Women and the Draft

Cysprug, what makes you even think the drafting of men would work any better?

From what I know, it really did not do any miracles for the psyche of men during Vietnam. That could just have been the nature of the combat though.

-P!-

 

What makes you think it's a small minority?

Through the process of living...

 

Or literally every culture throughout the history of the world...

Well, the Greeks certainly considered the Amazons worthy foes. But the evidence that the Amazons existed is sketchy at best. That's not the case for the Scythians, who by all archaeological evidence seem to have treated and honored men and women exactly the same way as warriors. (Scythian female warriors even dressed just as the men did.) The Bohemians had an Amazon-like tribe of warrior-women who, IIRC, were famous for slaughtering the men of the country while fighting its government sometime in the early Middle Ages.

There have been societies for which we have pretty good evidence of ferocious female warriors. So you most certainly cannot say it's "literally ever culture throughout the history of the world" -- that's simply not true.

By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to my proposal of drafting only the people most fit for the job that I made on the first page.

-Paul

 

Cysprug, what makes you even think the drafting of men would work any better?

From what I know, it really did not do any miracles for the psyche of men during Vietnam. That could just have been the nature of the combat though.

Well, I'm completely against the draft anyway. But if the government is one day going to do the draft again, it doesn't make any sense to draft the women.

 

Through the process of living...

That's simply anecdotal evidence, evidence that can be offset by someone else's "process of living". It doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

My own experiences seem to differ a bit with yours, leading me to different conclusions.

 

Well, I'm glad you're against the draft. I am too, and I strongly believe it should never be employed, regardless of the circumstances.

But I don't think it makes sense or is particularly just to draft one sex and not the other, especially in a military with as many diverse roles to fill as ours.

-Paul

 

Well, the Greeks certainly considered the Amazons worthy foes. But the evidence that the Amazons existed is sketchy at best. That's not the case for the Scythians, who by all archaeological evidence seem to have treated and honored men and women exactly the same way as warriors. (Scythian female warriors even dressed just as the men did.) The Bohemians had an Amazon-like tribe of warrior-women who, IIRC, were famous for slaughtering the men of the country while fighting its government sometime in the early Middle Ages.

Errr... you sure it was the Scythians and not the Sarmatrians (sp?)? I believe they had active roles for women in combat, but that was a very extreme set of circumstance. They were constantly at war, and women weren't allowed to marry (unofficial law) until they killed in battle.

There have been societies for which we have pretty good evidence of ferocious female warriors. So you most certainly cannot say it's "literally ever culture throughout the history of the world" -- that's simply not true.

I wasn't referring to the combat role in general, obviously throughout history women have played a role in combat. But never was it forced on women except in extreme circumstances.

By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to my proposal of drafting only the people most fit for the job that I made on the first page.

Mr_44 has asked me the same thing, it'll be a long reply so I probably won't reply to that question tonight.

 

That's simply anecdotal evidence, evidence that can be offset by someone else's "process of living". It doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

My own experiences seem to differ a bit with yours, leading me to different conclusions.

Well obviously I can't offer any concrete proof to any of the broad statements I've made. It seems obvious to me, but whatever.

 

No, I do mean the Scythians. As far as I know, there were no particularly extenuating circumstances; they just included women in their fighting forces as a matter of course. I don't know how the Scythian military operated, so I can't say if women were forced into service, but certainly, there's no evidence that it was particularly notable for a woman to serve in combat, or that women were regarded any differently from men in war roles.

Didn't the Spartans train women warriors as a matter of course? I don't think military service was compulsary for Spartan women, though it was certianly allowed, but I think Spartan girls were trained in the art of war universally.

-Paul

 

As far as I know Spartan women were supposed to guard the cities when the men were out fighting battles. So I'm assuming they were trained like men.

I did a search on google and it says the Scythian women weren't warriors, but when they started mating with the Amazons they became the Sarmatians which because of the Amazons had an active role in combat. I didn't realize they were all connected, learn something new everyday! One more interesting thing, it says the Sarmatian women would cauterize their right breasts as young girls so they wouldn't grow right breats so their right arm would be more effective in combat. Now that's dedication!

 

From what I know, Spartan women did learn basic battle technics for home deffence.

But then again, basic Spartan training has to be the equivilent of normal training for most other countries.

One more interesting thing, it says the Sarmatian women would cauterize their right breasts as young girls so they wouldn't grow right breats so their right arm would be more effective in combat. Now that's dedication!

If you want dedication, I've heard that Amazonian women would cut off their right breast to be better archers. Not sure if this is true or not, the evidance is shacky at best if I recall correctally.

-P!-

 

I did a search on google and it says the Scythian women weren't warriors, but when they started mating with the Amazons they became the Sarmatians which because of the Amazons had an active role in combat.

Hmm, in this case we may all be talking about the same people and simply having nomenclature problems. My recollections of the evidence for the Scythian women-warriors involve elaborate burial sites containing the remains of both men and women in full battle dress and with weaponry. If your site is correct, that find might be from after they began mating with the Amazons. Of course, I was also not aware that there was heavy evidence for the existence of the Amazons beyond the Greek accounts (traditionally considered largely legendary) -- you do, indeed, learn something new every day. More inquiry is called for, I can tell.

-Paul

 

Going to throw out this article for you guys to chew on. Got it off of Congress.Org's webpage.

--------------

Article Here

Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.

The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.

Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!

Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.

 

I definitely think this proposal is horrible for several reasons (see the thread on bringing back the draft for my thoughts), but am glad to see that at least it appears to treat the genders equally.

-Paul

 

My father was a draftee during Vietnam, my grandfather during World War II. I hate the draft, and I will definitely be pissed off if it is enacted to support the Blood for Oil War.

If I had been old enough to walk while Vietnam was raging, I would have been holding a picket sign and been arrested with the best of them. And if the draft is re-enacted, I will be in the middle of the protests, which I hope will resemble those during Vietnam.

However, I am glad to see that if the draft is re-enacted, women will be included--and I'll get to burn my own draft card. It is a step towards freeing America from archaic and prejudicial stereotypes about women not being capable of fighting.

 

*Anakin_Girl receives a draft card to fight Shorty at a local Starbucks parking lot*

 

*buys a Venti-sized Breakfast Blend and an expresso brownie to get her good and agitated first*

 

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.

The animal kingdom is the place where traditional gender roles fall apart. To name on example, the Lioness' do the hunting and the caretaking. The males are good for sperm and territory. I think penguin males also are caretakers.

 

I actually posted a link to that article in the other draft thread. However, I'll link to the House and Senate versions of that bill.

The article got several things wrong:

First, the administration is not trying to sneak these bills through. They are completely supported by Democrats, not Republicans.

Second, take a look at the introduction to both of them. The bill's purpose is "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." This is a program to require community service of some form, and if there are enough volunteers for the military, then all of them would go to the civilian service. It is not imposing a draft to force people into the military.

Third, Section 10 does amend he Selective Service Act to make women eligible to be drafted as well, but it does not require them to enter the military service. They could all be drafted into one of the civilian services as outlined in the act itself.

I am personally against this act, but it isn't the vast conspiracy that the article makes it out to be. If you read through it, you'll see that it is quite different than described.

Kimball Kinnison

 

No, it's far, far worse than a draft. It's basically codifying the idea that giving half your money to your fellow citizens isn't enough; you owe them two years of your life, as well, or else.

Screwy beyond anything I ever dreamed I'd be seeing in Congress right before an election.

I've always said I'd rather rot in prison than be enslaved by the government.... I just rather hope I don't have to prove it.

-Paul

 

No, it's far, far worse than a draft. It's basically codifying the idea that giving half your money to your fellow citizens isn't enough; you owe them two years of your life, as well, or else.

What it looks like to me is a butchered and distorted version of something that Bush mentioned in his State of the Union address a year or two ago. He mentioned challenging every american to give 2 years of service to the country in some way, but that program was supposed to be voluntary. Kerry has also offered a similar plan (I;ve heard two versions, one that's similar to this and the other that would offer free college to people who served for 2 years).

What gets me is that if this were in place, I would still have 2 more years of college left. In my church, the young men are encouraged to serve missions for 2 years (I went to Las Vegas). Then, if you add this national service on top of that, it is definitely unreasonable, in my opinion.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I personally am on the fence here.

I think its a good idea but at the same time not. If the women should happen to get drafted then they should be at least working with the enginnering department and not fighting on the front lines (those who want to fight on the front lines should)

At the same time I think its a bad idea because lets face it women are needed to preserve the human race. And then there could also be a little fact of a woman soon finding out she's pregnant after she has been deployed.

 

That actually sounds better than what I imagined it. Many European countries require this sort of service.

Where I get upset regarding the draft is when people are drafted to fight in a war they don't believe in, like Vietnam or in this case, Iraq.

I'm not sure what the purpose is in requiring you to serve your country for two years--granted I have never heard anyone who has served in the military (which is what I think of when I think of the draft, although I know this bill covers more) who has had anything bad to say about the sense of fulfillment it gave them, but I still think it should be a choice.

He mentioned challenging every american to give 2 years of service to the country in some way, but that program was supposed to be voluntary.

I like that idea. In your case, Kimball, I think your church mission requirement should count. That is public service, although not for a federal department.

SWJaggy:

If the women should happen to get drafted then they should be at least working with the enginnering department and not fighting on the front lines (those who want to fight on the front lines should)

That should be the case for the men too--we don't need to be forcing men onto the front lines unless you're doing the same for women.

There is no need to coddle us. Really. If you want to keep women who don't want to fight off the front lines, fine--but do the men the same courtesy.

At the same time I think its a bad idea because lets face it women are needed to preserve the human race.

We have a hard time doing it without men.

And then there could also be a little fact of a woman soon finding out she's pregnant after she has been deployed.

Treat it like any other health issue.

 

Where I get upset regarding the draft is when people are drafted to fight in a war they don't believe in, like Vietnam or in this case, Iraq.

The bill actually addresses that, in section 8:

(a) CLAIMS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR- Any person selected under this Act for induction into the uniformed services who claims, because of religious training and belief (as defined in section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 456(j))), exemption from combatant training included as part of that military service and whose claim is sustained under such procedures as the President may prescribe, shall, when inducted, participate in military service that does not include any combatant training component.

(b) TRANSFER TO CIVILIAN SERVICE- Any such person whose claim is sustained may, at the discretion of the President, be transferred to a national service program for performance of such person's national service obligation under this Act.

Again, I am not in favor of this act, but it is not as was described in the article posted above.

Kimball Kinnison

 

(a) CLAIMS AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR- Any person selected under this Act for induction into the uniformed services who claims, because of religious training and belief (as defined in section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 456(j))), exemption from combatant training included as part of that military service and whose claim is sustained under such procedures as the President may prescribe, shall, when inducted, participate in military service that does not include any combatant training component.

(b) TRANSFER TO CIVILIAN SERVICE- Any such person whose claim is sustained may, at the discretion of the President, be transferred to a national service program for performance of such person's national service obligation under this Act.

That would work. Does anyone know why more people weren't able to do this during Vietnam?