Women in the Draft

[DeletedUser34315]

In the US, all men 18-25 are required to register for the draft. Women are currently not. While the validity of the draft laws themselves is debatable, the issue here, imo, is that currently men are required to register for the draft, but not women. This seems unfair to me. What are your thoughts?

 

[DeletedUser529]

Women want equality...then they should have a draft card in their mail as well....

 

[DeletedUser28032]

Well as far as I see it the whole point of the draft is that should the US suddenly require a large number of frontline soldiers (Zombie apocalypse!) then it can use it to conscript the required manpower. Therefore I would say if women are eligible to join the army as front line troops then yes they should be eligible for the draft...unless anybody can think of a good reason why not?

 

[DeletedUser529]

More girls in the Military might mean less gays in the Military......

On a more serious note, their have been a massive amount of problems with having women in the Military due to HUGE volumes of Sexual harassment problems....

 

[DeletedUser]

Well as far as I see it the whole point of the draft is that should the US suddenly require a large number of frontline soldiers (Zombie apocalypse!) then it can use it to conscript the required manpower. Therefore I would say if women are eligible to join the army as front line troops then yes they should be eligible for the draft...unless anybody can think of a good reason why not?

Because real men don't send women to war. Because the goal of a military is to have the toughest, meanest fighting force possible. Because women should be spared from the carnage and cruelty of war. If the control freak chickenhawks absolutely insist on having a draft, women should only be used in combat as a last resort if most of the men are dead or wounded and national survival demands it (i.e. a zombie apocalypse! ...which in itself should never happen due to the abundance of zombie preparedness and combat resources available. )

As for the debate about draft laws, based on careful analysis of past conflicts, most strategy analysts agree that a conscripted force would actually reduce a military's effectiveness due to problems with training and morale issues. With regards to the moral dimension, for allegedly free and civilized nations, there is actually no legitimate argument for the draft, as it is a form of slavery. The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with free societies.

 

[DeletedUser529]

WHAT TF.......Real men, what kind of BULLsh-t is this......Women are stronger and meaner than any REAL MAN can ever be.....They are more vindickative and last longer in any situation....I would bet on a platoon of girls against REAL MEN anyday......Lets see how the guys have faired so far....THE REAL MEN.....

Got your asses handed to you in Vietnam.....whoops.....
Repeated the same Bull in Afganistan.........A no win scenario......
WOW and what happened in Iraq..........TOTAL FU......Destabilized a whole country and for what, no weapons of mass destruction......

and Somalia.........another whoops........

I think it is high time the ladies take over this war thing....the Guys have had their time, they went over budget, lost too many conflicts and can't seem to stop even when the cause is lost.....Women on the other hand would have already won even before the battle started.......

Men's motto....

Piss poor performance planing and preparedness

 

[DeletedUser31931]

When you look at he British military, we were amazing and oh wait, that was before we started following round America like faithful lapdogs. Oh well, let's go invade another country for a bogus reason.

 

[DeletedUser34315]

WHAT TF.......Real men, what kind of BULLsh-t is this......Women are stronger and meaner than any REAL MAN can ever be.....They are more vindickative and last longer in any situation....I would bet on a platoon of girls against REAL MEN anyday......Lets see how the guys have faired so far....THE REAL MEN.....

Got your asses handed to you in Vietnam.....whoops.....
Repeated the same Bull in Afganistan.........A no win scenario......
WOW and what happened in Iraq..........TOTAL FU......Destabilized a whole country and for what, no weapons of mass destruction......

and Somalia.........another whoops........

I think it is high time the ladies take over this war thing....the Guys have had their time, they went over budget, lost too many conflicts and can't seem to stop even when the cause is lost.....Women on the other hand would have already won even before the battle started.......

Men's motto....

Piss poor performance planing and preparedness

Bad political policies caused all of those, not a bad military. Our military is the most advanced on the planet, for better or worse. That said, when politicians decide to order wars to be waged in an unwinnable manner (Vietnam) or for a misguided cause with no clear cut enemy(Iraq, Afghanistan, somalia) There's not a whole lot that the military can do.

 

[DeletedUser]

WHAT TF.......Real men, what kind of BULLsh-t is this......Women are stronger and meaner than any REAL MAN can ever be.....They are more vindickative and last longer in any situation....

I don't know how strong Canadian men are compared to Canadian women, but in other countries, the strongest woman recruit, generally, is only as strong as the weakest man. Given that militaries try to weed out the weakest men, it's counterproductive to recruit even the strongest women. And bear in mind volunteer militaries don't get the strongest women, they get average women. Women are also evaluated at lower thresholds than men in military training. And then there are other factors women deal with such as menstruation, pregnancy, statistically higher rates of bone fractures, lower lung capacity, etc. As for meanness, all measures of physical aggressiveness show that on average men are more aggressive, competitive and hostile than women, presumably due to testosterone levels being approximately ten times higher for men than women.

I would bet on a platoon of girls against REAL MEN anyday......

That's a bet you'd lose. It would still be interesting to see such an experiment though... train two platoons, one all women, the other all men, to peak physical and combat-ready condition, then drop both groups in the woods for a war-game and see which side wins.

Lets see how the guys have faired so far....THE REAL MEN.....

Got your asses handed to you in Vietnam.....whoops.....
Repeated the same Bull in Afganistan.........A no win scenario......
WOW and what happened in Iraq..........TOTAL FU......Destabilized a whole country and for what, no weapons of mass destruction......

and Somalia.........another whoops........

What does any of that prove with regards to which sex is better suited for conflict? All groups involved in the wars you've mentioned fought predominantly with men. Each one of these slaughters was won and lost for a myriad of reasons that have nothing to do with sex and everything to do with the wickedness and imperfection of human nature.

I think it is high time the ladies take over this war thing....the Guys have had their time, they went over budget, lost too many conflicts and can't seem to stop even when the cause is lost.....Women on the other hand would have already won even before the battle started.......

Men's motto....

Piss poor performance planing and preparedness

If you're advocating that women should take command of militaries and lead civilian governments based on the notion that it would somehow reduce the loss of blood and treasure simply because they're women, then you're mistaken. The temptation to abuse power does not discriminate on the basis of sex. You need only refer to the events of today and the historic record to see that women who have headed various institutions of coercion have not acted substantially different than their male counterparts. To paraphrase Einstein, force always attracts those of low morality. Similarly, leadership ability and merit is not determined by sex, but by an individual's experience, inner constitution, and being in the right place, at the right time with the right team and tools.

 

[DeletedUser]

Because real men don't send women to war. Because the goal of a military is to have the toughest, meanest fighting force possible. Because women should be spared from the carnage and cruelty of war. If the control freak chickenhawks absolutely insist on having a draft, women should only be used in combat as a last resort if most of the men are dead or wounded and national survival demands it

Uhh... actually; http://community.feministing.com/2008/12/09/the_facts_women_as_strong_as_m/

The common misconception that women are biologically weaker than men comes from social conditioning (most commonly from ignorance and misogyny) rather than solid facts.

As for the debate about draft laws, based on careful analysis of past conflicts, most strategy analysts agree that a conscripted force would actually reduce a military's effectiveness due to problems with training and morale issues. With regards to the moral dimension, for allegedly free and civilized nations, there is actually no legitimate argument for the draft, as it is a form of slavery. The notion of involuntary servitude, in whatever form, is simply incompatible with free societies.

Agreed.

WHAT TF.......Real men, what kind of BULLsh-t is this......Women are stronger and meaner than any REAL MAN can ever be.....They are more vindickative and last longer in any situation....I would bet on a platoon of girls against REAL MEN anyday......Lets see how the guys have faired so far....THE REAL MEN.....

No one sex is stronger than the other, we are equal. Although pitting a platoon of trained women versus a platoon of trained men would be a very interesting social experiment.

Got your asses handed to you in Vietnam.....whoops.....
Repeated the same Bull in Afganistan.........A no win scenario......
WOW and what happened in Iraq..........TOTAL FU......Destabilized a whole country and for what, no weapons of mass destruction......

and Somalia.........another whoops........

Completely irrelevant.

I think it is high time the ladies take over this war thing....the Guys have had their time, they went over budget, lost too many conflicts and can't seem to stop even when the cause is lost.....Women on the other hand would have already won even before the battle started.......
Men's motto....

Piss poor performance planing and preparedness

Not sure if that is satire or not. If not, it should be. The notion that one particular sex is better or worse or should be given command of institutions is rather ridiculous.

I don't know how strong Canadian men are compared to Canadian women, but in other countries, the strongest woman recruit, generally, is only as strong as the weakest man. Given that militaries try to weed out the weakest men, it's counterproductive to recruit even the strongest women. And bear in mind volunteer militaries don't get the strongest women, they get average women. Women are also evaluated at lower thresholds than men in military training. And then there are other factors women deal with such as menstruation, pregnancy, statistically higher rates of bone fractures, lower lung capacity, etc. As for meanness, all measures of physical aggressiveness show that on average men are more aggressive, competitive and hostile than women, presumably due to testosterone levels being approximately ten times higher for men than women.

Uh-uh. Read evidence presented overhead. Although pregnancies might be an issue in the field. Testosterone is ten times higher? Evidence please?

 

[DeletedUser529]

Just pushing a few buttons.......Men vs Female debate.......I happen to believe that most men are WOSSIES when it comes to pain and Women are MUCH stronger.....I know this from being a Hospital Orderly......I used to have this debate in the coffee room and one day we had a bet.....UNFORTUNATELY when the bet was over the Consensus was that Men are the weaker sex when it comes to pain management......

 

[DeletedUser]

Women have to go through delivery, one of the most painful things in the world, so maybe that's partly correct .

But then, men were always moulded by God to be the rougher and tougher sex, and in a real life or death situation you really get to see the enduring capability of men.

 

[DeletedUser529]

I have spent many Hours in the Operating threatre assisting Doctors as a Male nurse....

If you have seen what I have seen I applaud the courage of Females when end of life events faces them......Enough said about this GOD bit......Dont believe in God.....But that is another debate......I have seen Many people die and in general Women face it much stronger than REAL MEN.......As an experiment go to your local hospital and do your own Public opinion poll....ask Doctors and nurses their opinion. It will open your eyes.....

 

[DeletedUser]

Bat, I agreed with your hospital thing, but things are different in the battlefield.

 

[DeletedUser529]

IN ALL fairness I think it depends on the individual......Some are strong in tough situations and some are extreme cowards, both male and female......

I asked my wife and she said that it is too much of a generality to say that males or females are stronger.....THAN each other......Traditionally men are in combat so it really has not been tested to any degree how Women perform.....I think it would equal out if given a chance.....Women would die with as much honor and courage as men do.....

 

[DeletedUser]

They sure will, I do not question their honor or courage. But physically if we think, and as Walter Greener said before, men beat women in warfare.

 

[DeletedUser]

Uhh... actually; http://community.feministing.com/2008/12/09/the_facts_women_as_strong_as_m/

The common misconception that women are biologically weaker than men comes from social conditioning (most commonly from ignorance and misogyny) rather than solid facts.

That's a stretch, but let's say a few can. That takes us back to the weakest man vs. the strongest woman. What standard would these few meet? The lowest among the men? Even if they fell among men of medium strength, consider the prohibitive cost of selecting these Amazonian anomalies from among general population.
Also, consider what timothy_nakayama wrote in a comment on that very page you linked.
[SPOIL]cross-cultural myth of male physical strength persists, even though women’ ability to bear great in childbirth must certainly rank them as the strongest of them all.
You are comparing apples and oranges. How can you compare strength when men don’t even have a womb and thus the ability to give birth? We can compare lifting things because both men and women can lift things, because they both have arms and muscles. Endurance and pain threshold is not the same as Strength. A simple MMORPG can tell you that much.
You might be right in saying that women have a higher pain threshold due to their ability to give birth. But then, since men can’t give birth, the comparison is dodgy. I can just as easily say, get one man to hold a hammer, and then get two willing test specimens, an average man and an average woman, and then get the man with a hammer to hit each of the test specimens with the hammer on their thumbs/jaws/hands using the same amount of strength and see who registers the most pain. See the subjectivity in measuring pain threshold?
And then comes the weightlifting issue.
If women and men really have no differences in physical strength, then why in the Olympics or any other weightlifting competition, do men consistently lift more in both the normal deadlift and the clean and jerk given they fall within the same body weight categories? You can’t say that these women don’t train as hard as their male counterparts….they are Olympic athletes, among the best in the world, no doubt training everyday.
Like Double mentioned above, I’m interested to see any papers or studies showing that men and women have no differences in strength if you can show them to me. From what I’ve read so far, the research seems to point to women having more efficient muscles, ie, more strength for a given size, but men outdo women in raw, brute strength.[/SPOIL]

Uh-uh. Read evidence presented overhead. Although pregnancies might be an issue in the field. Testosterone is ten times higher? Evidence please?

Average adult male testosterone levels have been measured as ranging from 240-950 ng/dL.
Average adult female testosterone levels have been measured as ranging from 8-60 ng/dL.
http://www.mayomedicallaboratories.com/test-catalog/Clinical+and+Interpretive/8533

 

[DeletedUser28032]

err the whole men are physically stronger argument doesn't really work in modern warfare, after all a woman is just as capable of firing a rifle, piloting a drone or manning a tank, we're not wielding spears anymore.
Hand to hand combat is a rarity and so long as they are capable of completing the same training regimes as the rest of the squad it doesn't really matter. Face it if women weren't physically capable of being soldiers then the army wouldn't allow them in

 

[DeletedUser]

err the whole men are physically stronger argument doesn't really work in modern warfare, after all a woman is just as capable of firing a rifle, piloting a drone or manning a tank, we're not wielding spears anymore.
Hand to hand combat is a rarity and so long as they are capable of completing the same training regimes as the rest of the squad it doesn't really matter. Face it if women weren't physically capable of being soldiers then the army wouldn't allow them in

No one is disagreeing that women can fire rifles, pilot drones, command tanks, etc. yet to say that makes all women just suitable as men for close quarters combat is to suggest that the images portrayed in movies and video games are a precise and accurate representation of reality, which they are not. In close combat environments, physical capabilities are as important as ever. The average fighting load carried by the modern soldier can easily weigh 50-100 lb (23-45 kg), while the forward marching load can approach 120-160 lb (55-73 kg). This doesn't even factor in the personal effects which soldiers will invariably keep on them either. Modern body armor alone can weigh as much as 25 lb (10 kg). This weight is proportionately more difficult to carry by female soldiers who are, on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance. Even in current non-combat training, women suffer debilitating bone stress fractures and other injuries at rates double those of men. Suppose a combat unit is retreating somewhere on the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan, where a person's aerobic capacity really makes a difference, and the women in the unit can't keep up with the men. What would you propose, leaving the women behind to possibly be captured by the Taliban or having the unit slow down so the women can keep up, thereby risking causalities or capture? The top militaries of the world don't have all robot armies (yet), so ground forces are still essential for securing territory for our shadowy overlords. There are plenty of other scenarios that demonstrate that physical capability is still very much relevant and vital in modern warfare.

As for them completing the same training regimes, they do not do so in the United States. I have no idea what the policies of militaries are in the United Kingdom, Canada, etc. but in the United States, every attempt since the 1970s to establish single performance standards for men and women, commensurate with the demands of actual combat, has been discontinued or rendered meaningless due to political pressures from feminists and allies who demand that standards be adjusted, or gender-normed, so that female trainees can "succeed". In various types of training, "equal effort" is equated with "equal results", and group evaluations substitute for individual achievement scores. In some forms of physical training, events that are more difficult for women are dropped in order to make training more "fair". The resulting regimen is described as "equal" between men and women, even though it is less demanding for the men. A few female trainees are able to perform in physically demanding events at the same levels as average males, but policies must be based on the majority of average soldiers, not the exceptional few. If women were held to the same performance standards as men, a lot less women would pass basic training or get into military academies.

Also, it's interesting how the question of whether or not women *should* be drafted into the military seems to be largely ignored. War is not a game. Why would anyone want to force women to take part, either on the giving or receiving end of the butchery that is war?

 

[DeletedUser529]

Yup REAL men belong in WAR.....sounds like a great statement to MANKIND UTTER BLOODY STUPIDITY.......THIS MANKIND GARBAGE is getting VERY BLOODY TIRING......and THESE SO CALL REAL MEN say that women are the weaker sex.......Who is weaker....WELL HANDS DOWN A REAL man is.....for so many reasons it isn't funny.....The thought of people killing people for all the wrong reason is UTTER WEAKNESS.......ALL WARS ARE WRONG AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE DAM REASON TO GO TO WAR......NONE AT ALL......ESPECIALLY THE WORLD WARS.......Companies Like KRUPP steel continued to do business with their American Counter-parts all through the war.....Just because Governments go to war......Young men are given all the BULL reasons they are protecting their country when the bull of politics causes them to die......Vietnam was a classic example......To prove to Communist China and Russia that America can afford to send so many YOUNG MEN to their deaths.....It was to prove a point....THAT IS IT......

Oh yah back to the point....REAL MEN verses the weaker sex WOMEN......YOU can argue all the performance BULL you want........In the end WOMEN will beat the men hands down......MEN need women.....women do not NEED men........FOR ANYTHING....EVEN CONCEPTION....