But they aren’t FORCED. That’s the subject of this thread.
So, what say you about the draft? You are the perfect one to ask. If men are drafted, should women be too?
Sorry if you already answered and I missed it.
And you’re pretending there aren’t some men who are smaller and weaker than some women. General tendencies don’t matter, it isn’t like the military has to take the entire population of either sex. They get to pick and choose the individual recruits they want, so why wouldn’t they want to pick from among the strongest and largest of each sex, rather than limit themselves to a single gender?
If there is a single woman out there who is capable of contributing to any war effort in a combat role, our military is poorer and less prepared without her. Chances are, there are a lot of women with that capability, who want to use it, and we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we don’t accept them.
You are so offbase.
From here:
[QUOTE=Gender and Women’s Leadership]
Shortly before February 8, 1980, when President Jimmy Carter revealed his proposal to register women and men for the draft, the debate over whether women havce, or should have, a particular relationship to peace was reopened in the United States with new vehemence. Organizations took positions varying from WILPF’s total opposition to registration to Phyllis Schlafly’s opposition to drafting women. The National Organization for Women and the National Women’s Political Caucus changed their positions from January 25 to February 8 from total opposition to the draft to opposition coupled with the idea that if there were to be a draft, it had to include women.
[/quote]
Some points from my women’s studies courses and other familiarity with how the issue has been addressed by feminists:
a) Feminists aren’t stupid; they know and have always known that trollish people of the antifeminist variety would point to the draft and say “Well how about THAT, huh? huh? See, sexual inequality sometimes benefits women, but do you so-called pro-equality feminists care? Or are you just playing ‘hooray for our side’ games and using ‘equality’ only where it benefits women?”
b) They’ve also known that putting women “on a pedestal” and having the law treat women differently “for their own protection” always means, in practice, that women are denied rights, freedom of opportunity, freedom of movement, and so forth, and have opposed such deferral treatment
c) As with this thread, the general first-line response of feminists to the draft has been “there should not be one for men OR women”, and they are generally anti-war overall. Some feminists have been convinced by folks such as Charles Rangel that the non-draft military works as a de facto draft of poor people lacking other opportunities and have come to support the reinstatement of the draft, and, yes, definitely as a gender-blind all-inclusive draft. See Robin Morgan’s comments, for example.
d) Note that in the above link it is a prominent ANTI feminist, Phyllis Schlafly, who is cited as opposing including women in the draft.
1972 called. Men aren’t being forced to either. There is no draft. This was already covered quite early and quite often in the thread. Our OP freely admitted that
back in post 14.
There is, however, the selective service, which all men still have to register for and women do not.
Am I unfair for asking about your actual combat experience? Still waiting to hear the thrilling details.
Most of my (male) relatives who served were in the Air Force (or the Army Air Force). They weren’t foot sloggers.
Yes, we all know there is no draft now.
We are discussing a hypothetical: IF men are drafted, should women be drafted too?
(Or if you prefer, if men are required to register, as they are currently, should women too?)
Exactly - which is the principle of non-discrimination in general.
I have no problem with a male only draft/registration. I disagree with the concept of a draft except in a national emergency, but if we were to have one, I see no problem registering/drafting only men. Not everyone is suited for combat, and the male/female line seems like a pretty rational one when trying to find soldiers. Most men will qualify and you would only be weeding out the few who didn’t. If you included women in the mix you would be weeding out the vast majority who didn’t qualify to find the few who did.
I don’t think it is necessary to subject women to a draft solely to promote a misguided sense of fairness.
But we don’t draft 60 year old men either. I’m sure that there are a few 60 year old men who are in shape and would be good soldiers. The problem is with efficiency in the draft. It takes manpower and resources to sort through, say, 100 draftees and find a number of suitable soldiers.
If you draft people who are likely to fall in the suitable category (young males) then this manpower to find soldiers is used more efficiently that simply picking 100 random people from the population.
It may be true that more men are qualified for combat work than women, but that evades the point that relatively few jobs in the military are actually combat related. I don’t know the exact percentages, but the number of people in the infantry is dwarfed by the number of soldiers doing desk jobs and other administrative work. IF we are going to require selective service registration, men and women should both absolutely have to register. People of either gender who are not qualified for combat work will have plenty of jobs they can do if - god forbid - the draft were ever called up.
By that logic, you oppose all women in combat, even if they volunteer. Do you?
We’d probably be better informed by looking at other nations that draft women, such as Israel. Everyone, male or female, does time in the Army there. Doesn’t seem to be a problem.
It’s odd that so many posters seem to think that military conscription was/would be for combat positions only. The military also needs personnel in many occupational specialties.
Also, it’s easy to forget that the average soldier for most of US history wasn’t really all that healthy by today’s standards. The average Civil War soldier was about 5 feet 8 inches tall and weighed about 143 pounds. In World War I, it was actually worse: 5’7.5" was the average height and 141.54 lbs the average weight (page 4 of pdf/page numbered 46).* Not to mention that a great many of past conscripts were in poor health and suffered long-term malnutrition.
- The reasons for this decrease in height, weight and health is actually a fascinating topic, but one for another thread.
Why the hell shouldn’t they? They are free to leave if they don’t identify with their country.
I think you’d be surprised at the number of people who wouldn’t qualify for a modern draft. In any event, the registration requirements have very little to do with potential eligibility; amputees (to name one group) are required to register for Selective Service even though they’re clearly not fit for combat.
Really? You’re posting that?
At least in past drafts, the need was to replace the guys that were killed on the front lines. Although the armed services as a whole have a wide variety of positions of varying skills, in an all-out war, the need for replenishment is on the front lines.
Correct. It’s not a perfect system, but its the easiest one to implement. Let’s say that we are both responsible for finding good soldiers. I have a pool of 100 people, all men ages 18-26. You also have a pool of 100 people, of both sexes age 18-70.
Of course, I may get some amputees and the like, but I think we can agree that I will find more troops suited for the armed forces in my pool than you will in yours.
But that’s not how it works. You have 100 males in your pool, and he has 200 males and females. Just as many males would be subject to the draft, but now he’s added the other half of the population, so the pool is twice as big.
He may take longer to winnow down the best, but he’s got a larger talent pool so the winnowing may end up with a better result.
I know a tough-as-nails butch 140 pound 19 year old woman, with muscles like this, but she doesn’t have a penis. She’s an instructor at my daughter’s ballet group.
I know a genial 75 year old man, who has trouble standing and has to use a catheter to pee. He’s had one hip replaced, has open lesions on his feet, shingles, is practically stone deaf, and just had surgery for skin cancer, but he has a penis. He’s my dad.
Which one do you think would win in a bare-knuckles fight to the death?