LGBTQ activism to put themselves in a better position. That excuse is won’t work now. Prior to a few days ago, draft criteria were as follows:

“Females as well as female-to-male transgender individuals who identify as male or have had sexual reassignment surgery are not required to register.”

Clinton herself echoes the sentiment of selective equality. In 2007 when asked if women should be required to register she said this:

“I do. I don’t support a draft. I think our all-volunteer military has performed superbly. But we’ve had women die in Iraq. We’ve had combat deaths of women in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I do think that women should register. I doubt very much that we’ll ever have to go back to a draft. But I think it is fair to call upon every young American.”

Yet, this October, as her candidacy loomed and she targeted the entitled middle class middle aged middle of the road self righteous white feminist crowd, she said this:

“You know, from my perspective, the all-volunteer military has worked, and we should not do anything that undermines it because it has provided a solid core of people who are willing to serve our country. The idea of having everybody register concerns me a little bit, unless we have a better idea of where that’s going to come out.”

Interesting. So the most pro-war candidate is now making it known she’s not so sure women should be forced to participate in a war she may hypothetically start.

Don’t offer to split the bill, got it.

The reason the law just passed is somewhat ironic. The National Defense Authorization Act was up for a vote. This is a bill which breaks down the US’s insane military budget for the year. The way bills work is various politicians augment them for their own personal monetary benefits and a bunch of squabbling ensues.

A douchebag Republican named Duncan Hunter inserted a provision that women be required to register for the draft as an obstruction tactic because he didn’t think liberals would vote for it and therefore the bill would be killed.

Turns out he was wrong.

I would wager a bet that less than half of all feminist Twitter slacktivists are familiar with the National Organization for Women, or NOW. Their advocacy helped pass seminal anti-discrimination measures and they historically have been the most powerful lobbying group on women’s issues dating back to when there were actually legitimate issues.

NOW was the first group to lobby that women be included in the draft. However, their motivation was not out of actual desire to be included in the draft. The group was vehemently anti-war and, knowing there was zero chance of a bill passing to include women in the draft, were using their lobbying power as a legal means of abolishing the draft as excluding them based on gender was unconstitutional.

Yet I didn’t hear one peep from today’s feminists about abolishing the draft or acknowledging their inclusion in it. Perhaps it’s because their candidate likes to invade other countries and talk of war isn’t especially self serving at the moment.

What’s important is I get to post #girlpower shit on my Facebook page, screw the Syrian babies.

Men and women are equally capable of doing most things, yet in some instances one gender is better than the other.

For example, men are better at getting in fist fights about video games. Women are better at watching reality TV. Men are better at hard labor and women are better at child care.

Men are better at war.

Assuming you’re super into invading other countries and slaughtering their populations in exchange for natural resources and hegemony, you don’t want women fighting in wars. For one thing, they complain more than men, but the main reasoning is twofold:

  1. When men see women being mowed down by bullets they have a more adverse reaction to it than when it happens to a man and they tend to lose morale.
  2. Everyone would be constantly fucking and realize that war is stupid and desert their posts.

Women are bad for war because they’re more sensitive to killing other people than men. That’s why you’ve never seen a woman shoot up a bunch of people in a movie theater. They’re not wired for it.

That’s also why the overwhelming feminist support for a pro-war candidate is so paradoxical. The old joke used to be that if a woman got into office there wouldn’t be any more wars, and they found the exception to this rule.

If, in a hypothetical scenario, there was a draft and an equal number of men and women were forced to serve in a no doubt unjust war, I would hypothesize that many more women than men would apply to be conscientious objectors.

This is a designation for people who are morally opposed to combat and the Army lets you hang out on the base and send faxes. So not a lot would change. Although there would probably be at least one prom queen named Ashley executing Afghan civilians with a Hillary 2016 shirt under her fatigues.

Also, a few of them would argue that as women they should have never been drafted.

I’m just wondering if women would be forced to get military haircuts like the men.

My guess is they could still have their ponytails.

We’ll keep that one.

Not quite time to split the bill.


Matt Ralston is a comedian and writer based in Los Angeles. Follow him on Twitter @MatthewRalston

Leave a Reply