Should women be obligated to join the draft?

[DaN]

As a member of the female persuasion, yes, I do think that we should have equality in every way, shape and form. I, personally, see no problem with women being drafted. I think men and women deserve equality in every way, shape and form.

 

 

 

A woman is just as capable in a military situation as a man is, the only problem is, in the USA at least, the big-wigs who make decisions like that are obviously patriarchal and pig-headed enough that they still want women at home, tending to the children, where their brain is definitely not being utilized to its fullest extent.

 

 

 

The double standards will ensue until someone puts their foot down and says enough is enough.

 

 

 

It's either the man or the woman. One has to tend the family, not to act sexist or any of that matter, but woman are usually better caretakers then men. Im not saying woman are bad at stuff, I'm just saying that the majority of people drafted are a person from a family.

 

 

 

Women are also better at mindless repetitive tasks and I'm sure someone will accuse me of being sexist for saying so.

 

 

 

Mining companies like to employ women as drivers because they can drive a haulpack in and out of the pit all day whereas men are more likely to get bored and do something dangerous either by accident or deliberately as a result.

 

 

 

Women are also good for reconnaissance and sniper work in the military, men have better coordination for sniping but women have the patience to wait for long periods of time. So there is allot of use for them in military service.

[warren211]

I think that unless the nations's safety and security are absolutely at stake (not as in "these guys might be a threat" but "these guys have 3 missiles aimed right at us"), there shouldn't be a draft at all. And if there were, then there should be a priority system set up. In a married couple, only the father can get drafted. If a woman lives alone, she can get drafted. If either a man or woman is a single parent, they cannot get drafted because their children would be alone. Although this might lead to problems with people divorcing their spouses and taking the kids just to avoid the draft.

[Lionheart_0]

To solve both the problems of conscription and women vs. men going to war, I think we should bread a group of people just to become warriors.... What would we call these people?

[Faux]

To solve both the problems of conscription and women vs. men going to war, I think we should bread a group of people just to become warriors.... What would we call these people?

 

Spartan soldiers

[ThurinEthir]

To solve both the problems of conscription and women vs. men going to war, I think we should bread a group of people just to become warriors.... What would we call these people?

 

K-niggits.

[magekillr]

Of course they should be obligated to join the draft if there ever was one. It would be sexist not to do so.

[Zierro]

Yeah they should, but I don't think many should be put onto the battlefield. My teacher who was in the army told me he wouldn't like it if he were fighting beside a woman because then he would feel a lot more obligated to save her butt rather than if it were a guy.

 

 

 

To Shadow: That just means they need to fix their problems of the military ignoring the issue, not that we shouldn't draft women.

[Amaranth_GTO]

Well, it would be only fair for women to be drafted also. As long as the children are left with at least 1 caretaker, they should be fine.

 

 

 

For example, if they live with grandparents, both parents could probably be drafted. If only 1 parent is drafted, choose whichever of the two is most fit rather than the man.

[Laura]

I'm not sure I see your point. A draft that included women wouldn't leave the country empty; there'd still be plenty of people 'at home making items', they just wouldn't all be female. A draft doesn't automatically mean calling up everyone eligible and shipping them off to war.

It's hard on bussinesses to constantly end and fire employees when they get drafted every month. It means you have to train new employees to do the job they want. Supplies limit soldiers, soldiers don't limit supplies.

 

Sorry, but that argument is patently absurd. There is no logistical reason whatsoever why a draft involving both men and women need result in supply shortages. By drafting both sexes you vastly increase the number of available soldiers, which means you can also narrow the criteria in other areas. You could, for example, narrow the age range in which people are liable to be called up. In that example the population that could be relied upon by employers would simply change from "women" to "people over X years of age".

 

 

 

The rest of your post is answered elsewhere - female soldiers are not a liability.

That wasn't the question asked, nor any variable you or I introduced in the argument until now. Adding soldiers means taking away people from their previous employment. This isn't biased to if you're a Tier 1 or a specialist. In any case, I wasn't referring to a lack of supplies, rather, a larger requirement for them. I'm unsure what you mean of "liability." Even without my supplies argument, you introduce new variables for the drafts, the most essential being the family obligations. If you draft both spouses, or even one, who is to look after the children? This brings back my anthropological argument, which you declined as sexism.

[Collective]

Adding soldiers means taking away people from their previous employment.

What difference does it make if you take 150,000 men and 150,000 women rather than just 300,000 men?

 

 

 

In any case, I wasn't referring to a lack of supplies, rather, a larger requirement for them.

it would be far better for the country itself to make surplus items than have too many soldiers at war without supplies.

"soldiers at war without supplies" -> "I wasn't referring to a lack of supplies" ... what?

 

 

 

I'm unsure what you mean of "liability."

You referred to the drafting of women soldiers as "purposely ignoring problems in the Armed Forces". What was that meant to suggest if not that women are/would exacerbate a problem in the armed forces?

 

 

 

If you draft both spouses, or even one, who is to look after the children? This brings back my anthropological argument, which you declined as sexism.

Male spouses have long been subject to the draft and nobody here is suggesting that a husband and wife with children both be drafted. What's more your "anthropological argument" wasn't about couples with children -- you were using common perceptions of men and women as an excuse to exclude all women from forced military service, regardless of whether or not they had dependants. That argument remains a non sequitur unless your intention is to claim that every woman would be required in the country to take care of her or someone elses children and that men would not be able to contribute to such childcare, in which case the argument ceases to be a non sequitur and becomes just plain old stupid.

 

 

 

In summary, drafting women would not:

 

• [*:bgugbpye] negatively impact child care
   
  [*:bgugbpye] cause a supply shortage (by your own admission, it seems)
   
  [*:bgugbpye] make it more difficult for companies to manage their workforce
   
  [*:bgugbpye] pose a "problem" for the armed forces

 

 

 

Beyond repeatedly highlighting your inability to grasp that drafting different people does not mean drafting more people you have not made even a cursory attempt to explain why any of those things would occur. So, do you actually have any valid arguments against the drafting of women, or are you going to continue clutching at straws and making increasingly incoherent and inconsistent responses?

[BlueLancer]

When women in Israel get drafted for active military duty (which is compulsory) which can also involve combat situations, the grandparents and other relatives usually look after the kids if the women have any. The families tend to be very tight-knitted and it's usually not a problem. So I also concur that it seems like a bit of a strawman argument.

 

 

 

What I agree with is that not everyone should be on the front lines... The military needs supplies just as bad as it needs manpower. After serving in the military for a while I enormously started to respect the maintenance crews and the meal preparers, transporters/drivers, radio operators etc... Without them, the soldiers are nothing and can't do anything.

 

 

 

Jobs during a draft/wartime should just be given based on training, education, the person's capabilites etc., regardless of gender, just like in Israel. They don't draft women who design microchip structure at Intel for machine gunners. They draft family mothers, physical labourers, etc..

[i_love_burritos]

They draft family mothers

 

 

 

If this is true, this is the sole reason I'm opposed to it. Same goes for family fathers.

 

 

 

EDIT: Spelling

[BlueLancer]

If a woman/mother can show she has real or ethical for not enlisting, she can appeal to the "conscience committee" and be relieved of duty, but for men it's much harder and they are often sent to military prison (and some women don't pass the committee's scrutiny/don't even know it exists)

 

 

 

 

http://www.wri-irg.org/co/co-isr-03.htm

 

According to IDF officials a conscientious objector is referred to the Conscience Committee if he states to an IDF official that he cannot perform military service on grounds of conscientious objection. However, in many cases men who express their conscientious objection are not transferred to the Conscience Committee; this is especially the case with Druze conscientious objectors.

 

 

 

Being a father is rarely a reason for the committee to relieve the man from military duty. A woman with a child doesn't get automatically exempted either if she is young. 30-40 and older men/women naturally don't have to enter the service for example if they just obtained citizenship. The maximum age of entering service is 29, minimum is 18, and conscripts stay in the reserve until 45 years old (proposed law reform to drop the age to 40)

[Laura]

Adding soldiers means taking away people from their previous employment.

What difference does it make if you take 150,000 men and 150,000 women rather than just 300,000 men?

Then what's the use of drafting them? If men are physically more fit for physical activities, what role are women going to play?

 

 

 

I'm unsure what you mean of "liability."

You referred to the drafting of women soldiers as "purposely ignoring problems in the Armed Forces". What was that meant to suggest if not that women are/would exacerbate a problem in the armed forces?

I believe you took it the wrong way then. It's similar to why black men were not able to join the Air Force in the same manner as other ethnicities, even though equality was passed. This country is far from its sexist ways and the last thing the military wants to do is deal with protests and chaos amidst a drafting requirement.

 

 

 

If you draft both spouses, or even one, who is to look after the children? This brings back my anthropological argument, which you declined as sexism.

Male spouses have long been subject to the draft and nobody here is suggesting that a husband and wife with children both be drafted. What's more your "anthropological argument" wasn't about couples with children -- you were using common perceptions of men and women as an excuse to exclude all women from forced military service, regardless of whether or not they had dependants. That argument remains a non sequitur unless your intention is to claim that every woman would be required in the country to take care of her or someone elses children and that men would not be able to contribute to such childcare, in which case the argument ceases to be a non sequitur and becomes just plain old stupid.

 

 

 

In summary, drafting women would not:

 

• [*:300armvd] negatively impact child care
   
  [*:300armvd] cause a supply shortage (by your own admission, it seems)
   
  [*:300armvd] make it more difficult for companies to manage their workforce
   
  [*:300armvd] pose a "problem" for the armed forces

 

 

 

Beyond repeatedly highlighting your inability to grasp that drafting different people does not mean drafting more people you have not made even a cursory attempt to explain why any of those things would occur. So, do you actually have any valid arguments against the drafting of women, or are you going to continue clutching at straws and making increasingly incoherent and inconsistent responses?

Are you familiar with waivers? Medical, executive, financial, and the works? My role, when volunteering at a hospital was nothing more than reviewing waivers. Drafting both sexes increases these ten fold. Simply put, the Army didn't care if you had a child and were any only father/mother. No, it didn't come to their attention until after the waiver was admitted and sent to them. At which point, each waiver went through three people, the physician or caretaker in any degree, the Commander of the Hospital or Head of Clinics in any such degree, and the Superintendent of Hospitals or Superintendent in any degree.

 

 

 

And please, don't question or insult my intelligence on something as minuscule as a hypothetical proposition. I respect your argument and if you disagree with mine, then say so, don't insult myself or the opinion alongside it. I have nothing more to add to your responses if you're going to take hostile approaches.

[Collective]

Then what's the use of drafting them? If men are physically more fit for physical activities, what role are women going to play?

 

Men being more physically able doesn't mean that women are useless in combat, especially not when properly trained and properly armed. There's also a wide range of non-direct-combat roles that women could take and which make up a good proportion of the armed forces. Different countries have vastly different takes on which roles women are suitable for in the military, ranging from none at all through to anything goes, so these things are very much still up for debate.

 

 

 

Beyond your question there's also the moral case that women who are able to fight should not be exempt from doing so simply because of their gender, something many supporters of a mixed-draft people base their opinion on. Further to that point it is often mentioned that there is a degree of overlap between the genders (that is to say that all men are not stronger/faster than all women). To some the moral argument overrides any perceived risk regarding the physical differences, something I'm not so sure about.

 

 

 

My position, then, is that regardless of whether or not women are, as a rule, suitable for primary combat roles, that there are plenty of other roles they can fill and I don't see a good reason to exclude them in this age of equality.

 

 

 

Your point about waivers strikes me as more of a technicality than a real concern; it's a process that would need to be made more efficient, yes, but it's not a show-stopper.

[Star_Fox]

No, they shouldn't be obligated. Neither should men.

 

 

 

+1 there shouldn't be a draft at all. and the selective service can go suck a [insert anything offensive here].

 

 

 

there have been numbers of potential solders that were fragged by conscripted men. it can happen again if the draft was revived in U.S. only at a larger scale...

[Laura]

Adding soldiers means taking away people from their previous employment.

What difference does it make if you take 150,000 men and 150,000 women rather than just 300,000 men?

Then what's the use of drafting them? If men are physically more fit for physical activities, what role are women going to play?

 

 

 

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are 150,000 Physically Fit men suitable for the army. The army needs 300,000 soldiers. However, there are also 100,000 woman who are in just as good shape as the men are. Should the army take 150,000 fat men, or 100,000 fit women and 50,000 fat men along with the physically fit men? The answer should be quite obvious, really.

That's not the way the Armed Forces works in the United States. Soldiers usually undergo a rigorous training camp for eight weeks before deployment.

[DaN]

They draft family mothers

 

 

 

If this is true, this is the sole reason I'm opposed to it. Same goes for family fathers.

 

 

 

EDIT: Spelling

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

 

I woman who works as a chef would be better kept back from the front line to keep up the food supply, whereas a woman who would normally sit at home can be put to good use.

[BlueLancer]

Women in China and Israel have good chances of becoming chefs or support personnel, as said, not everyone has to serve on the front line. But in those countries, the law is clear; The conscription is for both women and men (it just mentions 'citizens'; women are citizens)

 

 

 

One of my superiors in the army was a woman (Master Sgt.), and I saw plenty more serving. In my country conscription is only for males, but females can apply if they want to.

[raven_gaurd0]

Hush, caped crusader.

 

Women of this nation (USA) are not obligated to join the draft because, well, they're not as genetically apt to physical strain that is all too common on the front lines. The draft IS for footsoldiers. The majority of draftees are sent into squads that serve directly between the terrorists and the rest of the world. They're the people who get shot and die. I imagine some with high credentials get drafted into technical and support, but most are sent to the front.

 

 

 

That in mind, no general can safely extend the draft to women, because it would not only decrease performance on the front, it would also be political suicide. Same thing goes for re-enacting the draft: no politician in ever going to be dumb enough to do it unless it is of an absolutely dire need.

 

 

 

Women can serve just as well as men do, but take a Valley Girl who's fingers text faster than the speed of light, and then take a Cali guy who plays football, and it's obvious which one is the better soldier.

 

 

 

If women want full respect and rights in the country as men do, which they really do, they should at least encourage legislation that would put them on the draft ticket, but I don't expect that to happen.

 

 

 

Rights only matter when you get to receive them. You don't want them so bad when it means you might have to die for them.

[Mystik01]

Hush, caped crusader.

 

Women of this nation (USA) are not obligated to join the draft because, well, they're not as genetically apt to physical strain that is all too common on the front lines. The draft IS for footsoldiers. The majority of draftees are sent into squads that serve directly between the terrorists and the rest of the world. They're the people who get shot and die. I imagine some with high credentials get drafted into technical and support, but most are sent to the front.

 

 

 

That in mind, no general can safely extend the draft to women, because it would not only decrease performance on the front, it would also be political suicide. Same thing goes for re-enacting the draft: no politician in ever going to be dumb enough to do it unless it is of an absolutely dire need.

 

 

 

Women can serve just as well as men do, but take a Valley Girl who's fingers text faster than the speed of light, and then take a Cali guy who plays football, and it's obvious which one is the better soldier.

 

 

 

If women want full respect and rights in the country as men do, which they really do, they should at least encourage legislation that would put them on the draft ticket, but I don't expect that to happen.

 

 

 

Rights only matter when you get to receive them. You don't want them so bad when it means you might have to die for them.

 

 

 

You are as wrong as wrong can be about a few points in your post.

 

 

 

1. Women are as capable as men are in physical strength, and that includes physical and mental endurance. Women in the Israeli army serve as honorably in combat as their male counterparts. Why? because they respect their women.

 

 

 

2. Your stereotype of a "Valley girl" not being able to perform as well as a football player is false. Although for most it is a safe bet that a more physically trained individual can perform better in an environment such as the military, I have witnessed more macho football players falling out of basic training than the prissy valley girls. Strength doesn't mean anything in the military, it comes down to endurance and mental fitness. If you have the mental capacity to endure it, you will succeed, many football players cannot get beyond the confines of a football field.

 

 

 

3. I do agree with you about political suicide of any politician who would want to reinstate the draft. Unless the US gets invaded by a power greater than us, there SHOULD never be a draft.

 

 

 

Now, women in the US are combat pilots and they fly helicopters into direct combat, but they will not in any foreseeable future be allowed in the infantry. Women are as physically fit as men and have the capability to do anything in the military that a man can do. What keeps women from combat? Men. Simply put, American men are the most unsophisticated bastards in the world and feel that a woman is beneath him. And because of that, men will always try to be all macho and "protect" a woman.

 

 

 

Example: A woman in combat will never be treated as equal by her male counterparts. And if she falls into a situation where she is in trouble, (even if she is capable of handling it herself) a man will feel obligated to bail her out, possibly putting himself in stupid undue danger and risking the lives of him, her, and possibly the rest of the squad.

[bonzeben23]

the feminists at my college complain when i asked them to help me carry milk to my dorm room. Some girls want stuff only in theory

[mmmcannibalism]

the feminists at my college complain when i asked them to help me carry milk to my dorm room. Some girls want stuff only in theory

 

 

 

They arent really feminists then.

[brandon1023]

I don't want to change up the thread here but I don't think abortion should be allowed. It's considered murder in my aspect.

 

 

 

Back to the topic, yes. Women think we can't touch them, yet they want equality? Yeah, they should be drafted.

[Joes_So_Cool]

I haven't read any of the other responses, and at least a few people must have thought what I'm about to say as well.

 

 

 

If they want to be treated equal, in jobs, bars, life in general, then yes, they indeed should be.