Military drafts - male and female

[Sylvia727]

I didn't want to hijack daleduke's thread, so here this is.

If a draft is instated, should it be male-specific or sex-inclusive? I have long been a proponent of women in combat, mainly because I'm a feminist/equalist, and discrimination is discrimination. By only sending men out to die, we send a message that men are worth less, and by denying women the obligation to defend their country, we send a message that women are too weak. With rights come responsibilities - how can I as a woman have equal rights with a man if I don't have equal responsibilities?

It also concerns numbers. By including women, we double the pool of draftees, and halve the age bracket sent to war. This is a good thing for everybody, right? The smaller the bracket sent, the greater the spread of people left behind to try to maintain the country during the draft. It seems to me that sending all the 18-year-olds makes more sense than sending the male 18- and 19-year-olds. I'd rather have all the 19-year-olds here at home than the female 18- and 19-year-olds. It seems much less disruptive to the normal routine.

There are four main arguments against women in combat that I've heard: (1) women are delicate flowers (2) female POWs could be raped (3) periods are a hygiene concern (4) women aren't as good at killing.

For (1), I fantasize about whacking the person with a cluebat. Usually, delicate in this context means weak-willed or sensitive, a 17th century prima donna who faints at the sight of blood. Women are not flowers; we are people, with equal rights and responsibilities.

For (2), I just laugh in the person's face. Men can be raped too, and I'm sure there are plenty of sex-neutral tortures that are just as bad as rape. This argument is just blatant misogynism.

For (3), I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I know there are ways to handle periods better than the average consumer does. Instead of disposable tampons, assuming the soldier would not be in a position to use that type of facility, there are hygiene products that are re-usable. I'm sure sitting around in your blood for days on end isn't recommended, but I'm also sure that it's not significantly worse than hygiene problems faced by males. If someone really can't get to a source of washing water, they probably have much bigger concerns than the few ounces of blood that have been sitting around for a few days.

For (4), I will acknowledge the obvious about strength, but that could be partially overcome with extra boot camp time, if necessary. Female firefighters meet the same standards as the ones for males all the time, even if perhaps the training takes them longer.

[Boozy]

For (4), I will acknowledge the obvious about strength, but that could be partially overcome with extra boot camp time, if necessary. Female firefighters meet the same standards as the ones for males all the time, even if perhaps the training takes them longer.

War is so technogically-dependent now, anyway. Although there are plenty of positions that require sheer strength, there are thousands that don't. Since the advent of the rifle, strength is not as important as endurance. And that's not necessarily a sex-specific attribute.

The major reason women historically weren't drafted is because it causes a sharp decrease in birth rates. Population growth is important to economic growth, especially in times of war.

[Flyndaran]

War is so technogically-dependent now, anyway. Although there are plenty of positions that require sheer strength, there are thousands that don't. Since the advent of the rifle, strength is not as important as endurance. And that's not necessarily a sex-specific attribute.
....

Standard military gear weighs over 60 pounds. If you know a large number of women that can march miles with that...

[Boozy]

Like I said, there are plenty of positions that require sheer strength. There are also plenty that don't.

[Sylvia727]

I carried a 50 pound child a mile and a half when she hurt her ankle in a park, and I'm definitely not in shape. I'm sure there are a large number of women who would graduate boot camp with that capability.

[daleduke17]

Female firefighters meet the same standards as the ones for males all the time, even if perhaps the training takes them longer.

That is not entirely correct. I have seen several fire departments around here have different requirements for the physical agility tests for males and females (like I said in a different thread).

And if there ever was another draft, there damn sure better be females getting drafted as well.

[Slytovhand]

Historically speaking.....

there were a few reasons why women were excluded from the military... depending on the military in question!

I think the Greeks and Romans reckoned that women were too emotional - either in the context of not having the willingness to actually fight (and therefore to run away), or would be more likely to make emotional attachments to others wwhich would distract them from doing what they were told to. (of course, what does that say about the Spartans??? hmmm - I love hypocrisy!)

I'm pretty damn sure the Celts threw those ideas to the wind..... And that's why the Romans were well and truly thrashed the first couple of times they tried to take Britain..

So - if they're going to draft - draft 'everyone'... besides, drafting doesn't just mean being on the front line, it also means medical, comms, supply, admin, etc etc...


Anyone seen Starship Troopers???

[Greenday]

Anyone seen Starship Troopers???

Lol. Um, check my sig.

I don't see why my life is less important than all females. Everyone, male and female, should be entered in it and have equal chances of being picked. There's not one good, fair reason to have it male only.

[Amethyst Hunter]

An interesting thing to note about the Israelis: Over there, some form of military service, up to about 2 years' worth at least, is *required* for all males and females of age; only a small portion of Hasidic Jews (I think that's the sect; I could be wrong) are excused on religious grounds. Everyone else (who is capable, that is) must serve in some capacity, whether it be on the battlefield or in an office - as someone pointed out, duty doesn't necessarily have to involve actual combat (although combat skills would be a pretty useful thing to have) - thereby negating the use for any draft.

I'm of mixed thought on that idea, but I can see where such a policy has its advantages. For one thing, citizens get a better idea of what goes on in a military operation, and many may come away with a better sense of self and self-respect/discipline in addition to whatever skills they pick up from their particular department. Not bad things in and of themselves.

[AFPheonix]

There are several differences between Israel and the US, though. One, they are a small nation. Two, they have a lot of countries around them that if not hostile, then at least use the existence of Israel existing as a reason for certain policy decisions and propaganda. They need to have a pretty large army for the way they've conducted their local foreign policy.

[Slytovhand]

While both of your points are quite correct Pheonix, Switzerland and France also have military service, which sort of negates one of your points.

(might be worth mentioning - Switzerland also has fairly liberal gun laws - but not the same number of gun deaths, as the US...)

Slyt

[AFPheonix]

France has effectively ended conscription. Switzerland still has it, but it is rarely enforced.
They are somewhat similar to Israel in that their laws regarding recruitment were forged during times of conflict and warmongering.

[Sylvia727]

I have seen several fire departments around here have different requirements for the physical agility tests for males and females (like I said in a different thread).

It's been a few years since I wrote this term paper, but I'm pretty sure either The Supreme Court or a State Supreme Court ruled that holding males and females to the same standard is not sexism, and specifically used the example of firefighters as an issue of public safety. I know there are departments who have different requirements, and I'm sick about it, but they don't have to by law.

I don't see why my life is less important than all females.

What? You're not willing to die for my delicately blossoming self? You won't risk your life to protect my fingernails from being broken? But I just had them painted! What if I get blood on my uniform? What if someone yells at me? You must do the chivalrous thing and protect me from all the evils of the world! </sarcasm>

[Greenday]

What? You're not willing to die for my delicately blossoming self? You won't risk your life to protect my fingernails from being broken? But I just had them painted! What if I get blood on my uniform? What if someone yells at me? You must do the chivalrous thing and protect me from all the evils of the world! </sarcasm>

Well, when you put it that way, it's ok I guess.

[Difdi]

For (4), I will acknowledge the obvious about strength, but that could be partially overcome with extra boot camp time, if necessary. Female firefighters meet the same standards as the ones for males all the time, even if perhaps the training takes them longer.

An untrained woman, convinced she must defend herself or die, who chooses not to die, if armed with a gun, is more dangerous to her attacker than an equally untrained man in the same circumstances. It has to do with instincts and such.

The particular qualities that make someone accurate with a gun under battlefield stress generally have to be trained into men, but women tend to have those qualities instinctively. Individuals will of course vary widely. But if we're discussing the statistical (and mostly mythical) Average Woman and Average Man, the above generally holds true.

Culturally is another matter entirely. Due to a combination of nonsensical ideas and misguided attitudes, many women in the above situation will, consciously or not, choose to die instead of fight. Fear of guns does more damage to the safety of women in our culture than all the rapists put together.