What happens next? That's right. We send males, only males, to the battle fields. To be shot. Burnt alive in explosions. Captured, possibly. To, in essence, make the ultimate sacrifice.
What ever happened to equality?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the point he's trying to make is that we don't force women to go, we only force males.
Personally, I believe we shouldn't force anyone. If they don't have enough people who want to fight, that should show at least an inkling about how people feel about the fighting going on.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If things got bad enough to require a draft (fill in your favorite apocalypse story here) I would still argue against making it mandatory for women. Men, biologically speaking, are more expendable.
It's sexist to assume someone is less capable because of their gender when their gender has no bearing on their performance. Is it sexist when there are actual gender-based reasons for different treatment?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid I might be sexist, but I have no issues with only drafting men...I have no problem with women volunteering to fight and I feel that when in the military they should be treated equally, but in regards to a mass draft for a particular war, I'd say only men...
[Edit to say that I am a guy...and again to say "what Chris said"]
posted
Right. Because men are biologically more expendable, we should force them to die en mass quanities, while letting women off. Exactly.
You've won me over.
quote: It is possible in Afghanistan for women to be treated like beasts of burden precisely because gender ignorance has been codified into law. We pride ourselves on being democratic, but when it comes to the draft, we aren't much better than the Taliban.
posted
I propose that we only send men to war, but in order to be fair and unsexist, we randomly select one woman to kill for every man than ends up dying because he was forced to go to war against his will. Eh?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Phanto I get the feeling that everyone here is against the draft under any circumstances, so I'm not sure whom you're getting indignant towards. In my own example I purposely referenced an end-of-the-world situation, where the protection of women would be more important.
You didn't ask whether or not I approved of the draft, you asked that in the event of a draft if it was sexist to only send the males, and that's what I answered.
[ April 25, 2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
fyi, women cannot go into any of the combat arm military specialties.
In theory, they can't be sent into combat. However, combat does come to them, as it did with Jessica Lynch.
I think women should not be drafted, but then again I am opposed to women being in anything but the most drastically understaffed positions in the military.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I'm opposed to placing women in positions where they have a high chance to be raped, like in POW camps, probably repeatedly, possibly over a span of years. I suppose arguably men could suffer the same kind of treatment, but hey, women are just more appealing.
Anyway, as far as the draft is concerned I would only support it if we have to defend the country, as in under a state of war, not a so-called "police action." The draft is there to produce infantry. If women are kept out of the infantry (not logistics, as Pvt Lynch was a part of, despite being deployed) then why would it matter whether or not they were drafted?
Posts: 2523 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Just curious. I don't have a problem with women in any part of the military, as long as they're competent and want to be there.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree w/ Javert, but only because I don't want to work w/ anyone that doesn't want to be there.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
so in the event we have to force people to the in the army, we repress women like the taliban by making the men go to war? no women are repressed by making men do something.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: We pride ourselves on being democratic, but when it comes to the draft, we aren't much better than the Taliban.
Whether the draft is undemocratic is a different issue to whether it should be gender specific.
Do I think drafting anyone is a good idea? No. And I will not vote for anyone who suggests reinstating it in my country.
If there was a draft, do I have a problem with the concept of social survival being recognised? No way. I would still argue against the draft - but because I think a draft is inherently wrong, not the fact that only one gender is being drafted.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is nothing inherently wrong with the draft. In the right situation, I could support it. I am very glad that the draft was instated for some of the wars that the US has been involved in.
But I cannot imagine any situation where I would support the draft of women. I guess I'm sexist that way.
posted
Sure, it's sexist to say that men should go out and die to protect me. I don't support the draft at all, and I do think it's somewhat discriminatory to draft only men. However, Chris has a good point--in some sort of apocalyptic war, it will be absolutely vital to protect the women of childbearing age. If all but one man and a million women survive a war, the human race will have a decent chance of continuing. If there's a million men and one woman, humans will die off.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sexism is discrimination based on gender. This is universally considered to be bad, but some sexist things simply are.
Men get to use urinals, women don't (at least not without help).
Women don't get prostate cancer, men do. (Of course, men rarely get ovarian cysts, either)
Med tend to get pattern baldness much more than women.
Women tend to live longer.
These aren't "fair," but they're not examples of bias, either.
I'm not talking about who gets paid more, or who can go topless in public. Certain biological differences define behavior and political correctness fails when it defies reality. A lasting society must be based, ultimately, on "women and children first" if it is to keep lasting. We're a long way from having to worry about population problems, but if situations occurred where we were forced to fire up the draft again -- something that a clear majority of Americans are against -- it'll be for the men.
[ April 25, 2004, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with drafting women to fill so-called non-combat positions. But again, I would not want to serve with most of the results of a contemporary draft.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to understand why drafting women for combat is a bad idea, to a statistical analysis of what the populations of european nations would have been after world war I if france, germany, russia, etc. had been sending women to the front lines.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ummm... since when has there been a war that has come anywhere close to killing off ALL the soldiers of a given side? It's absurd to base policy on the notion that that will happen. If it did, it wouldn't even matter, because our country would be counquered once we lose all our soldiers.
There will be plenty of women left for childbearing no matter what happens in the war. That's a virtual certainty.
And the fact of the matter is, we are a society that has outlawed discrimination by gender. It is 100% unfair to complain about companies paying women less money but then only force men to go to war. If women want the benefits of no gender discrimination, they will have to accept the costs of being equal - and that includes having to go to war, should such a policy be implemented.
posted
Unfair? Yes. Against the law? Probably. Is that going to change? No.
I would fight long and hard to keep women from being drafted. I don't think that I can justify it in legal, moral, or religious argument. The whole idea of protecting the womb doesn't do much for me either. It just seems wrong to ask women to go to war.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the countries where men and women both serve, have we seen dire results? In Israel, women have always been soldiers. Can anyone tell us how this has worked out there?
I am with Eowyn. Women bear the cost of war in many ways. To dictate that we must sit on our hands at home and wait is not right. In other words, you have our leave to die in wars, just not to fight in them. How much sense does that make?
Granted, I do believe that standards for various jobs should not be relaxed for women's sake. The same standards for fitness, ability to carry things, etc, should apply to women who wish to serve in combat positions as for men. But what I do know is that every time a new job in the military has been opened up for women, women came to fill that job who were better at it than some of the men who had done it. In other words, the very best qualified women were superior to the least qualified men in that position. Averages make no difference. What matters is individuals.
The reason the U.S. is a global power is that our society is free and open, and encourages excellence... because we extend opportunity to all. Obviously, when you disqualify half the population at the outset, you are going to get less talented people in general than you could have had. We are superior because our society reflects reality. People of all backgrounds have ability and drive to succeed. By encouraging merit and free competition, we achieve excellence. Refusing jobs to women is contrary to that spirit of America, and detracts from our national efforts.
I say the draft should be used only in direst of circumstances when the survival of the country is at stake, yet if it is used, it should apply equally to men and women.
[ April 25, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would be much more unfair to force a woman into any situation where combat is likely for the simple reason that women have babies and men don't.
A woman can never be 100% certain at any given moment that she is not pregnant unless she is sterile or celibate. All the pills and Depo in the world still have a chance of failure. To put women into situations where they could easily miscarry before they even know they are carrying a child who needs their protection is irresponsible.
Miscarriages place an extreme emotional and physical burden on a woman. They are more physically taxing than a single pregnancy. They can require grief counseling and antidepressants. And those are just the spontanious miscarriages noone caused or could prevent. How much worse would it be if the woman had to live knowing the miscarriage was her own fault? How does she weigh helping a fallen soldier with the knowledge that she could be killing her child?
The only way to ensure women would not be pregnant on the battlefield is to force them to be sterilized or celibate. Neither is required of men. That to me would be worse discrimination than forcing only men to fight to protect our country.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ak- at least in israel, women do not serve as frontline soldiers. They serve in the airforce as pilots, and as sappers, and in support positions. I think this is, basically, a wise decision.
I did an analysis of world war 1 a few years ago for ornery, its gone, but it was fascinating. If women had served and died at the same rates as men, by the time world war II rolled around, the population of europe would have been about 60% of what it actually was. There was a HUGE population boom from 1918-1921 in England, France, Germany, and Russia, that makes our Baby Boomer generation look like peanuts. Without the women of child bearing age that these nations had, that boom would have never happened, and those were the men who served in world war II. Now, maybe it would have been GOOD if we'd had a lot less people of combat age around during the 1940's, but, on the other hand, maybe what would have happened is ANOTHER huge war with smaller populations, making it even more necessary for women to serve, and, well, that would be really bad.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several people have mentioned that they would support the draft only in "circumstances when the survival of the country is at stake", as ak put it.
But, would we really need the draft then? At the moment, if there were a draft, men would be sent across the Atlantic in order to fight battles that not everyone agrees we should be fighting.
But if there were circumstances where the survival of the country is at stake, I would assume that would mean the United States was being invaded or otherwise attacked.
In that case, I think a lot of people would immediately sign up and join the army. And even those who didn't join up, I'm sure they would fight back.
A lot of people, myself included, see what is going on in Iraq as something that really shouldn't have involved us. But if our country was attacked and some other group tried to take us over, I think a lot of people would be willing to fight to stop that. At least I would.
And, wow, I've really gotten away from the subject of women in the draft. Sorry...
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh well, threads morph and mutate, and branch out and stuff. It's all good.
A lot of people don't see that they EVER have a duty to fight. They will let others do that, and stay safe themselves. I do feel the draft is necessary in some circumstances. But definitely should be all-encompassing. It's not right for people of privilege to be able to get out of it. If anything, the rich and powerful should go FIRST, since they have so many more interests to protect. They should not be able to send off those less fortunate to fight in their places.
And I'm not sure a higher population is such a great thing, either. That argument is not convincing to me.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but high populations are in the national interest.
I'm not stating this is a moral reason for not having women in the front lines, I'm basically arguing its why we'll never see nations draft women to the front. ITs a really bad idea, from a state's perspective.
Personally, I think its compelling enough for the state to have an overriding interest so that it can be sexist. As stated by others, sexism isn't inherently evil... its not sexist, for example, for me to state that men cannot become pregnant. And thats basically what the statement is as to why the state has an overriding interest in terms of drafting women, as far as front lines combat.
Its not compelling enough to leave women out of the draft entirely, since women actually, on average, have better genetic abilities that make them more fit for certain military duties... such as flying fighters.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
War's primary purpose is to kill and disable healthy young men so that dirty old men have a chance to score on young women.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Don't get me wrong, I think Lynch and others who had to go through similar excruciating experiences are tough, but women have always been pigeonholed as non-combat soldiers. For good or bad, that's what happens.
Not that I think men make better soldiers.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there's also the fact that if you place men and women in a combat situation, men are much more likely to endanger themselves trying to protect women.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a parent, when I look in the living room and see my son playing his guitar and my daughter reading a book, I wonder who it was who decided that my son's life is worth less than my daughter's.
I am all teary just thinking about it.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder who it was who decided that my son's life is worth less than my daughter's.
It's not that it's decided that your son's life is worth less, it's that your son can contribute more to the defense of the nation than your daughter can when it comes to battling on the front lines.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not that it's decided that your son's life is worth less, it's that your son can contribute more to the defense of the nation than your daughter can when it comes to battling on the front lines.
And perhaps the daughter is also less capable of doing construction work, and scientific research, and working in politics...
Are we back in the habit of declaring one gender better at given tasks now?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We should draft solely out of the bottom ten percent of high school graduating classes."
I hope you are joking, but...
Ironically, kids who quit school and do not get a GED are no longer welcome to apply to the military.(at least the Marines, I am probably wrong about the other divisions) Going into the military used to be a way for a young man who was not into school to get a good jumpstart in life in the service.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are we back in the habit of declaring one gender better at given tasks now?
No, that's just a wrong assumption you're making about what I said. I didn't say why the son would do more good on the front lines. It's not because men are superior soldiers (I'm not saying they are), it's because other men would risk their lives in more dangerous ways to save women rather than a fellow man. Men have always felt the need to protect women.
I don't think women are weaker. I know a few ladies who might be able to whoop me. I know tons of women who are far smarter than me. In short, I don't think a woman makes a worse soldier, but I do think they would do less good than a man on the battlefield with other men present.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Men have always felt the need to protect women."
Well, no, not always.
Men protect men in dangerous ways, as well. In fact, I am quite sure there are about a gazillion historical records to prove it. There are also a few novels, and even a movie or two, about the subject of men risking their lives to save a friend.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what if the man has feelings for the man?
Edit: Sorry, that was really silly of me. I do mean it, though. Feelings of sexual love and feelings of friendship love can be equally strong. I just don;t buy it as a reason for women not to serve in battle if they can prove, as men do, that they can.
[ April 25, 2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just don;t buy it as a reason for women not to serve in battle if they can prove, as men do, that they can.
I'm not arguing that. I'm just telling you why the people in the Selective Services are not letting women be drafted. I don't necessarily agree either. I'm just playing devils advocate, as I often do.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
By the way, can you back that up? Men have been Guardians/hunters/protectors/providers for centuries. Now that civilization has come around, women can easily fend for themselves, rather than solely nurture children. That's how it used to be when it was small villages of people. In some places of the world, it's still that way. It's not that way anymore (thankfully).
[ April 25, 2004, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Nick, I can back it up. I was referring to spousal abuse. Not all men have the protection thing going on, I am sad to say.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That also has been around for as long as recorded history. Look at the people living in huts in Africa and South America, do you think the mates of the men go unharmed? They provide for them and sometimes, unfortunately, strike them.
[ April 25, 2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, that's just a wrong assumption you're making about what I said. I didn't say why the son would do more good on the front lines. It's not because men are superior soldiers (I'm not saying they are), it's because other men would risk their lives in more dangerous ways to save women rather than a fellow man. Men have always felt the need to protect women.
And how is this not calling men better at that a particular job (soldier) than women?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how you got that from the paragraph, but I will try as best as I can to explain: It's not that men are better (as I explicitly said that they are not), it's the tendency to want to protect women in possibly more dangerous ways that makes women less effective, not their ability.
[ April 25, 2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't that be the men's problem if they can't work as well with women around? Why should the women be the ones restricted? If the men in an office say they can't work as well with women around, should women not be hired?
edit: And are there studies that have shown this, or are you just going by your individual feelings?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
