Norplant?
This is why an army of swordsman or pro-wrestlers would be predominantly male, even if they allowed women to compete for combat slots on a gender-blind playing field. In an army of technicians, intelligence analysts, snipers, helicopter pilots, and medics, I see no reason why women shouldn’t be present in large numbers. In any army, women should be allowed to compete on a level playing field with men; if these means fewer women are assigned to jobs requiring lots of upper-body strength so be it.
True, but you’d still have to do the boot camp thing, and in war, rear areas can become front lines at unexpected moments. Helicopter technician one moment may have to become grunt the next. It’s why basic training is pretty much universally required.
Besides, the way I see it, war is horrible enough right now. Do we really need to widen further what is acceptable in warfare?
mrblue92: *Besides, the way I see it, war is horrible enough right now. Do we really need to widen further what is acceptable in warfare? *
Goodness, mrblue, I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that rape of female POW’s should be considered acceptable! War crime all the way, just as other forms of torture applied to male POW’s are. But we don’t excuse males from combat duty because they might be captured and tortured, and we shouldn’t excuse females on those grounds either. Speaking as a female, if I joined the military I wouldn’t want to be shielded from that risk at the expense of my brothers-in-arms.
Dangerosa, your first post basically said my thoughts on the issue. Although, since I live in Canada, I’ve never had to deal with drafting, and am thankful for it.
I wasn’t trying to say that anyone did. What I was trying to say is that the female draft is a progression of total warfare into a previously untouched population group. This is what you are saying is acceptable. I’m sorry; sometimes when things are obvious to me I forget to say them. (BTW, technically you are saying the greater risks of war-time rape and pregnacy are acceptable risks to women that men would not have to worry about.)
When you examine the history of warfare, you see that the universal male draft is actually a relatively new concept, a precursor to industrialized warfare. There was forced impressment for quite some time before the first real conscription (France, 1793), but modern conscription (along with weapons development) helped make the wars fought in the 18th and 19th century grow increasingly bloody at a seemingly exponential rate.
If every country were to draft women, it essentially doubles the available “manpower” to conduct warfare. (OK, not necessarily because there are economic & material concerns about keeping X number of people in the field, but you get the idea.) All other things being equal in an a total war, the female draft would double the casualty rate simply because there would be twice as many bodies to shoot. This is something I would hope most people would like to avoid.
Ack. That should be “19th and 20th Century”… Sorry.
mrblue92: What I was trying to say is that the female draft is a progression of total warfare into a previously untouched population group.
Untouched? Hardly. It has seldom been very safe to be a female civilian in wartime, and with the proliferation of guerrila warfare these days it’s less safe than ever. We have hardly saved women as a population group from being raped by enemy soldiers by refusing to draft them. (When we don’t fight wars on our own turf, then yes, it makes a big difference.) And the dangers of forced pregnancy, at least, could be alleviated by contraceptive implants for women in combat units.
The dangers of rape are, of course, awful to contemplate, but I think it’s unfair to the sufferings of tortured male prisoners to say that we’ll stand for torturing guys but not for raping women. I don’t think that what happened to someone like Jeremiah Denton in Vietnam was better than being raped. According to Dr. Amy Hudock of Marshall University [quoting from a report by one of her students], “Male prisoners of war often face more direct forms of torture such as physical abuse and execution. However, female prisoners of war are subjected to more indirect forms of torture designed to psychologically intimidate them. The most common forms of torture imposed upon women in captivity are rape, forced pregnancy, and other types of acts of sexual aggression.” So it sounds as though life as a female POW can indeed be horrible, but life as a male POW can’t really be called better. I could not square it with my conscience to say that women should avoid that risk at the cost of increasing the risk to their brother soldiers.
Mind you, I’m opposed to conscription for both sexes, because of the increased carnage you mention and also the belief that a volunteer army does a better job. But if we have conscription, I don’t think we should exclude women from it or from combat duty.
*All other things being equal in an a total war, the female draft would double the casualty rate simply because there would be twice as many bodies to shoot. This is something I would hope most people would like to avoid. *
Well, but that’s an equally good argument for keeping the shorter or skinnier or blonder half of male servicemen out of combat duty too. If you just want to reduce the number of bodies in combat, you don’t have to do it by excluding women.
Kimstu: Sorry for the delay, I haven’t had much time to post the last couple days.
No we haven’t, but remember that only the side winning territory gets the opportunity. Women at the front puts them directly in jeopardy of being abused at the hands of the enemy, rather than indirectly.
I never said male POW’s couldn’t be victims (I mentioned that in my first post). But I think it’s common sense that women POW’s would be more likely to be victimized than men.
Of course you don’t have to, but if you can, why wouldn’t you? Now, if a woman wants to serve voluntarily on the front lines, I have no problem with it as long as she is fully aware of the extra risks involved. (My personal opinion is that anyone who really wants to be there is likely either naive, ignorant, or psychotic, but that’s another debate…)
BTW, if you oppose conscription, why are you arguing for more conscription? 
(j/k–I know the answer)
Minor hijack, please excuse.
I joined the army at 17. Guess what I got in the mail when I turned 18? A reminder to register for selective service. Your government at work.
And now back to regular programming </hijack>
There is only one problem with the promotion of equality across the board as I see it. This is the extremist groups who make claims such as the current movement in Sweden to remove urinals from men’s rooms to promote equality. Standing while urinating is purported to be an act of male agression by the promoters of this action.
Hello? First off, women can pee standing up too and while it may be messy, it is still pissing standing up. Also I have had male roomates who are just as messy even with a convenient aiming device provided by nature. Maybe we remove all the urinals from the Swedish restrooms and also ensure that all the tubes of Swedish women get tied since men can’t have babies (with the exception of that one Asian fellow who was implanted with an embryo). That would be equal.
To me it is all about perspective. Some people feel that true equality is sameness. Some people feel that equality is a matter of no artificial barriers and allowing each to achieve his or her own maximum level of accomplishment w/o a “glass ceiling” in the way.
The current issue of women in the military is so completely complex that no one will EVER be happy with an answerv because social equality and natural equality does not mate well in this area.
While in the service I worked with women who were good soldiers and women who were shitty. To be honest there were a lot more of the latter than the former. This is not entirely the fault of the shitty soldier, it is mainly the fault of the administration system. Female soldiers are pretty much allowed to get away with more “shaming” (military slang for goofing off or avoiding duty) because many NCO’s don’t want to deal with them. The physical requirements for females and males in the military do not match and this is another bone of contention. My philosophy on that has been this: Men and women in service should both have the same minimal intelligence and physical abilities and that level for brains and brawn should be set so high that only those of above average ability in all areas are allowed to soldier. Frankly, do you want someone male OR female who could not get a job at McDonalds or carry a wounded comrade to aid.
Sadly according to current news atricles on the subject they have lowered the standard for military fitness and have made basic training more of a summer camp than a boot camp.
All of that having been said, there are practical metter to contend with. First and probably the most minor dealing with supply. Can women work in combat as cheaply as men? Men can be bunked togeather and all use the same supplies. Under current protocal women must be allowed seperate facilities for a good portion of their activities (showering, sleeping, basic toilet). Also (bear in mind I am not nor have I ever been a woman so I have to take women’s word on this) most women have a monthly period and some women complain of major pain/discomfort during or preceeding this time. Does this make them a liability in combat? For some it may, should these people be exempt from combat because of nature? Dunno. I’m sure if you make the physical demands more strenious for women and men you will get some cases of menorreahea <SP>(common among many female atheletes. Lose enough body fat and aunt Flo ceases to visit). That would seem to take care of a previously mentions problem, but as I understand it menorreahea can cause many other health problems. Can we make a female soldier who is physically equal to any male soldier? Yes. Can we make sure that every soldier is held to a higher but equal standard both male and female? Probably, but I doubt it would be worth the hassle.
The final argument does not seem to make sense and comes off as a bit paranoid unless you are into your history and believe in the instability of our current world power structure.
Women make babies. True they don’t do it alone, but anyone who ever watches daytime shows like Jerry Springer or Ricky Lake can confirm that one man can impregnate MANY women. Hell, you can even get them chromosones in a tube and skip the man (almost) completely. What this means is that we could get a big ass portion of our male populace (locally or globally) and so long as we had a large female populace in place we could recover in a generation. Some of you see this as highly unlikely, but small examples have happened even in this century (two great wars).
Do I think women should be drafted? Yes. So should gays and aliens and everyone else. But then some people think I’m a nut.
zen101
D.F.A.
I almost forgot,
On the topic of rape and torture of women because of capture. Men get the same treatment (ask T.E. Lawrence) and I doubt there is anything that torturers have been holding back for the ladies.
Aside from that anyone can tell you women handle blood and pain better than men.
zen101
D.F.A.
I’ll try this one LAST time. Quoting my last post:
If you need to be convinced of this, you only need compare the number of cases of women being raped vs. the number of cases of men being raped.
Clearly you’ve never met my sister. 
Jews aren’t allowed to be conscientious objectors? Where did yopu here that?
The friend had probably been told, inaccurately, that Conscientious Objector status was reserved for followers of specifically pacifist or non-statist religions (quakers, Amish, JW’s, etc).
Personally, I find it rather amusing that just plain cowardice does NOT disqualify you from being pressed into service against your will, but then once you’re in uniform it’s a major felony.
jrd
I’m flabbergasted. Many of you seem to see the military as NOTHING MORE than a career choice, like insurance agent or computer programmer. Can this country really be that complacent?
First, THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE MANDATORY CONSCRIPTION EXCEPT IN TIME OF WAR. That’s a declared war, such as we haven’t had since World War II. Registering for the draft is in case we go to war, which in the modern world seems unlikely unless we are actually attacked. Our military is entirely voluntary right now, and has been since the end of Vietnam.
Second, maybe I’m old fashioned, but if the U.S. is at war any man who runs and hides is a damn coward. You have only two honorable options: (1) Serve. (2) Stand up as a conscientious objector and engage in civil disobedience and go to jail. And I mean insist on going to jail. Spend your money and spend your time, all of it, convincing your countrymen that the war is wrong and why.
Those are the only options, if you’re not completely without character. Running to Canada, passing legislation to excuse you and yours, or even just ducking your head and hoping it all passes over you is just simply beneath contempt. If there’s a real war on, your country needs you - everybody - one way or another. There’s no ducking it, you have to face the challenge one way or another unless you’re a child. “Conscientious objectors” who merely go about their ordinary lives and no more than that, while others are off fighting to defend them, deserve no one’s respect, Quaker or no.
Third, conscription is not a burden foisted on men, it is a responsibility that we bear for living in this society and enjoying the benefits of peace that the nation’s military strength provides. There’s a big difference. And here’s where the gender equality issue comes in. Women are protected by those armed forces that protect this country and its interests, and to be absolved of the corresponding responsibility to serve in them seems to be a form of infantilization. Naturally many women - most feminists I’ve met - object to this patriarchal belittlement, although I agree that an awful lot seem never to have really thought about it, or have done so only shallowly.
If I can hijack a little, or maybe just turn the question down a new path, I think a very closely related question which should come before the issue of the draft is the issue of women in combat. I agree with mrblue92 that since the industrial revolution, the force applied by soldier’s weapons rarely comes from the soldier - it comes from exploding chemicals. Modern technology renders the strength difference between men and women less relevant than ever before in history. It’s not COMPLETELY irrelevant: hand-to-hand combat is still a part of modern war, but much less so than in the past. Another unspoken truth of modern war is this: ordinary grunts are largely cannon fodder. This has been true since DeSaxe reformed the French military in the 18th century. Before that soldiers were professionals and standing armies were fairly small and very elite: highly selected groups who did nothing but train to fight, mostly with swords and cannons, all the time. As hand-held firearms improved to where any schmuck could fire one and be fairly effective, conscription was invented to put as many men in the field as possible, firing those weapons - bakers, tailors, smiths, cattle-milkers - it didn’t matter (this change in philosophy was a big part of Napoleon’s successes). It’s been that way ever since, although since WWII, things have reverted a little, and soldiering is a bit more of a skilled profession than it used to be, especially in all-volunteer high-tech forces like ours. But the change is slow and most grunts are still little more than guys who can go where they’re told and pull a trigger.
I conclude that females, if properly led, could be effective in combat, though perhaps slightly less so than males.
Having served in the military I can assert based on extrapolations of my experience and observations that the social dynamics are not conducive to mixed-gender combat units, IMO. However, I suspect that an all-female unit could be effectively created and deployed. This would also have the advantage that they could be assigned to duties where hand-to-hand fighting and/or capture was less likely, or at least more avoidable. Guarding supply trains, for example, or defending fortified positions once taken, is combat duty that I feel could probably be taken over by female units very effectively.
Personally, I suspect that this is the kind of thing more likely to be done by a smaller country (like, say, Israel) before being adopted by the U.S., but I also think it will inevitably come to pass that the world will have direct experience of effective female combat units operating in a real war. When that happens, the arguments that a woman should have the right to be a CIC but not the responsibility to be a PFC will be enormously weakened.
Having said that, I will add that I am also old-fashioned enough to think that while women should be subject to the draft, serving in combat units should, for them, be voluntary. I am completely chauvinistic in my reasons, though; I can’t fight the instinct that women need, and should be granted, a certain level of protection by men. Oh well - there it is.
One last point: I’ve long felt that the military should create special divisions specially trained for peacekeeping missions. Ordinary combat soldiers are just the wrong tool for the job. A female unit might be an ideal choice for such a job: combat ready if necessary, but with the primary role of helping the locals and keeping the peace. Women marching down the road might be viewed as less threatening and more nurturing than the average unit of, say, Green Berets. Them implied threat to sovereignty would probably be greatly diminished.
Thank you…exactly.
In a more foolish time (i.e. high school), I was seriously offended that women were completely exempt from conscription while men of all walks of live were torn from their peaceful lives to be maimed or killed.
Then I learned that the draft had ended, so I felt a little better about it.
Then, much later, I found out what really happened in the the last war which had the draft, the Vietnam War, and promptly decided that I would not wish that horror on my father (who had a noncombatant role), much less women.
It’s been said before: The ones who genuinely have a problem with half the populace being exempt from the draft would be much more likely to demand it to be repealed rather than implemented fairly.
APB, how exactly is dying because someone tells you to a responsibility? In america at least the only war that we should have fought is with the japanese. Every other war in the last 100 years has been on foriegn soil where we did more harm than good. Going to jail being a objector does no good because your in jail and you can do nothing.
Also APB youve never been in a war have you? Theres a reason why a war is called hell and thats because your risking your life to kill people. Something im pretty sure the average person has trouble doing both, and alot more trouble justifying it.
Thirdly what is a “real” war? Defending ones country seems to small a thing to die for unless not defending it is worse.
Asmodean, I’ve served in the military, though not during war time. However, I served with a lot of men who WERE in wars, and a lot of my views were shaped by them. I have met very few veterans who would disagree with most of what I wrote; even those from Vietnam usually feel that most of those people who didn’t go (and could have) should have been less self-centered on merely avoiding the draft, less supportive of Ho Chi Minh, and more coherent in persuading OUR OWN government to get out. I’ve certainly never met a Vietnam veteran who felt the war wasn’t long ENOUGH. Hence, if you are going to avoid the responsibility of service, you incur a responsibility to take on another fight, that of pursuing a peaceful conclusion in accord with your supposed conscience (remember that? It’s the root of the word “conscientious”).
What wars have you served in? I would guess from the question “APB, how exactly is dying because someone tells you to a responsibility?” that not only have you never served in a war, you’ve never been in the service at all since you clearly haven’t a clue what it’s about.
As for the rest, do you think we did more harm than good in Europe in WWII? I was in Grenada a couple of years after we invaded, and Americans were very popular: we restored a popularly elected leader and ousted a guy who had tried to sieze power by firing into a crowd of protestors, among other things. At least, that’s what the Grenadans said.
I have my doubts about Korea and Vietnam, but in the larger picture, the containment policy certainly, IMO, helped bring about the collapse of communism sooner than it would have otherwise. I know rather a lot of people who grew up under communist systems in Poland, Russia, Cuba, Moldova, Czeckoslovakia and others, and they almost universally agree that this is a good thing.
By a “real war” I meant one in which two countries have declared war on each other and are trying to achieve military objectives, as opposed to the things we’re tossed into by ivory tower diplomats who refer to foreign aid as a carrot and risking men’s lives as a “stick”. The dabbling and populace crowd control and humanitarian aid missions and so forth the military is being constantly assigned to. Those things are valuable sometimes, but the army is not trained for them and often elicits a hostile response that puts people’s lives at risk. A “real war” is one in which the nation or it’s interests is in actual jeopardy, as opposed to the half ass actions we usually take to rattle our sabers and shore up our self-image.
mrblue92: * I never said male POW’s couldn’t be victims (I mentioned that in my first post). But I think it’s common sense that women POW’s would be more likely to be victimized than men. If you need to be convinced of this, you only need compare the number of cases of women being raped vs. the number of cases of men being raped. *
Actually, mrblue, as commonsensical as your argument may sound, I don’t think the evidence actually supports it. Recall that abuse of prisoners in wartime is a different matter from rape as a civilian crime. From the statistics I’ve seen, there’s no evidence that female POW’s are more likely to be abused and tortured than male ones (although it seems that they are more likely to be sexually abused, and of course the percentage of female POW’s is sufficiently small that we may not have a significant sample). Here’s an excerpt from a US State Department briefing on Iraqi war crimes:
There doesn’t seem to be any plausible reason to think that war criminals will sexually abuse female prisoners while treating male ones with respect. As a source I cited in an earlier post pointed out, female prisoners are more likely to be sexually abused, but male prisoners are more likely to be subjected to other abuses such as mutilation or execution.
And without in any way wishing to disparage the horrors of rape and sexual abuse, I would like to point out that, speaking as a woman, I would sure as hell rather be raped than have an electric drill stuck into my chest or have my eyes gouged out or be thrown into an acid bath. At the risk of sounding callous about the advantages and disadvantages of different forms of torture, I’d even point out that since female prisoners are more likely to be subjected to rape and other kinds of sexual humiliation than to disabling beatings or mutilations that would “damage the goods” from the captors’ point of view, female POWs would seem to have a potential advantage in remaining physically capable of information-gathering, resistance, and/or escape.
So all in all, I don’t really buy the argument that women in combat are more likely to be subjected to bad treatment (or worse forms of bad treatment) than men are. If you want to make that claim again, I think you’ll have to back it up with actual data, not just speculative extrapolations from civilian crime victims. Given the apparently “equal-opportunity” nature of POW-torturing in real-life war, I don’t think there’s a good argument to be made for keeping women out of combat on those grounds.
As APB eloquently pointed out, if conscription becomes necessary then it is an obligation that falls on men and women alike. And for that reason, I also can’t buy the argument that women’s combat service should only be voluntary, even when men’s isn’t. (APB doesn’t really seem to buy it either, since he admits he can only justify it by “completely chauvinistic” reasons. :)) You guys may be brave enough to face the possibility of torture and execution without resenting the fact that women are spared those dangers, but I imagine that the average terrified conscript might feel pretty damn resentful about it, and I don’t think that that sort of thing is good for morale in the services. (I have heard from people who were of draft age during Vietnam, for example, that there was quite a bit of such resentment, however unwillingly felt, on the part of male draftees or potential draftees towards the women who avoided those dangers just by being female.) It’s also not good for the morale of female conscripts to give them, and only them, the choice of whether or not to serve in combat—imagine having to struggle between your natural wish to avoid danger and the guilt of feeling that your safety is purchased at the expense of your brother soldiers.
So I think the only rational position is: don’t conscript anybody or make anybody register for conscription under ordinary circumstances, but if you have to conscript (or register), then everybody should be subject to it. And if you’re going to make combat duty mandatory for any conscripts, make it mandatory for all of them. Gender-based exceptions (unless they involve necessary size/strength criteria) don’t have a place in considering the obligations of a soldier, or a citizen who has to serve as a soldier.