Conscription for Women

[mrblue92]

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).

Which statistics are those? I saw no statistics in your link indicating percentages of women abused vs. men abused. I know that at least one of the 21 American POW’s during the Gulf War was a female who was sexually assaulted, but so far I have not had much time to dig up information. To be at all statistically significant, one would have to look at a variety of wars because each war is fought under different circumstances between countries with different cultures. Honestly, I think most statistics on this subject from WWII and before will be sketchy at best.

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.

First, you need to clarify that they were talking about civilian atrocities, not POW’s, and second, the link does not indicate that torture was limited to the male population, so it does not support or detract from your argument.

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.

There is relatively little data to be found in any case. The only places I can name offhand that women served in the front lines and were captured in significant numbers is on the Russian Front in WWII and in espionage. And in both of those situations a POW would have been unlikely to survive the war in order to document accurate statistics. I think common sense and speculation are about all we’ve got to go on here, but if I can find the time I’ll see what I can dig up.

Incidentally, I don’t think dismissing civilian criminal statistics out of hand is completely appropriate. True, military life is considerably different, but the opportunistic victimization of women by men disposed to that behavior would be intensified, not diminished in wartime.

As APB eloquently pointed out, if conscription becomes necessary then it is an obligation that falls on men and women alike.

[slight hijack]I think it’s debatable whether conscription is a burden or a responsibility. If a cause is indeed worth dying for and we live in a democracy, one could argue that a completely volunteer army is the only one that is legitimate. If the war isn’t popular among the people who will do the actual dying, it’s tough to justify. On the other hand, practicality dictates that under some cases the draft is needed to fight just wars that are unpopular, and that a larger army will end the war more quickly and save lives. I can see both sides of the issue, but I do not think it “sweet and noble to give one’s life for one’s country”. It is a nice sentiment, and I deeply respect the individual soldier’s self-sacrifice for the freedom and lives of others, but the romantic ideal that it is one’s robotic duty to lay down one’s life when called upon is, IMHO, a dangerous one that discourages self-determination.[/hijack]

…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.

I doubt there is a single soldier with a highly developed self-preservation instinct who hasn’t struggled with this.

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.

This would be the ideal way to do it, but reality often runs contrary to the ideal. A combat unit with women would add a degree of complexity to the necessarily simplistic and rigid hierarchy that is the modern military. Sexual politics, relationships, jealousy and the like would all come into play, complicating the grunt’s life more than it has to be.

Then again, maybe this is nothing new, as black soldiers were integrated under the same types of prejudices, though with a slightly different flavor. Perhaps we need to experiment with an all-female combat unit and compare the economic cost and military effectiveness of that unit versus an identically equipped male unit.

[Kimstu]

mrblue: *True, military life is considerably different, but the opportunistic victimization of women by men disposed to that behavior would be intensified, not diminished in wartime. *

I don’t dispute that. But since the evidence is clear that various awful forms of victimization are lavished on male captives in wartime too, I don’t think there’s much point in treating vaginal rape and other female-specific abuses as a separate category. War-crimes records indicate that soldiers who will rape female captives will also abuse male ones; conversely, Geneva-Convention-compliant armies that don’t permit the abuse of male prisoners will not permit the rape of female ones either. (BTW, the female POW in Iraq you’re thinking of was Major Rhonda Cornum.)

*"…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."

I doubt there is a single soldier with a highly developed self-preservation instinct who hasn’t struggled with this. *

But it’s not systematically imposed on a particular category of soldiers, the way you are suggesting it should be for women. For women to have a choice about serving in combat while men have no choice places an unfair burden on men and women alike.

[mrblue92]

War-crimes records indicate that soldiers who will rape female captives will also abuse male ones; conversely, Geneva-Convention-compliant armies that don’t permit the abuse of male prisoners will not permit the rape of female ones either.

I do not doubt this is generally true. I do think, however, that a war where you’d see 10% of male POW’s victimized, you’d likely see 15-20% of female POW’s victimized, maybe more. Obviously this is pure speculation, but it seems reasonable.

This line of thought leads me to think that perhaps front line duty for women would be deemed hazardous, and would therefore be voluntary, at least at the beginning. Perhaps after wider acceptance the situation might evolve toward mandatory front line duty assignments.

I’ll admit that I could possibly be wrong on this, and that like APB, my view partially stems from the conventional wisdom that men should protect women during war–after all, it has been that way throughout the vast majority of recorded history. Certainly technology has nearly nullified the biological barriers of the past. If this is to change, though, I suspect an evolutionary rather than revolutionary path will be the way. Societial inertia is a difficult thing to fight. Even though I can see where you’re coming from, my gut is still opposed to the ideas of widening the draft pool, women POW’s, and mixed combat units.

Incidentally, Kimstu, it has been a pleasure debating with you, especially considering that this particular topic is one that can easily devolve into nasty name-calling.

[Kimstu]

mrblue: * do think, however, that a war where you’d see 10% of male POW’s victimized, you’d likely see 15-20% of female POW’s victimized, maybe more. Obviously this is pure speculation, but it seems reasonable.

This line of thought leads me to think that perhaps front line duty for women would be deemed hazardous, and would therefore be voluntary, at least at the beginning. *

Hmm, interesting: I had forgotten (if I ever knew) that certain types of combat/espionage duty are classified as “hazardous” and use only volunteers. Have we tried using race/gender/ethnicity categories to help define “hazardous” duty before this?—e.g., might certain assignments in WWII have been “hazardous” for black or Jewish soldiers out of fear that Nazi captors might treat them as “degenerate races”, but not for “Aryan” (white, Nordic) soldiers who wouldn’t be facing that additional danger? If so, how’d it go?

*…like APB, my view partially stems from the conventional wisdom that men should protect women during war–after all, it has been that way throughout the vast majority of recorded history. *

True, although I’d hesitate to deduce from that that keeping females out of combat is somehow “natural” to human beings. Considering that we do have some evidence for female warriors in antiquity, I wonder if the view that women shouldn’t be warriors stems less from rational biological considerations, and more from patriarchal perceptions of women’s social role as closer to that of property than to that of autonomous individuals. If that’s true, then perhaps an army where women and men fight side by side would be more effective and cooperative, once we get past the conventional assumption that women aren’t supposed to fight. After all, the close emotional and sexual relationship between the erastes and eromenos of a homosexual couple in the ancient Spartan military didn’t seem to impede them as a fighting force—quite the contrary, if contemporary commentators are to be believed.

If this is to change, though, I suspect an evolutionary rather than revolutionary path will be the way. Societial inertia is a difficult thing to fight.

Yeah. I’d hope that we could break through some of these prejudices within the volunteer/peacetime military—and particularly in civilian life, where women’s sports and the presence of women in police forces, extreme sports like mountaineering, political leadership, aviation, space exploration, scientific field expeditions, blue-collar jobs, etc. etc., are challenging the old image of women as frail and vulnerable and unsuited to physical exertion and hardship—am I through with this parenthesis yet? guess so—before we have to tackle all these highly charged issues in the context of a military draft.

Incidentally, Kimstu, it has been a pleasure debating with you, especially considering that this particular topic is one that can easily devolve into nasty name-calling.

Aw shucks, mrblue! smooch—um, er, well, maybe gender neutrality in combat still does have a way to go.

[mrblue92]

Have we tried using race/gender/ethnicity categories to help define “hazardous” duty before this?

A comparable example might be the enlistment of Black soldiers during the Civil War. AFAIK, they were not drafted but allowed to volunteer in segregated Regiments. The South, of course, did not take kindly to Black POW’s; IIRC, they were either executed or sent back into bondage. I seriously doubt that any foreign Blacks or Jews would have done much (if any) espionage in the Third Reich, though I could be mistaken.

Now, female POW’s would probably not be in nearly as much additional danger as those groups above. So the question becomes, how much additional danger is necessary before a billet is classified as ‘hazardous’? I don’t feel qualified to answer that, but I think the Marines, SEALS, Rangers, Submariners, and Airborne are all voluntary…

I’d hesitate to deduce from that that keeping females out of combat is somehow “natural” to human beings.

I agree. There are some violent women out there. Ow! Stop hitting me!

If that’s true, then perhaps an army where women and men fight side by side would be more effective and cooperative, once we get past the conventional assumption that women aren’t supposed to fight.

That may be, but I think we have a long way to go–it’s a pretty devisive issue.

I would wish, though, that the conventional assumption would be that neither men nor women are supposed to fight. (Hopelessly optimistic on my part, I know.)

challenging the old image of women as frail and vulnerable and unsuited to physical exertion and hardship…

Of course, there are women who would like to keep this idea around, when it suits their needs. (I seem to recall a “toilet seat” thread in MPSIMS…) As long as that disparity exists, us big, dumb, manly men will continue to be clueless.

smooch—um, er, well, maybe gender neutrality in combat still does have a way to go.

A smooch in GD? Can’t argue with that. (Well, unless you’re actually a guy…)

Unfortunately you distracted me with your hot bod, and I got hit by sniper fire…