Women and the Draft

I saw a "draft" thead in the JC community forum and it made me think of this topic. The only other thread that I could find that had a similar topic of conversation was locked so I decided to start this one.

Should women, especially in a day and age in which femenism has become so popular (equal rights between men and women), be eligible for the draft?

 

Yes.

They don't necessarily have to go to frontline positions.

 

Yes. Equal rights implies equal responsibilities. For every man drafted and sent to the front line, there should a be a woman drafted and sent with him (for fighting purposes) in a ratio representative of the population which the draftees are drawn from, in this case US citizens.

 

Yes. See, this is why we need the ERA (which would also basically require recognition of gay marriage, though that wouldn't be any help convincing them red states to go along with it).

 

Can you imagine your daughter being drafted? Forget that, I'd be waiting on my porch with an M-16 to make sure that wouldn't happen. Men and women aren't created equal, they don't have the muscles and the physical ability we have. They also don't play the same role in any society. We're raised to be warriors essentially, while they're raised to look good and have babies.

What possible benefit would there be for making women go into the army? There is none.

 

We're raised to be warriors essentially, while they're raised to look good and have babies.

? You can't be serious...

 

You can't be serious...

Yeah..I'm serious. If it's that hard of a concept to understand just take a look at the world around you and the different role men and women play in society. Obviously I generalized, but essentially what I said is accurate.

 

I agree with JediTre11. They can't have all the fun and none of the responsibility.

 

We're raised to be warriors essentially, while they're raised to look good and have babies.

Wow, all I can say to that is: "k, liek why dos my g/f slap me when i tell her getz in teh kichen?"

 

If I'm raised to be a warrior... why have I never held a weapon in my life? ?

You do however have a point about shear muscle mass, but in todays army, I don't think that matters so much as endurance.

-P!-

 

Actually it does make a difference. Women are subject to less stringent physical requirements than men in military basic training. Admittedly, those requirements test the endurance of female recruits, just as the requirements for men test their limits of endurance. The fact is, once in the field, a unit is only as strong as the weakest member of the team, and if someone is held to lower standards of physical endurance compared to other members of the team, there will be problems.

The point about muscle mass and physical strength is not a moot point. On the whole, the basic load that modern infantry carry into a combat zone has increased substantially. The same applies for other fields of duty in the military. Standards have increased over the last fifty years or so, the only difference is better technology in how to carry the laod and distribute the weight in properly designed load bearing equipment.

 

If it's that hard of a concept to understand just take a look at the world around you and the different role men and women play in society. Obviously I generalized, but essentially what I said is accurate.

It's hardly accurate.

Certainly there are men and women who fit into the generalizations and stereotypes, but there's also a good deal of overlap.

For my part, I say that if a woman can handle the same work that a man does, let her do it. Same goes for the reverse, regardless of the job.

 

We're raised to be warriors essentially, while they're raised to look good and have babies.


Uh......perhaps where YOU grew up, but I've never had that experience. Don't even know one guy who can carry a weapon! LOL

If the draft was implemented, women should be drafted as well, into whatever capacity that is appropriate.

 

For my part, I say that if a woman can handle the same work that a man does, let her do it. Same goes for the reverse, regardless of the job.

Ever since you lost the blue and white, I've been agreeing with you a heck of a lot more often.

PS: This is also why I refuse to hold a door for a woman if I wouldn't do it for any other person.

-P!-

 

Uh......perhaps where YOU grew up, but I've never had that experience. Don't even know one guy who can carry a weapon! LOL

It's nice to see everyone took me literally... great job guys...

It seems silly that I'd even have to explain what I meant, but I'll do so anyway I guess.

Ok, take a real hard look at the role of men and women in society. Notice the differences? Men are raised to be the protectors and providers, men generally take far more physical jobs, we have a far more active role in sports including contact sports, we're far more violent than women, etc..etc..

But even beyond our cultural role we have the natural tools to be great warriors. We have a LOT more physical strength than women, and we have a lot more endurance than women (men have far larger lung and heart capacity than women).

Plus, what is the typical guy that every women wants? Essentially they want a warrior, think about it, they want the guy with the big muscles, the guy in perfect physical condition, the kind of guy that would protect his woman at all costs. We have that ingrained in us, that's typically what every man wants to be. On the other hand what's the kind of girl that every man wants? We want a skinny girl with big boobs who is caring and will take care of the kids, etc.. That's typically what every woman strives to be. That's what our society tells them they should be. Really throughout history it's never been any different, women have always been the caretakers.

So you have two completely different mindsets of men and women in society. Women are raised to be as far away from what you'd want as a warrior as humanly possible. So what happens when the draft plucks thousands of Paris Hilton prototypes out of society? Even a year of training isn't going to get them battle ready, because it's a lot deeper than physical strength.

But more importantly, why? What purpose would we have for drafting women? Because there are a few that want equal rights to serve in the army? Is it a way to essentially punish the rest of them for those few? From the army's perspective, why would they want women? If you've got a pool of people to choose from, why choose the people that are less capable for battle?

It just doesn't make any sense.

 

hmm, i'll probably come back to this thread when i get home from china, i dont have a lot of time right now. If you're talking about drafting an infantry force, an argument can be made for excluding women. I'm not saying i'd make it, i need more time to think about this. On the other hand, if you're talking about drafting for other rolls, i don't think the argument can really be made for excluding women. i mean, how much muscle mass does it take to drive a tank, or move supplies? Like i said, if this is still here, i'll be back in a few days with more.

-Ryan

 

Women are subject to less stringent physical requirements than men in military basic training.

Except that taken at its face, this is a misnomer.

Everyone is subject to the same physical standards, they are just not tested in the same way.

The military physical test is based off of the minimum level of effort needed to stay in the military, factored by age and sex.

For example, women might have to do fewer push-ups than men, but a 30 year old has to do less in number than a 18 year old, regardless of sex..

So, if that rationale is used for women, it should apply to those who age as well.

Using that logic, nobody except 18-21 year old males would qualify for service.

The fact is, once in the field, a unit is only as strong as the weakest member of the team, and if someone is held to lower standards of physical endurance compared to other members of the team, there will be problems.

Except that is why the military operates as a team. Everyone's strengths should be maximized, and their weaknesses minimized. And everyone has their own strengths and weakness, regardless of how much they can bench press.

For example, it is no mystery why the biggest guy always gets assigned the machine gun, or the bookworm is put in charge of the maps, or the "Joe Fixit" keeps the equipment going.

In a way it is stereotypical, but it is the basis for the team. Because you want that diversity, those differing viewpoints.

You aren't going to give the bodybuilder the job of calculating the radio codes. It isn't going to work. If you have nothing but bodybuilders, you are going to be screwed.

Not only that, but differing experiences lead to differing viewpoints. A problem might be treated differently, or a solution more successful.

As such, I think anyone who meets the standards, and puts forth their best effort, should have a place on the team.

 

On the other hand what's the kind of girl that every man wants? We want a skinny girl with big boobs who is caring and will take care of the kids, etc.. That's typically what every woman strives to be. That's what our society tells them they should be. Really throughout history it's never been any different, women have always been the caretakers.

Wow. Just wow. Seriously.

Also, I would like to point out that while a lot of women are not fit for rigerous physical stuff, neither are a whole lot of men. And if women get drafted, who's saying they'll be doing the exact same thing as muscular 200 lbs guys with arms the size of their thighs?

 

Also, I would like to point out that while a lot of women are not fit for rigerous physical stuff, neither are a whole lot of men. And if women get drafted, who's saying they'll be doing the exact same thing as muscular 200 lbs guys with arms the size of their thighs?

Did you even read what I said? It's not only about physical differences, it's much deeper than that, it's about differences that are ingrained in our culture. That's the point I was trying to make, although you're the 5th person to grab something I said and take it completely out of context...

*shakes fist*

 

oh i see. Of course. Culture dictates that I should be in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, taking care of the husband and the kids. Whatever was I thinking.

You know, a few hundred years ago, culture/society dictated that Afrians in White society should all be slaves.

EDIT: Also, if I'm the 5th person to misunderstand what you're saying, maybe the problem's on your end.

 

While it's true culture can often dictate how things work in society, that doesn't mean it is the way things should be. If you look at even just the past 50 years or so, culture has changed so much that there's no reason to think it can't or won't change again in the future.

 

It's not only about physical differences, it's much deeper than that, it's about differences that are ingrained in our culture.

If it's not physical differences you're talking about, you don't have much of a leg to stand on, psychologically and sociologically speaking.

On the whole, men and women generally have differing strengths. However, some men are able to do jobs traditionally done by women and vice versa. This can be the result of natural aptitude, being raised to do certain tasks or a combination of other factors.

Culture is a fluid, ever-changing thing, and what was part of culture 100 years ago is different from how it is now. It will be different 100 years from now, and so on.

It is undeniable that men and women are biologically and psychologically different on some levels. However, such things allow for a great deal of overlap and that's where you see women doing the jobs men have traditionally done and likewise.

 

Can you imagine your daughter being drafted? Forget that, I'd be waiting on my porch with an M-16 to make sure that wouldn't happen.

Believe me, I understand where you're coming form. I'm a basically chivalrous person, and the thought of women being forced into combat doesn't sit well with me. (The thought of anyone being forced into combat is absolutely abhorrent, actually, but I mean especially women.) But basic justice and equality is more important than my sense of discomfort with the idea of women forced into combat. Believe me, i'd be a willing participant in no draft, but if one ever were to take place, it would be essential that both genders were held to the same standards.

We're raised to be warriors essentially, while they're raised to look good and have babies.

I have little doubt that my fiancée could completely beat me up, even if I were trying to defend myself.

I'm also one of the most pacifistic people I know. I have female friends who are aggressive and who are fighters; I'm non-violent on principle. I just hate violence and hate fighting.

So really, we're raised to be warriors? Don't they suspend kids who start fights on the playground, and aren't they usually harder on boys than girls? (They are in my experience.)

I should also point out that if we really are "raised" to be warriors (although I'm not sure that's what you mean), then women could be raised in that manner equally well, if need be. Perhaps a draft applied equally to both genders would help.

For my part, I say that if a woman can handle the same work that a man does, let her do it. Same goes for the reverse, regardless of the job.

Precisely. And I certainly don't think women should be barred from any role in the military on principle. If they are capable of serving a particular role, then they should be selected for it just as men are.

PS: This is also why I refuse to hold a door for a woman if I wouldn't do it for any other person.

Yeah, that's something I can't help, myself. But I agree from a philosophical standpoint that ideally it should not be the case.

Ok, take a real hard look at the role of men and women in society.

Yes, and I hate that about society. I loathe gender roles. I think anyone who is capable of doing something (I mean a job or something like that) and wants to do it should never be looked askance at, regardless of the gender. I don't think vocation/attitude and gender should be conected. And for the record, I happen to like emotionally strong, independent women. But then, maybe I'm just not a man, based on the way you see our gender...

On the other hand what's the kind of girl that every man wants? We want a skinny girl with big boobs who is caring and will take care of the kids, etc.. That's typically what every woman strives to be. That's what our society tells them they should be. Really throughout history it's never been any different, women have always been the caretakers.

Myself, I want (and am engaged to) a slim, small-breasted girl who is as caring to me as I am to her, because we love each other, but who is plenty assertive in terms of personality. And if everything works out as planned, I fully expect to be the one taking care of our children. So I suppose I just don't qualify as I guy by your standards, besides having all the requisite equipment. And if you're an example of the archetypical male, I'm also not sufficiently stereotypical or prejudiced.

But even beyond our cultural role we have the natural tools to be great warriors. We have a LOT more physical strength than women, and we have a lot more endurance than women (men have far larger lung and heart capacity than women).

If you're going to use this as an argument, then I propose a new kind of draft altogether. A national test should be conducted to test the physical capability of each

 

We're raised to be warriors essentially, while they're raised to look good and have babies.

I can see how this might be true historically, but these are the very sterotypes that feminism works against. Few modern women would agree that she was raised to look good, therefore she thats all she should do.

That's typically what every woman strives to be. That's what our society tells them they should be.

Maybe the latter, but certainly not the former. Not enough to call it the typical behavior of women in general.

Plus, what is the typical guy that every women wants? Essentially they want a warrior, think about it, they want the guy with the big muscles, the guy in perfect physical condition, the kind of guy that would protect his woman at all costs.

I would agree with the protection part, but beyond that... In my experience, muscles take a back seat to talent, personality and, dare I say it, money (lol).

 

Yeah, that's something I can't help, myself. But I agree from a philosophical standpoint that ideally it should not be the case.

This is why I'm a nice guy and I hold doors period, etc, etc.

But damnit, you want the vote, that means I don't have to hold doors or anything else for you if I don't want to!

-P!-