Women and the Draft

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

You've obviously never heard of Boadicea, have you?

Could you be anymore insulting?

 

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!

Errrm?
-Paul

 

It's a stupid as all heck joke I made years ago...

Basically, women got legal equality, so men shouldn't have to make up for it anymore, by doing stupid things like holding a door. The subconsious guilt is gone already.

-P!-

 

Ooh. Gotcha. I thought you were addressing me, which made the isse slightly confusing. Thanks for the clarification!

-Paul

 

Ok, I'm back. I can't reply to everybody, but I'll just explain myself better than I have been and I think in turn it will answer everyones replies to what I've said.

Ok, throughout history men and women have had very distinct roles in society. It's something that transcends cultures, it doesn't matter if you were in Africa in 30 A.D. or you were in America at 450 B.C., men have ALWAYS been the warriors while women have always been the caretakers. (There are always exceptions, but most if not all were in extreme cirumstances)

There are very logical reasons why we have these different roles. For one, men are far more aggressive and have a lot more physical abilities than women. If when we're growing up boys are naturally attracted to the "violent" toys and the action cartoons. That tells me it's something deep in our psyche that we're born with.

On the other hand women are far more nurturing and far less aggressive. They don't have the physical abilities that men do and they also aren't drawn to the violent toys or action cartoons or movies as boys are. The only reason why I would mention that is because I believe it's our natural instinct that attracts boys to those types of toys, even 2000 years ago boys played with the equivalent of today's G.I. Joes (Gladiator toys). Even if you take a look at the animal kingdom, their genre roles are defined in the same way, the males are the warriors while the women are the caretakers.

So because we have these natural and cultural roles it's asinine that we should force women to go against everything they've ever learned and any natural traits they have to all of a sudden become warriors. Like I've said, what happens when we draft 1000 Paris Hilton prototypes and expect them to kill the enemy? Training them to become battle ready would be an almost impossible feat because it goes against EVERYTHING they know. Just go to your local high school or college and imagine those girls being combat effective, it's completely implausible.

Before I got barraged with all the exceptions to the rule (like I already have been), there are exceptions to EVERY rule. Darth_Paul just because you're a girly man doesn't mean you represent the majority of males in this country. Also I would like to point out before I get attacked some more that I feel women that can serve any role in society they wish, and I'm not saying they SHOULD be caretakers or nurturers, I'm just telling it how it is. I realize some people are so blinded by the politically correct culture we live they choose not to see it, but that doesn't mean these roles don't exist.

I would also like to say, what if women are being drafted for combat roles and what happens when the first image of a beautiful woman with her legs blown off gets to the media? (Imagine the Jessica Lynch coverage but 10x more coverage) If there is one way to destroy public support for a war, that's it right there. The point I'm trying to make is that fairness isn't a good enough reason considering EVERYONE loses if women were drafted. It's not good for our country, it's not good for the women, it's not good for the military. There are always issues where the good of society outways "fairness" (Affirmative Action), this issue is no different.

I'm in a hurry so I probably jumped from issue to issue, but I hope you guys can better understand where I'm coming from. If you still disagree with me read it a couple more times...

 

There are always issues where the good of society outways "fairness" (Affirmative Action), this issue is no different.

I think that regardless of the benefits affirmative action may have (which are dubious at best) its inherent unfairness and promotion of racial inequality should prevent it from being used in legal policy, or employed by any institution that accepts public money. But that's really a debate for another thread.

I've read it a couple of times, and I still absolutely disagree.

-Paul

 

Well, you are the exception...

 

This is an interesting question, but I have to say I'm in favor of women being part of the draft. Let me just say that I would be very pissed off if I were to find myself drafted and sent off to the battlefield, not because I was the best candidate available, but because I was one of the better male candidates available. Surprisingly enough, I dislike being discriminated on the basis of gender as well - especially when I might be the one dying.

On the other hand, I can see how drafting women could end up hurting me if I weren't drafted, as how would I feel if a female family member were drafted rather than me? Suddenly, everyone in a family and within the age bracket would be eligible to be safe. It's a very daunting though.

I'm actually against the draft. It makes it all too easy to infringe upon the freedoms of citizens. We have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, can't be searched without a warrant, but can be sent out to fight and possibly die in a war we're against. (Although the current administration seems to be doing a wonderful job of dismantling rights).

But the end result is that throughout life, rights entail responsibilities. It's how people are kept from abusing those rights. So why should a certain group hold equal rights, but less responsibilities, in the name of 'equality'?

 

I'm just telling it how it is. I realize some people are so blinded by the politically correct culture we live they choose not to see it, but that doesn't mean these roles don't exist.

You're telling it like you see it, but not how it is.

Psychology clearly shows differences between men and women. Men and women complement each other in many ways. However, some men are quite feminine in nature, and vice versa, and it isn't by choice. It's just natural instinct coupled with how such people are raised, and that leads to some of the "exceptions" you refer to. Unfortunately for the argument you're making, the exceptions mount to such a number that they're no longer exceptions.

What you seem to see as black and white is actually a great deal of grey area. What seems obvious generalization is actually very complex.

 

See, KW makes a valid point here, Cyp.

I think most of the assumptions are coming from your end.

Taking the larger issue of the draft into consideration, what makes you think a man who doesn't want to be drafted would be any more, or any less capable than a woman, simply because he is a man?

Like I've said, what happens when we draft 1000 Paris Hilton prototypes and expect them to kill the enemy?

But again, you are the one assuming that women are all like Paris Hilton. Women have a wide range of body types and capabilities, just like men.

To assume that 1,000's of Paris Hilton's would be drafted is just as irrelevent as assuming 1,000's of Rambos would be drafted.

So because we have these natural and cultural roles it's asinine that we should force women to go against everything they've ever learned and any natural traits they have to all of a sudden become warriors.

And this exact same argument has already been disproven. It was used regarding female fighter pilots, female police officers, etc...

One of the main concerns that prevented women from being fighter pilots was a fear that they wouldn't engage, that they lacked this "warrior spirit" you speak of.

Well, it simply wasn't true. As a group, women fighter pilots are no more or no less aggressive than their counterparts.

A female police officer can arrest subjects just as well.. It's called training, and it acts as a great equalizer.

Finally, perhaps you have a misconception about the military in general.

For a long time now, mental stamina and quick decision making skills have been promoted over physical strength.

Modern tanks, for example, can track multiple targets using IR sights and thermal imaging.

You don't have to be a bodybuilder to have the ability to distinguish the 3 enemy tanks out of the 5 friendly ones, all within a matter of seconds..

You don't have to be man to track 15 different incoming targets on a Patriot radar.

Even the infantry soldier is becoming more and more digitized, and women can sight a aimpoint system on a rifle, just as a man can.

 

Exactly, Mr44, which is why the "strength" argument is bust. There are plenty of combat roles that do not require brute strength.

 

There are though certain areas where it will be much harder for women to gain acess, special ops being one of them. Yes it requires intelligence but it also requires a peak physical conditioning.

I do not think though that it is unreasonable women would serve to the best of their abilities, just as men as asked to serve to the best of theirs.

 

Psychology clearly shows differences between men and women. Men and women complement each other in many ways. However, some men are quite feminine in nature, and vice versa, and it isn't by choice. It's just natural instinct coupled with how such people are raised, and that leads to some of the "exceptions" you refer to. Unfortunately for the argument you're making, the exceptions mount to such a number that they're no longer exceptions.

No no no, being feminine (possessing qualities attributed to WOMEN) is NATURAL for women. That's how most women are born and how they're raised in society. Men aren't that way, it's not natural for men. Therefore the exception is you're going to have masculine (possessing qualities attributed to MEN) women and feminine males. What is so hard to understand? All you have to do is open your eyes and take a look at the world around you! There are far better arguments for women being drafted than just denying the obvious differences.

What you seem to see as black and white is actually a great deal of grey area. What seems obvious generalization is actually very complex.

Actually it's only complex if you refuse to see these differences.

 

Hmm, something of interest, I forget the name of the project, but the military has some new project in the works that would totally redesign your standard infantry equipment. It actually reminds me of a Stormtrooper kinda. Well, anyway, part of this is an outfit that employs an exoskeloten of strenght enhancing fibers or some such. It's something like 10 years off from being fesable, but when it is, the issue of strenght for an infantry man just totally went flying out the window at moch 5.

No no no, being feminine (possessing qualities attributed to WOMEN) is NATURAL for women. That's how most women are born and how they're raised in society. Men aren't that way, it's not natural for men. Therefore the exception is you're going to have masculine (possessing qualities attributed to MEN) women and feminine males. What is so hard to understand? All you have to do is open your eyes and take a look at the world around you! There are far better arguments for women being drafted than just denying the obvious differences.

Yeah, all of my friends who are girls, hate the little preppy girls. And are quite different. Heck, I'd rather have to fight with one of them, due to brain mass, than most people of my own gender, due to shear mental stupidity.

Mr44, I think I mentioned this in either this thread, or Urik-Hai's similier thread a week or so ago, but aren't womens spatial perception (That may or may not be the term, I forget) better than mens? Meaning, they can more easilly keep track of things in lets say a dogfight, or something of that nature. Meaning, in an area filled with activity, a woman would perform better.

-P!-

 

Taking the larger issue of the draft into consideration, what makes you think a man who doesn't want to be drafted would be any more, or any less capable than a woman, simply because he is a man?

Yep. I sure as hell don't want to be drafted in these days with a rogue president that has no clue what he's doing. That doesn't mean if I were I wouldn't be capable of doing my duties. It's ingrained in who I am, from my natural instinct to what society has told me to be. With some training I'd be able to effectively serve in battle.

But again, you are the one assuming that women are all like Paris Hilton. Women have a wide range of body types and capabilities, just like men.

God dang it, would people just stop making stuff up!! When did I say all women are like Paris Hilton?!?!?! Find me where it says that Mr_44!

And this exact same argument has already been disproven. It was used regarding female fighter pilots, female police officers, etc...

No, it's not. There are always exceptions and there are always going to be women that can do the job as effectively as men if not more. Back when this was an issue I always felt women should be able to do what they want as long as they meet the requirements. My opinion hasn't changed. My stance has never been that women can't do the job, the point is that you can't grab a hand full of women from society and expect them to become warriors. Certainly a few are capable, but again, they are exceptions.

One of the main concerns that prevented women from being fighter pilots was a fear that they wouldn't engage, that they lacked this "warrior spirit" you speak of.

Again, I've NEVER said all women can't be warriors. There are always exceptions, get that through your head.

For a long time now, mental stamina and quick decision making skills have been promoted over physical strength.

Good word, mental stamina. I don't think the majority of women have the mental stamina to be battle effective. It goes against everything their natural instinct tells them to be and against everything our culture and society tells them to be. This not just about physical strength like I've said a million times, it's about the mindset of women these days.

 

Yeah, all of my friends who are girls, hate the little preppy girls.

Preppy? It has NOTHING to do with preppy, get that stuff out of here.

 

Um... you're the one talking about what I assume to be "girly girls." And you also seem to be assuming that they are the norm, with all women being like that.

-P!-

 

Um... you're the one talking about what I assume to be "girly girls." And you also seem to be assuming that they are the norm, with all women being like that.

Can I get someone that doesn't put words in my mouth? Anyone? Where have I said all women are like that? I'll give you a clue, I haven't...

 

Can I get someone that doesn't put words in my mouth? Anyone? Where have I said all women are like that? I'll give you a clue, I haven't...


Welcome to the Senate floor Cyprusg

 

You're not out right saying it, but it's painfully clear what you mean. Don't insult our intelligence by now claiming that you had so such thing in mind.

-P!-

 

No no no, being feminine (possessing qualities attributed to WOMEN) is NATURAL for women.

It's natural for probably the majority of women. However, it is not natural for many other women, and femininity is a subjective thing, measured in degrees. It's not an all or nothing quantity.

Men aren't that way, it's not natural for men. Therefore the exception is you're going to have masculine (possessing qualities attributed to MEN) women and feminine males

Bzzt. No. It's natural for quite a lot of men to have a degree of feminity to them, which doesn't exclude them from possessing plenty of masculine qualities as well.

What is so hard to understand? All you have to do is open your eyes and take a look at the world around you! There are far better arguments for women being drafted than just denying the obvious differences.

I'm afraid I've studied gender differences to a small degree at the college level and done a bit of reading on my own. What you're saying isn't borne out by the academic world.

Actually it's only complex if you refuse to see these differences.

There certainly are differences between men and women. Only a fool would say otherwise. However, the differences can overlap and be fluid in nature. They aren't static.

I think I mentioned this in either this thread, or Urik-Hai's similier thread a week or so ago, but aren't womens spatial perception (That may or may not be the term, I forget) better than mens?

I was under the impression that men's spatial and logical abilities tend to be stronger than women's. I could be wrong on this, but men and women's strength do tend to be a little different on the whole and thus complement each other. However, it's only a generality and I know several females whose logical abilities far surpass those of most men.

It's ingrained in who I am, from my natural instinct to what society has told me to be.

In who you are, I'm sure. Not necessarily in everyone else.

My stance has never been that women can't do the job, the point is that you can't grab a hand full of women from society and expect them to become warriors. Certainly a few are capable, but again, they are exceptions.

And there are plenty of men who are unable to "become warriors," although being a warrior certainly begs the question of just what a warrior is in the first place.

Good word, mental stamina. I don't think the majority of women have the mental stamina to be battle effective.

That's just silly. Hundreds of millions of women go through a certain process called childbirth, which many consider the most physically difficult process for either sex. Many women go through this process on multiple occasions.

t goes against everything their natural instinct tells them to be and against everything our culture and society tells them to be.

What part of society are you listening to? It's not the part I'm listening to, that's for sure. Nor is it the part of society those who I'm closest listen to.

This not just about physical strength like I've said a million times, it's about the mindset of women these days.

I honestly find that intellectually insulting, and I'm a male. I don't see how any reasonable person can say that women don't have the mental stamina to do what's necessary in the military or any other difficult job.

 

You're not out right saying it, but it's painfully clear what you mean. Don't insult our intelligence by now claiming that you had so such thing in mind.

LOL, I think what you just said was more of an insult to your intelligence than anything I could say. Not only haven't I said that all women are like that, I've never thought it, and I've even said the exact opposite time and time again throughout this thread.

I knew this would happen before I even posted in this thread. I knew from the moment I said there were cultural differences between a man and a woman which causes men to be more mentally and physically equipped for war that there would be people that would try and pigeon-hold me as a sexist conservative who feels women can't do the job men can (stereotype if you will). Well guess what, I'm an atheist liberal.

This has NEVER been about the role of women as I feel it should be, it's been about the role of women in which it currently is.

 

KnightWriter, you're not reading what I'm saying at all. I've got to go, but I'll try to reply tonight or tomorrow morning.

 

Cyprusg - Given all your emphasis on strength and mental stamina and warrior spirit, would you please address my "fitness draft" proposal on the previous page? All your points lead me to believe you would support it; if you wouldn't, I'd like to know why.

Edit:

This has NEVER been about the role of women as I feel it should be, it's been about the role of women in which it currently is.

But the thing is, sometimes it's necessary to break the status quo! If people had only been concerned with "the role of women in which it currently is," then women would never have been granted the right to hold property independently, and women's suffrage would never have happened. In order to make changes, it's necessary to act on things as they should be.

-Paul

 

I knew this would happen before I even posted in this thread. I knew from the moment I said there were cultural differences between a man and a woman which causes men to be more mentally and physically equipped for war

But what culture are you referring to?

There are dozens and dozens of cultures throughout the world.