Unquestionably, if the draft were reactivated, women would have to be eligible. In fact, given recent changes in civil rights laws and our understanding of the equal treatment of women, it would probably be unavoidable given the constitutional requirement for equal treatment under the laws.
In any event, it would be a revealing moment. Women cannot expect to be treated equally in law and then demand exemption from legal obligations.
Those in the women's movement who have been most vociferous about equal rights have been strangely silent on this issue - and by so being have undermined their own position. The argument is that women could not bear the physical demands, but this is belied by the fact that women already do serve in the military on a voluntary basis.
So, in that particular, it is like arguing with an earthquake. Saying that women cannot bear the requirements when they already do - and the military has set standards for such service - flies in the face of the obvious. Further, insofar as a woman would not be capable of serving because she could not meet the requirements, she would then be exempted as men are. Thus, the principle of equal treatment is upheld.
At the more fundamental of equal rights, the women's movement on this issue is very American. Ardent for rights, not so ardent for the responsibilities that attend those rights. Such responsibilities must, as they already do for men, mean a restriction on their freedoms in extremis.
My hunch - and it is only that - is that if the draft is reactivated (and not just registration as we now have) that it will be a crisis moment that splits the women's movement wide open. Bluffs will have been called, and women may come to see that for all the disadvantages that attended their social position, certain advantages also pertained.
In life as in politics, there are trade-offs to be made. You cannot call it principled if your aim is all of the rewards and none of the costs. Understandable perhaps, but not principled.
@WAT88 That may be true there where conscription is the rule and not the exception. However, It remains to be seen what the reaction will be in the US, where conscription has been the exception and not the rule and where it may be seen less as liberating civic duty and more as a constraint on freedom.
That debate has yet to be had and in the current cultural climate its' resolution is not a foregone conclusion.
If all jobs are going to be open to women, then all women should be included in the draft.
That being said... Keep in mind that as of a few years ago, only about 30% of military-age men in the country were actually eligible for service due to not being able to meet recruiting standards. This wasn't just fitness either; this included criminal records, mental health, and academics. I'm willing to bet that this number is quite a bit lower now. Whatever number that is, only a fraction are able to meet the standards of the most physically and mentally demanding jobs, and typically those ratios are even MORE skewed in regards to female soldiers. Realistically speaking, probably upwards of 90% of the population that falls within military age aren't even worth the time to attempt to train (which 10-25% of them would wash out of before taking job training attrition into account).
You've also got another really big problem: why is the selective service system (draft) even necessary at the time of activation?
There's no question that the only reason it isn't vocally protested is because it's never actually activated. If for any reason it was, the US would see a protest and "draft dodger" movement that would make the Vietnam era equivalent pale in comparison. There's basically no realistic conflict in which there would be popular support. Anything short of Chinese boots on the ground landing off the west coast or Alaska or Hawaii would be a conflict the significant majority of the country would object to at this point in time. Sure you'd have enough volunteers in a 9/11 type of scenario to deal with immediate needs, but in the long-term, the numbers just wouldn't be there. And in a conflict against a nuclear power, mobilizing troops would be the least of our concerns...
Quite honestly if you want to know the truth, the guys in the military won’t be very happy with the idea of women infiltrating the ranks. It’s only gonna weaken the military fighting force. When you’re a soldier , you will need to often trust your fellow soldiers with your life. If you're gonna rely on someone who cannot fight competently, it’s only gonna put you more at risk. Biologically , women are not designed to fight. Women do not make good fighters
You act as if they’re going to be fist fighting on the battlefield. Men aren’t designed to be naturally loving fathers but they exist. There’s no such thing as “not designed” because the human body, regardless of what genitals you have between your legs is an amazing invention, capable of pushing itself to drastic limits.
@Ninjazzed men ARE designed to be loving fathers. Go to any father on the street , ask them if they love their child. 90% of them will say yes.
My father loved me dearly , even more than my mother. He worked two jobs for 8 years to send my brother and I to college
The notion that men don’t love their kids are often depicted in movies and Hollywood. I CAN TELL YOU FOR SURE RIGHT NOW THAT OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF FATHERS DO LOVE THEIR CHILDREN
@Ninjazzed women will never be as strong as men, regardless of how much you want to manipulate things. What you’re basically saying is , if YOU just trained in basketball enough, you can beat Kobe Bryant.
Ok so then quit spreading the notion that women aren’t designed to fight when men aren’t designed to nurture.
I can tell you for a fact that men are conditioned to be good parents. It’s not hard-wired into men to be naturally nurturing and concerned for their offspring’s well-being. Their only instinct is to spread their seed.
Why do you think we have so many fatherless children in the world?
Just calling out your hypocritical statement like I see it.
What we have is a society full of sexism that strikes both ways. Most sexist norms affect both men and women but in completely different ways. Why would we call such a society a "patriarchy"?
Basic sexist norm: Women are precious but incompetent, men are competent but disposable.
This sexist norm conveys a privilege to women in the following ways: When women have problems everyone thinks its a problem and needs to be solved (for example, violence against women). When men have a problem (such as the vast majority of homeless, workplace deaths, victims of assault and suicide being men) then nobody really cares and usually people are not even aware of these things.
It hurts women in the following ways: Women are not taken as seriously as men which hurt their careers. Women may feel that they sometimes are viewed as children who cannot take care of themselves.
It conveys a privilege to men in the following ways: Men are seen as competent and have an easier time being listened to and respected in a professional setting than women.
It hurts men in the following ways: The many issues that affect men (some of which I described above) are rarely seen as important because "men can take care of themselves". A male life is also seen as less valuable than a female life. For example things like "women and children first" or the fact that news articles often have headlines like "23 women dead in XXXXX", when what happened was 23 women and 87 men died. Phrases like "man up" or "be a man" perpetuate the expectation that men should never complain about anything bad or unjust that happens to them. This is often perpetuated by other men as well because part of the male gender role is to not ask for help, not show weakness or emotion, because if you do you are not a "real man" and may suffer ridicule from your peers and rejection by females.
Ok, your father may have loved you but he is the exception rather than the rule.
Men have testosterone, hence why they are quit to violence and anger. Not compassion. Women who become mothers will have a maternal instinct to nurture their baby. Men don’t. This is why men back in the 1950s worked and women looked after the household. These are just gendered roles.
Before you can draft women, you need to stop the massively high amount of sexual assault against us in the service. How can you expect someone to fight in a war when they have to be weary of their own “allies?”
I seriously cannot see why people would down vote the truth.
This is very factual, this shit happens and has always happened.
That’s 4 blues and a Pink that are okay with sexual assaults on women (and men by the way).
When I was at Balad in Iraq (recovering a Tornado aircraft) a guy (I think USAF guard force) was raped by someone walking up behind him in his guard Sangar, putting a weapon to back of his back head etc and telling him to drop his pants, he was then raped literally at gun point. Blues and pink, that’s what you downvoted.
@WAT88 did this dumbass seriously just say that being forced into a situation where you will likely be sexually assaulted and/or raped is being "privileged?" That may honestly be the most pathetic thing anyone has said to me all week.
@WAT88 I fully understand equality, I’ve sat in a hole in Basra as rockets came in with fellow people in camo, some of whom had boobies. To me equality is sitting there looking at someone and thinking we may be a red stain and body parts soon - but you do have lovely boobs.
I don't believe women should be drafted. But I believe they need to be drafted in the next big war to teach an expensive lesson about the shortcomings of egalitarianism and equality.
For starters, physical equality doesn't exist. There are weak little men who make lousy fighting men. They might be the nerds they can use to build new and scary weapons and better ways to fight. But they themselves would die in a most hideous manner if forced into a shooting war.
This goes for women too! There are a few who can and would fight. These are rare. Most women don't believe in war. With the last two executive action wars, when regular women in the service get called into active service, it wasn't uncommon for these women to convientently get pregnant. If a man goes active and he shoots hit foot or gets hurt to where he can't serve, he gets court marshalled.
And the lousy thing is that when people join the military, and train in their units, these people who will drop out will put their unit at more risks when the women suddenly won't use birth control to save their life.
And to think we are forcing contractors to make a military maternity flight suit. Why? It has gotten to the point of absurd. We have let high ideals and unstable philosophies become policy. We really believe women should be able to be combat fighters when in reality they can serve in logistics and medical roles much better.
Yes. They get the right to vote. That is literally a requirement for it... If you're a male.
The 11 Girls who voted Yes to this literally don't deserve any voting rights, and it's pretty cowardly. Either stay in the kitchen, or take actual "equality" for a change. This is only excusable if they answered "no one should be drafted." But some of these women didn't. I f*cking HATE when women want all the benefits and none of the negatives associated with it. It legit annoys me. Piss the f*ck off.
Many women are operating under assumption that they'd automatically be drafted for combat. There are thousands of jobs throughout the military they could do that would be non combat roles. Plus the argument of there should be no draft is a lame cope out. Most men would prefer to never be drafted but understand the point of conscription. Freedom is not free. Saying women shouldn't be drafted because no one should be drafted changes nothing. You want the perks of freedom than being draft eligible is the least you could do.
If there’s to be a draft at all, yes women should be included in it.
That said, I don’t believe anyone should be forced to fight if they don’t want to.
8
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
+1 y
No, I don’t believe women are the same as men. I do not have the muscle power and I do not bulk up easily. I have periods that are so bad that I am rendered useless and on the floor in pain and misery for at least 2 days per month. Women like me could never fight in battle. I would be a danger to people that serve because I am “weak.” Although, I do not believe in the draft in general. This agenda of equality doesn’t mean we are identical, it just means that we are not lesser.
@MadFella My sister is fighter. She been know to kick all of men rear end. In self defense in the U. S. Air Forces. I am very proud of her. She is my sister I have a lot respect her. I know she can kick my butt any time. I will not hit her back
@Max100AD I just want to be clear that I am not referring to all women, but myself and many others. I think it should be a woman’s decision to serve, and I know good and well I’d be a danger to fellow soldiers
@AllThatSweetJazz We could ask the same of all other professions. What if there aren't enough doctors? Enough nurses? Enough electricians? Lineworkers? Farmers? Sanitation workers? Construction workers? There's often a very practical solution to such shortages without forcing people to do things against their will. The market already tends to address it.
I know but the market works on its own timeframe. When there is a need for something in the very immediate short term and time is available for market forces to take effect, there could be a need to *demand* people fill a role. Having them in the right role, at the right time, could be more important in that moment in spite of the inefficiency caused by their reluctance, rather than having them choose their positions.
@AllThatSweetJazz I think that's a very legit point in the most extreme emergencies but what I find odd is that we isolate conscription here. If there are too few lineworkers and power outages are rampant, that's arguably just as dangerous to the country's survival as a shortage of soldiers against a foreign threat. It does not make sense to me to make military service the only thing the state can force. A similar argument might have been applicable to those in the American South prior to the civil war who relied so heavily on slavery for their agricultural output and survival. I might be taking a bit of a gamble but I value individual freedom enough to risk destroying a country due to such shortages than compromise it for emergencies. I really think the market and culture can sort that out rapidly enough... but I do believe we need to cultivate a culture that promotes civic virtue so that people aren't just being selfish and not looking out for their country's best interests should such a dire emergency arise where the market, on its own, is inadequate to address these labor shortages quickly enough.
@AllThatSweetJazz An analogy came up in my head and I hope you'll forgive the crudeness of it (I realize analogies often miss the mark somewhat). Say we lived in a country, or even the entire planet, where some highly infectious disease spread that caused practically all women to become infertile... save one... kind of like the Children of Men scenario.
That's quite an emergency for the survival of the country or even the entire human race. But say she does not want children. She has no sexual interest in men and does not want to reproduce.
Is there any emergency sufficient enough to force her to reproduce against her will? I tend to think not. If we can't persuade her through non-forceful means, maybe we ought to be extinct as a species. The immorality of forcing her trumps the continuation of the species as I see it. I do not want to see us continue if we have to force her to continue to exist as a species, or as a nation.
That's the way I think anyway. I'm a bit of an extremist.
@TurboKid You can just as easily make the claim that the rest of society making the choice to override that makes and procreate makes them fit for survival. And her not wanting to doesn't necessitate that humanity ought not reproduce. The simple explanation is that she just happens to be one toxic idiot dooming the species. Why would we use the worst of our species as representative of the rest of it? Is more harm caused by listening to her choice or by ignoring it?
@AllThatSweetJazz all i have to say is if a what if like this came up. We got a bigger problems to worry about.
Like 250,000 of our best trained soldiers just got they asses kicked by an army power enough to destroy it, that example means grabbing a bunch of people and forcing them to get a rushed training won't do much better in it's chances to succeed.
Or
Or the scenerio our country has become so toxic that it no longer is worth fighting for.
But since these are all fairy tales and we have no need to play what ifs
We still have no need for a draft.
We can have a million statements and arguments thrown at us that could spin an argument to favor me or favor you.
My opinon will remain the same and your opinion will as well so let's save time by skipping the middle part and go about our day.
@AllThatSweetJazz I think if we're aiming for optimum fitness, there's no shortage of ethical violations we could make in the name of it. The whole motivating reason I see to defend a nation and act in its best interest is to protect the freedom and rights of its citizens. I'd happily and voluntarily fight to defend a nation under that premise, and I think a good number of others would as well. Yet if we're violating such liberties to try to protect the nation, I would question if I'm even fighting on the morally right side of the conflict.
I'm very influenced in thought by the framers of the US constitution. For example, I'm in favor of the second amendment not just as a way for citizens to defend themselves against human rights violations by criminals, but also to defend against human rights violations of their own government. If we extrapolate their thoughts, then I think conscription is about as incompatible with such ethics as slavery. I really think both are fundamentally unnecessary for the survival of a nation, and potentially even counter-productive in the long run. Yet even if there was some extreme what-if scenario where such things were deemed immediately necessary, I could no longer owe my allegiance to a nation that so blatantly infringes upon the freedom of its citizens. My loyalty to a nation can be strong but not entirely unconditional.
Nobody should be forced to do it. Women are physically weaker and wtf are you going to do with pregnant and women with bad periods and an average women are "very small" when you compare them to men. Pretty useless. The rape is also a problem in millitary. You guys even can't protect yourown women. What are you also going to do with single mums and Should pro life men be forced to go trough artificial labour pain? I dont know, women already biological trough shit and so millitary balances it when go to it.
Nice reply but i am not convinced. I dont want to get raped. I mean i would be ok with getting killed while serving my country but not raped. Rape is the worse thing that can happen to young women in my opinion. I dont trust the millitary guys there. Women are going to be used as sextoys for sure. In my opinion soldiers should be professional but unfortunately everyone including (potential) rapists or crazy people can join the millitary.
Men also get raped in the millitary imagine you want to serve your country and an idiot raped you. This is so degrading and disgusting. But i dont know you are right to an extent.
Do you even know how common it is to get raped? (a lot of female's over exaggerate rape and violence in their heads and tries to manifest it externally to make others believe it's like that)
I agree on professional military. Have worked for UK for over 100 years. Unfortunately it only works to a certain degree. A big problem with mandatory military service creates a weaker military. higher potential to get traitors and sabotage. It's better to have it voluntarily until the qvote is fillwith both genders. when it doesn't get filled the should draft to fill it.
It's not popular for privileged groups in population to change (unwillingly change) and don't get privileges anymore. no matter if it's for the better good or not. Always been like that no matter what it have been.
Tf lol. Can you blame women bein paranoid about getting raped and so exegerate it? But Sexual harrassment is very common. I rarely see woman who did not get sexually harrassed aka touched in a sexual way against their will. I was sexually assaulted when i was 15-16.
At least people who get drafted should be trained very good to the point they become professional t or people who commit crimes should not be drafted. I Actually i can't say much about it. I dont have much knowledge. Maybe they should divide the people by genders. In austria we have armed forced for women lool
In the beginning of their education it should be for some and get faded into one mixed group.
everything is a attitude thing and changing them to work as a unit and stop seeing for example gender. Everyone in a military unit has their role with special skills for that.
Yeah, but they need to makes sure they have rules in place to protect them from sexual assault. Also if she were so many weeks pregnant, she should be deemed 'unfit for battle'. Tbh the draft shouldn't exist in the first place, but I understand that's probably wishful thinking.
I will correct my self so you don’t need to. Didn’t have my glasses on when I pasted this on your comment and didn’t see you said that women should be drafted to.
I salute you miss for not being a hypocrite. You are not a harlot as the rest as they are thinking they should have equality in rights and not responsibility.
Please forgive my error, my old ass can’t see so well without glasses.
@Exterminatore Because there shouldn't. No one wants to serve next to someone who didn't even make the choice to be there. That can be so dangerous and put so many people at risk.
@Exterminatore Nah, especially with the way a lot of entitled kids are nowadays. A lot of them don't give two shits and have no problem thinking about taking a whole flight down with them.
Yep. They vote to put politicians in office that send us to war, so they should carry the same responsibility as men. If you aren't willing to stand up for your country, then you shouldn't have the right to vote.
Overall I think citizens in general need more responsibility for warfare. Right now too many people in the USA are detached from the horrors of war. They know America’s armed services are by far the best in the world, but that’s just something the government handles and they aren’t a part of... Everyone should be trained and equipped to defend their country as part of a well regulated militia like Norway or Israel. Guns should be in every household like in Switzerland and people should have adequate training and know their role in conflict. I still think we should maintain a professional volunteer army, but if people had more of a stake in war, they would think more critically about who they put in office and would take more of a leadership role to become involved in local politics. It would help to weed out corruptions and to avoid unnecessary war.
@TechUser1993 I think it is important for people, all people to have skin in the game so that they act responsibly. Voting like a child and then expecting men to come clean up your mess and do the heavy lifting is not a fair or honest system. If you want to vote, you should have to take personal responsibility for the actions of that vote.
I want to say yes because equality... and fuck their special privilege without responsibility. But I can’t. America won’t handle photos of women dead as well as men. Besides this women are not as strong as men. Behind a desk sure. But if their on the ground they need the exact same standards as men so they don’t hold back the greatest army in the world.
There are two main reasons women were banned from serving on the front lines for so long:
1. Men have a natural instinct to protect women and could jeopardize a mission or other soldiers because of this.
2. Women are more valuable to reproduction than men.
Women on the front lines just isn't a good idea.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
+1 y
I mean, in theory yes, but just going off of the fact that women are physically inferior, it would be sort of ineffective... Drafting shouldn't even be a thing in the first place, in my country it basically isn't anymore because there are so many volunteers.
Taking away the draft side of things (which as things become more technical and more training needed, means you can’t simply give someone 6-12 weeks basic).
From reading down some of the replies below, a huge number of people simply do not understand how much females are actually involved in the military at all levels.
I’ve a girl working for me that did two tours of Afghan (Helmand) as a Combat Medic working with the likes of The Rifles and Marines.
This is not her but we both know the girl in the story.
I’ve worked with US, Australian and New Zealand forces, all with a high number of female personnel from Military police, to aircraft engineers, combat medics, EOD operatives and aircrew.
Modern warfare is Asymmetric warfare in nature and any future conflict will be the same.
There is likely no longer a clear front line, personnel of both sexes operate along side infantry, marines and other front line units, in a huge variety of roles, anyone that has served with girls that operate under fire, saving lives, disabling IED’s etc know just how good a lot of them are.
Yes. In the U. S. once a man turns 18 they are required to register for the draft and I think it's only fair that women do the same. I'm not particularly fond of the draft but I think both men and women should be held to the same standards and contribute as best they can. Men and women are biologically different and have different strengths but both are able to contribute regardless of those differences.
I'm no longer fit for service (on the ground, anyway) but even if I was it'd need to be a power like Hitler to get me to go to war.
I don't know any nation that could currently not be described as violently hypocritical for sticking their noses in another nation's business. Especially the yanks. America has lost the right to claim any form of moral high ground in the past 5 years.
There are "MOS's" many women are fully capable of. 11B is not one of them. Flying an A10 into harms way, sure. Kill those fukking rag heads, Lt. Bowers.
In truth I do agree with the Lt, however that’s not equality. Draft them into the infantry and let them loose arms, legs and life just as men. Let them hump 25K with 100 lbs of gear just like the men and let them get their asses kicked when they fall out just like the men.
I think we should just eliminate the draft altogether. Also, while it makes sense from the equality standpoint, it would be too hard to enforce. Because women would have an out, pregnancy.
Granted, I wouldn’t be eligible anyway, for medical reasons. But I don’t think the draft should exist.
Yes but, you'd still have to be healthy enough and everything. You'd have to be trained and hopefully fit for whatever you end up doing. I don't think you should be allowed to go in pregnant. Also it'd be a great opportunity to draw attention back to and better address the sexual assault shit in the military.
