This is largely hypothetical since the draft is not in place now, and I doubt it will be in the near future.
But…
What I find particularly distasteful and patently unfair, is that men MUST register in order to be eligible for government sponsored programs like student loans. Women do not. While I’m not a lawyer, this “extra” requirement for an entire class of people based solely on sex seems unconstitutional.
Thanks, Fear Itself, for providing that link. As a woman in the military, I’m asked this question alot, I guess I’m supposed to know everything about the roles of women in combat. Now I have facts instead of my own opinions.
As for those opinions, I think that women should be drafted. Not for combat roles, but the whole “free a man to fight” thing. DMark already summed up my opinion about this, so I won’t go into it again.
In some cases, women can be involved in combat. Some women (this is mostly in the Army) can get assigned in a support role (administration, ammo tech, etc) to a combat unit. If that unit goes to combat, she goes too. Most branches of the military tend to stay away from this, a couple of years ago the USMC stopped assigning women to these types of units. Further, who says that the enemy will always attack the front lines? But this is a little off the subject of women being part of the draft. I guess my point was that even though women are biologically weaker than men, they better be trained as well as the men and be prepared for armed conflict. (this advice is, of course, for those women who voluntarily enlist)
I think there are a couple of practical reasons for male-only drafts (assuming front-line battle roles). One is equipment. If a country needs to suddenly round up 100 000 people and get them outfitted and equipped, it would be twice as expensive and timely to make uniforms and such for both males and females. Secondly, a draft assumes there is a dire need for soldiers. A male can usually put on a decent amount of muscle and get in pretty good shape in six months of boot camp before he gets shipped off. To train a female that is able to competently fill a male-soldier role, she would need a lot more time to meet physical requirements. Why waste time and resources training 50 000 women for a year, when you can train 100 000 men in the same amount of time?
Otherwise, I agree with Seldon. No reason why a woman shouldn’t be drafted into a combat-support role away from the frontlines.
I realize you are all talking of the U.S. only, but you should know there are countries where women are also up to be drafted. In practice, it is true, this is not often put into effect. Sudan for example does not draft women except if they have medical knowledge. But as far as I know Israel does indeed equally draft women and men.
Maybe because, with the possible exception of its’ children, the women of any given nation are/should be it’s most preciously guarded resource?
It is the role of men, and always has been, to defend the tribe. Women have helped in this goal almost as long as the tribes have existed… and good for them.
However, when a tribe sends it’s women off to die, it’s commiting suicide. Our tribe, the USA, may as well role over and let someone else come in and take charge, if we don’t have enough foresite and planning to avoid putting the very people that create the next generation of the tribe out where they can be killed.
However, I expect this whole idea to be completely ignored or berated by those that have this foolish and potentially dangerous idea that women and men are completely equal.
We’re not, and barrign genetic tinkering, we never will be. It’s a biological fact… accept it, and move on.
Roles have changed though, it works both ways.
I think this is the best point made in favour of male-only drafts. The only answer I can think of is that not everybody fights in wars - women who are too young or too old or in reserved occupations would not be sent off to die.
I think you’re fairly safe here, the most vocal feminists seem more interested in grabbing extra rights for themselves rather than equality.
If there was ever conscription again, and women were not included, I would refuse to fight. It’s bad enough having inferior employment and social rights without being treated as cannon fodder.
If there is going to be a draft, it should be for both genders.
I think the problem is that women still tend to be the primary care givers for children, especially young ones (men can’t yet breastfeed, AFAIK!) and no one would want to see them separated from very young infants.
And then you would get the situation of women having babies, to avoid the draft (which would be unfair on men, unless new fathers would be exempt too, which would then be unfair on single/infertile people). So I am not sure how it would work. But yes, I do think it is wrong that only men are drafted.
If for no other reason, than the army only gets 50% of the available talent pool to pick from.
Since the factual element of this question has been answered, I’ll move the thread to IMHO.
This is pet peeve of mine. I think it is a moot point if women are suitable for combat or not. There is tons of support roles. (combat soldiers are the tip of a very large wedge) Tho I admit I didn’t know SS/draft was for combat (I figured it was for general use). If my mother (small, borderline low blood pressure, nearsighted) could serve during WWII*, most woman can.
Brian
*Stateside, USMC, WX observer
Very well said, and accurate. Women should NOT be drafted unless, and until, the ERA is passed.
I try to look at this from the military’s perspective:
The answer to #1 is “Nothing.”
There are many answers to number #2 in terms of disadvantages in drafting women:
So it’s a no-brainer.
Why? Such matters are now more political than practical (unless, of course, “practical” is taken to mean equal rights, etc.)
More soldiers.
There are–and would be–separate bunks. As for units, well then, what is the training for?
Essentially the same thing as the preceding statement, but, again, you can be attracted to someone without being totally distracted by them. Attraction is natural but any person has enough control over it to maintain his/her focus on a set goal.
Why would that be so different from men dying? And if you consider this to be important and true, then you’re not really looking at it from a military perspective.
Again, training. It’s not that hard not to impregnate someone.
These are already in place for those who have volunteered.
This issue has been previously addressed. The difference no longer matters.
See above.
Yeah.
sleeping: The difference between you and me is that I view the world as it is, while you view the world as you wish it were.
Squatting
I respectfully disagree. You’re saying that one should look at it from the military perspective. Currently, what something appears to be, and its ramifications in terms of equal rights, is more important than what it really is. If you are looking at it from the POV of the army, then more soldiers = good (fewer people, especially fewer men [relative to the percent of the population in earlier times], are choosing to enter the military [because of the greater number of colleges and the higher number of people deciding to go to college]).
I don’t see why the deaths of women in combat would be any worse than the deaths of men (or, for that matter, why anyone else would).
And why would a soldier be so distracted by another as to render him/her incapable of completing a mission. (I’ll concede that a few people may be problematic in this regard, but then mentally unstable individuals [in other ways] are not allowed in the military either.)
Though I’m not American, my country also only drafts men. I’m also fairly certain that there are less women serving in our army than the american one.
Anyway, i think it’s ridiculous that the army should have to settle and accommodate to satisfy some people that will probably never see a battlefield.
Sleeping: in a perfect world maybe, but when some soldiers are barely hestitant to rape civilian women, what makes you think it won’t happen within the squadron? I also think a lot of consensual sex would happen too, though I can’t see anything too wrong with that other than pregnancy, and STDs.
There are plenty of non-military sitations where most of these factors apply but god forbid you try selecting employees that way.
If rape occurs within the squadron, then you’ve got a discipline problem, plain and simple. The soldiers would be punished for such actions just as severely as the rapists you hear about on the news. Again, if the guy next door has enough self-control not to rape someone, a soldier should have at least as much, if not more.
Lludmilla Pavlichenko, the female Soviet from the Ukrane, was a sniper, who was credited with killing 309 Nazis, not many men do better than that. Lludmilla did this in a short time before being wounded, and then she became an instructor and taught the men how to be snipers for the rest of the war. Lludmilla was not drafted, she was a volunteer - as are nearly all great female soldiers or warriors in history.
This link: http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women20.html gives some examples of other women warriors. There were also female warriors in the Souix and Commanche indian tribes, and a few who even led war parties - again as volunteers.
Women have a very successful history in war, from Joan of Arc, on down to the current day. Women can be determined, ruthless, deadly, mentally stable, and have greater physical stamina than men - if there is a reason to be. Lest you forget - American women have killed 40 million babies in the past 30 years.
I am not saying that women should be in the Navy seals(nor should most men), or in some kind of special forces group where upper body physical strength is required, but nearly all other combat duties and tasks performed by the current day modern high-tech american army “can” be eaily accomplished by the average female. An american female can drive a tank, fire a missle, and shoot a gun just as well, if not better, than a man can.
However, it has always been traditional that women should “volunteer to fight”, to “choose”, and not to be subject to any draft.
It should always be a “womans choice” to fight or not, or to participate in a war, particularly since women do not have equal rights in America. I dont believe that blacks in the south during the civil war were drafted either, or at least not very many, for the same reasons. It would be immoral and unjust to draft American women unless and until women are equal.
Is that really true? Women are not treated equally, but they are equal in theory (legally), right?
I feel that acts that remedy any injustices should be passed and that the military should then have equal requirements for both men and women.
As for the biological difference, besides what has already been stated, choosing military personnel according to their level of fitness is the rule. A man who may not be as big/strong/able to develop muscle mass quickly would still be drafted should the need arise–he just wouldn’t be in any position that requires any characteristics that he does not have.