The Draft

[Crin Dalmeiier]

Even if they did put women in the draft, you'd still have more of a chance, because I'll already by contracted, leaving the perfect empty space for you. Sorry, Mike.

[Niceguy4186]

Umm... given the number of women I know who could kick your ***,

hmm i would be interested in that number... i might not be a huge guy, but i can hold my own against most guys... also you know so many woman that could do it, what about the women that would have a hard time just carring the 60+ pounds of equipment?
i've never seen GI Jane, but i'm guessing from what achilleus said about "rediculous and over the top" it's along the same story line of the classes group of goofs who form a team and end up winning that champtionship... makes a good story, but how realistic?

[135711]

sword: I used to feel the exact same way, but I completely reversed by opinion, because nothing else is equal....we dont' get any of the same stuff. so, if we get the same stuff, and like, we don't get murdered alot the way the men sit all pretty and tucked in, then we'll not only get drafted, but we'll join more.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
Indeed some people claim that it's actually underpopulated, based on the economic need for more people.

The economic need for more people? What do you mean? More consumers? More labor? Gotta say "huh?"

Most first-world countries are actually decreasing in population due to families having fewer than 2.1 children (which is the sustaining population amount).

Most of them are making up for any shortfalls ( and then some ) with immigration from countries where population is still growing, however.

If you think, as I do, that there is need for more people, that there is plenty of space still available for even more people, then having a war makes little sense.

As comedian Bill Maher is wont to say, "I am pro-death". Abortion? Yes. Capital punishment? Yes. War? Yes. Anything to ease the competition for the resources of the world, and to help Darwin out...

Well, ALMOST anything.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Niceguy4186
hmm i would be interested in that number... i might not be a huge guy, but i can hold my own against most guys...

Ah, but its not about their size, its about their TRAINING, which is exactly the point. Women DO start out at a disadvantage to men, on average, but training can CERTAINLY overcome that. by the time they emerge from basic, women are at virtually no disadvantage to men in terms of their ability to function in all of the situations required of them.

-m

[Gav]

The downward trend in western populations could have many contributing factors. However I believe that this trend is over stated. I prefer tothink that Western populations are in fact pretty stabel with population cycling around a median point(and peep's feel free to post otherwise on this point if anyone knows of a decent readable on the Net on this subject I'd be curious). As an example:

Apparently the populaton of Scotland is in decline - the death rate has exceeded the birth rate by 6 - in our case the population is decreasing by 6 a year. Scotland is only densely populated in the central belt and outside of that (bar a few population centres) is pretty sparsely populated. The areas of labor within in Scotlan are also mostly concentrated in the central belt however rural oocupations are still very much evident in the rural areas (cattle farming, agriculture etc). There has been a shift from rural occuaptions to hi-tech businesses lately (although this is currently slow by some standards, it <i>is</i> picking up). As a result there is gardient from rural areas to the central belt in search of better paid work. Additionally the rural economy has been badly affected by recent farming scandals and it also seems that the fishing economy is about to bescrapped.

The net effect is that the rural populations are in free fall while the central belt region populations are either stable or are increasing slightly. There is such a massive depopulation of rural areas that this has [possibly] skewed some recent surveys.

My point is this: there are many reasons why a population may <i>appear</i> to be in decline. Even though the death rate has been exceeded by the current birth rate, these may be surrent trends. in the future these trends may change and pendulum will swing back in the other direction. Government initiatives, fashion, re-stocking from other populations all contribute to keep a population healthy. I believe the UK government may be doing a study right now to give a better assesment of the current population trend [which means we'll have the results in in a few years ].

[civiltech]

Originally posted by Niceguy4186
I feel females should not be drafted, i'm sorry but the fact just is, males are phyically better off. what would you rather be in, a squadern of females or men? if you get wonded in battle, would you rather have a 200lb guy throw you over his shoulder and take you back, or 140 lb girl try and do that... granted there are females out there who can hold there own, but they are few and far between. (ps, i have the same feelings about female fire fighters, but that's for a different thread)

Here in Canada, Females are allowed to serve in all of HM Royal Canadian Armed Forces branches, and departments except for submarine duty.

In fact, we had female soldiers, and officers serving in active duty in Afganistan.

There are strict requirements for all servicement, including physical requirements to meet. If a lady (or man) in uncapable of completing them, they don't pass!

So far, the world hasn't come to a grinding halt over this.

In fact, I remember a few years ago (probably 5 to 6) a famous American Athelete Bo something decided to go through Basic Training...the guy who played professional baseball, football, etc.
Well,....he lasted 6 days or so and then 'dropped out'

If you can't rise to the standard required, you either drop out, or are kicked out, (failed.)
This gender thing is a side issue.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by civiltech
Here in Canada, Females are allowed to serve in all of HM Royal Canadian Armed Forces branches, and departments except for submarine duty.

In fact, we had female soldiers, and officers serving in active duty in Afganistan.

There are strict requirements for all servicement, including physical requirements to meet. If a lady (or man) in uncapable of completing them, they don't pass!

So far, the world hasn't come to a grinding halt over this.

In fact, I remember a few years ago (probably 5 to 6) a famous American Athelete Bo something decided to go through Basic Training...the guy who played professional baseball, football, etc.
Well,....he lasted 6 days or so and then 'dropped out'

If you can't rise to the standard required, you either drop out, or are kicked out, (failed.)
This gender thing is a side issue.

This is true in the U.S. armed forces as well.

-m

[Philistine]

Originally posted by epeemike81
This is true in the U.S. armed forces as well.

-m

I thought women were excluded from combat positions in the Army--(but allowed in the Air Force and (IIRC) Navy)?

Has this changed?

--Philistine

[Peach]

An amusing web site on this subject elaborates the topic:

American Women in Uniform, Veterans Too!

[Mergs]

Women are excluded from MOS's (Military Occupational Skills) and positions that have high potential for direct combat (infantry, armor, combat aviation (attack helicopters), most artillery MOS's and combat engineers). Women are also precluded from serving in "front line" units, usually combat battalions; armor, infantry, artillery and cavalry squadrons.

Should the draft be reinstated do I think it should include women? You're damn right I do. I think that they should be made to register for it right now. My daughter included. If women feel compelled to sue to get into the service academies, VMI, the Citadel, etc. the Great Sisterhood should accept the responsibility that goes along with it. For everyone.

OK, got that one off my chest. Needless to say this is a particularly sore point with me as I had numerous knock down, drag outs over this with an ex-spouse and others over the years.

[Peach]

I haven't noticed any of the women here are arguing with you about it, however. Except one person saying she'd be bad at it because of her personality. I'd be lousy as a member of the armed forces myself because I'm 51 and have sciatica. And I sure wouldn't want to go to the Citadel but I'm not sure anybody should. So what is this "Great Sisterhood" you're arguing with?

[Mergs]

Peach, I understand your and Catlady's position. As for Cat's suitability, if she was of draftable age, it would be up to those who evaluate suitability to decide whether or not to accept the her into the service. Having held a draft card and draft number of 56 in 1972, there are a number of ways to "avoid" the draft. Educational exemptions, sole surviving child, physical disability, etc. Oh, yeah, and age. Normally 18 to 27. Yup, you and I would be exempt. Unless that is you were in Germany in 1944. Then it was 14 to 64.

As for the "Great Sisterhood", that is the particuar brand of femi-nazi my ex is/was. Makes me wonder why she ever married in the first place.

[Inquartata]

Heh, well, we probably oughtn't consider women who participate in a combative sport such as fencing to be a very good sampling of American women generally in terms of opinions on the draft...

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Mergs
Women are excluded from MOS's (Military Occupational Skills) and positions that have high potential for direct combat (infantry, armor, combat aviation (attack helicopters), most artillery MOS's and combat engineers). Women are also precluded from serving in "front line" units, usually combat battalions; armor, infantry, artillery and cavalry squadrons.

Ah...I have a friend here at school whose mother spent several years as an Apache pilot, as well as time in Kiowas, etc.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Crin Dalmeiier
You're right, Sword. We sit here and complain about unequal rights, and then we don't get drafted. I was once a feminist, and I may go on about rights once in a while, but I don't believe that women should be drafted. Many may hate me for this, but it's something I grew up believing and it's something I've put a lot of thought into. However, don't get confused and tell me I don't believe women should go into the military, for I will flash my ROTC sweatshirt at you faster than you can say "Whomp." And Whomp's an easy word to say.

Why do I believe women shouldn't be drafted?

Because I really don't believe that men should get drafted either.

I see no need for a draft now. Our military forces are perfectly strong, and with installations like the Air Force Academy (BTW - Congrats, Sword) and West Point, we have good leadership. And we have thousands of people enlisting in the military. In Switzerland, every man has to perform two years of military service, and whenever threat comes, can be called back into service. Here, things are more voluntary, and that is what I like about our country.

A draft, to me, is unAmerican. During the World Wars, it was necessary, I know, but I seriously don't think it is anymore. We've got more branches of the military than we did then.

Of course, I could be wrong. If I am, don't hesitate to correct me.

No, we don't need the draft right now. But we might later. And if we do, women should be registered now. Tell me, Crin, what do you think of women being exempt on a hypothetical basis? As in - we have the draft, it's being used, and there's nothing you can do about it. I know you want to get rid of it in general, but since we have it, what do you think of women's parts?

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by veeco
- Because there's gotta be some people left in the country to run it after the war is over and a large percentage of the population who could work is now deceased? Granted, why should it be the women and not vice versa? I guess it's as an arbitrary rule as other...

Or maybe because some people have to work in the country while the war is going on as well?

I remember seeing a vintage poster once that said something like: For every soldier, a woman worker!

Don't forget that during the world wars was the time when women first started to work the jobs that were usually reserved to men before. It was a great time for women liberation.

Why should the women get to stay home to cook, clean, and build tanks? Why can't men do that? Or better yet, a mixture of men and women? You say an "arbitrary rule", but why have the rule at all? Draft a bunch of men, and send them to war. Then draft a bunch of women, and send them, too. Then leave a bunch of men and women at home to keep the country running.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by edew
The bottom line way to look at this whole issue is thus: if you have a choice, would you rather be a male or female (nevermind the intelligence or looks or whatever)? Given our current social codes and all that, would you rather be male or female? Caucasian or not? Straight or homesexual?

That's the bottom line. I think anyone who would opt for anything other than straight white male is just BS-ing. Of course one would rather be a straight white male. By a large margin.

It's not so much whether you're happy as you are. You better be, because you can't change it. But, if you look at the statistics, other than a shorter average lifespan (which is getting closer to the female's average), everything shows much more benefit for being a straight white male.

Until the day comes when we all cannot honestly make a clear choice, there is still discrimination and inequality in this society.

Try being a straight white middle class male when it comes to college admissions time, and scholarship applications. If you want anything, you need to have (A) cured a major disease before the age of 15, (B) started a successful commercial enterprise and gotten it on the stock exchange, or (C) been captain of EVERY sport offered at your school. And if this number is less than twenty, well, you're screwed. Oh, and if you're not valedictorian, you'd better have done all three of those things to explain why you didn't have so much time to study for your Honors, AP, and IB classes.

Then you get the people (especially females) who are a minority from one of the coasts, with one or more parents that have some disability. All they have to do is express interest, and colleges start throwing money at them.

Why? Because if you don't have enough minorities, etc. in your school anymore, you're racist, sexist, and every other -ist you can think of. So colleges have to fill quotas, which means that the biggest group (straight white middle class males) is completely screwed.

Discrimination does work all ways. Just make the laws even for everybody, and things will work out in the end. That goes for the draft, too.

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Niceguy4186
I feel females should not be drafted, i'm sorry but the fact just is, males are phyically better off. what would you rather be in, a squadern of females or men? if you get wonded in battle, would you rather have a 200lb guy throw you over his shoulder and take you back, or 140 lb girl try and do that... granted there are females out there who can hold there own, but they are few and far between. (ps, i have the same feelings about female fire fighters, but that's for a different thread)

Women do tend to be physically weaker than men. Additionally, they're not usually as good in combat. Just a fact.

Would you like to be in a combat unit with women? No. Because I'd personally like to be in a combat unit with as many males as possible, and as large and as mean as possible. Basically, I don't want somebody smaller watching my back if at all possible.

So, let us preclude gender-integrated units. We've got units of men, and units of women. Are you really going to want to stick a squad of women on the line against a large group of angry enemy men? It just wouldn't be good sense.

Basically, because women tend to be weaker, chances are their presence would weaken a combat force.

However, there are plenty of non-combat jobs for which a woman could be drafted. And each one of these posts that a woman holds, leaves one more man available for active combat. Which means another person or two is staying at home with the kids, where people should be. (BTW - yes, a woman's place is in the home, raising the kids. But so is a man's. That's what parents are for. Unfortunately, things like making a living usually interfere.)

Sound unfair, that women would be relegated to behind-the-lines support duties, while men fight in real combat? Sure. But why are women complaining about this?

I could also see the point, however, that if a woman can pass all of the strict physical requirements a man must, she can be just as good.

Ground combat is a different matter from other types, however. I believe women should be given first preference for air combat (especially fighter) positions. It's been proven that they are naturally more adept at being pilots - they fit in the cockpit better, have better reflexes, can handle more G's, etc.

In any case - make women register for the draft, too.

[Crin Dalmeiier]

Okay, in response to Sword's challenge about how I feel about a hypothetical draft for women, I still say that I am against it. I do not think women should be drafted.

Call me anti-feminist if you will, but I'll be the first person to tell you that I'm not. However, I'm not a die-hard feminist. I believe in equilibrium, which is not exactly the same thing as equality.

Even in today's changing society, we have views that the man goes out and works/fights, the woman stays home, looks after the children, upkeeps the house, etc. The revolution has changed; women can vote, work full-time jobs, forgo the traditional role of raising the children, etc. etc. We're a society pushing forward and stumbling over itself to get equal rights in full swing.

These roles, while changing, shouldn't have to change that drastically. It's a fact that women are better, for the most part, of raising children. It's ALSO a fact that men are more aggressive than women. Fact of life: testosterone vs. estrogen. S