News Should Women Be Required to Register for the Draft?

[Evo]

Ok, I have to jump in here. I don't think "American women" as a whole are emotionally suited for combat. It is how they are raised. It doesn't mean that women as a whole can't be effective in combat, there have been societies where it was accepted that women be combat able.

Yes there are some physical drawbacks that some women have, I have terrible cramps that can completely disable me for 2-3 days at a time. My blood pressure drops and I turn white and even standing is difficult.

Women don't normally have the upper body strength that men do.

I think most importantly it would take a whole new mindset to successfully draft women into combat and have them make it through boot camp, even less survive on the battlefield. I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, I'm saying overall.

 

[Bystander]

By what argument?
First, the only women that I see that have posted in this thread are Moonbear and me (unless Bystander is a woman?)... (snip)

Nerp.

(snip)Do you honestly think the average women could fight in a battle to the equal skill of men? (snip)

Hand to hand? No. Properly trained, equipped, and commanded? The object at the individual level in warfare is to "reach out and touch somebody" without them even knowing anyone is within range. The opponent who has just been whacked by a Browning M2 from an Abrams, or a chaingun from a Bradley isn't going to be checking the holes for lipstick, eyeliner, or blusher the girls spilled on the ammunition.

Problems? Accidental war crime, as I've mentioned in the event it becomes a matter of record that a pregnant female was involved in hostile action, regardless of whether it was known at the time; male troops are inclined to go overboard in situations such as whatsherface's ambush and non-Geneva and Hague compliant POW status (creates a discipline and maneuver control problem plus the impromptu reprisals prevent trials of the opposition for war crimes); chauvinism coloring command decisions (stay and fight it out, or withdraw --- which troops and units get left holding the bag), good way to get a lot of people hurt.

Advantages? Female troops are probably better disciplined as a group (follow orders, less inclined to "John Wayne" their way through a "situation"); personal opinion, lifetime of impressions, not intended personally or pejoratively, females can be maddeningly obsessive-compulsive about detail at times, and this can do wonders for survival in combat situations.

Bottom line? Tactical doctrine is never in phase with training, equipment, manpower pool, global strategy, or command experience and conditioned responses to situations. We've got a "stand-off" approach, yet arm the troops with a "human-wave" personal weapon, the M-16, and send them house-to-house against AK-47s --- not bright --- not bright at all. DoD wises up and moves back to an 8mm or .30 cal for individual weapons (keep the bad guys at a range where the AK is ineffective), and the advantages can outweigh the problems if SCOTUS and congress can come to grips with international law, right-to-lifers, abortion rights types, "don't ask, don't tell" policies, and the obligations of contract law

 

[Dawguard]

I have no idea what the second reason is. I'm scratching my head and wondering ... Periods? Pregnancy? Sex appeal? ?? Maybe I misunderstand the end of the quote above.

All of the above, plus less body mass in upper body muscle.

Any trait is exhibited in a population, along a spectrum. Destructive tendencies vary from one person to the next. Whereas destructive tendencies may or may not *tend* to correlate with one gender or another, there will be overlap between the two genders. In other words, some women will be more destructive than some men, and some men will be more destructive than some women. The same holds for any trait, whether it is strength, intelligence, stealth, emotionality, aggressiveness, etc. In short, some women are better suited to the armed services than some men, and vice versa.

I agree, but I already said that I'm not looking at possibilites, I'm looking at stastical averages. To say there is no average difference is simply being blind to obvious facts.

But to say that men can serve and women can't, and to put that under the argument that men are better suited to it, is overly simplistic.

I never said they can't, in fact I've said twice, now thrice, that they can. My contention is forcing them to.

Who would you rather have at your side? A crybaby weak male with allergies and esteem issues, or a strong unemotional woman whose a dead shot on an enemy target? Both types of people exist.

Of course, but once again I point out statistical averages. I'm not making blanket statements nor oversimplifying things by saying that no woman is capable. Reiteration, stastical averages!

Ok, I have to jump in here. I don't think "American women" as a whole are emotionally suited for combat. It is how they are raised. It doesn't mean that women as a whole can't be effective in combat, there have been societies where it was accepted that women be combat able.

Yes there are some physical drawbacks that some women have, I have terrible cramps that can completely disable me for 2-3 days at a time. My blood pressure drops and I turn white and even standing is difficult.

Women don't normally have the upper body strength that men do.

I think most importantly it would take a whole new mindset to successfully draft women into combat and have them make it through boot camp, even less survive on the battlefield. I'm not saying that there aren't exceptions, I'm saying overall.

Oh, thank you Evo! :!) :!) :!) A voice of true reason!

 

[Hurkyl]

No, it isn't common sense, its recognizing reality. Common sense is actually your argument, using simple one-two logic. I'm not advocating common sense, I'm advocating practical reason.

If you want to recognize reality, then maybe you should review the thread and look at just who has been using the term, and how it's been used.

If you want a unemotional argument, watch them. Then forget about your family, and consider any women you know actually doing it. I wasn't trying to ellicit the idea of repugnace, simply reality.

That's not an argument. And I can't begin to imagine how you can use the term "unemotional" when you are suggesting to someone that they try to visualize people they know in the setting of an incredibly emotionally charged film.


If you were actually trying to argue that the average woman was so inferior to the average man as to justify not drafting them, that would be one thing. But when you constantly make these ridiculous arguments that appeal to "common sense", "reality", and emotion, it gives me good reason to think that you really aren't arguing from any sort of rational position.

That argument that you aren't making is insufficient anyways. pattylou has outlined one of the major problems: that decisions are being made not based upon the qualities that matter, but based upon a (alledgedly) statistically correlated quality.

The other major problem is that it leads to the conclusion "It's efficient to exclude women from the draft". More work has to be done to get all the way to "it's just to exclude women from the draft".

Incidentally, this is exactly the form of one of the traditional forms of "bad" discrimination. If I were to argue:

"We shouldn't give Hispanics high school educations because they have the highest dropout rate amongst all ethnicities"¹

I think you could easily see the injustice. What you need to do is explain why the point you are arguing is not a similar form of injustice.


1: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060302/a_hispanics02.art.htm

 

[honestrosewater]

This simply shows the problem with the idea of unilateral drafting. If you want complete equality then you should indeed draft all ages.

Sorry, I'm kind of behind the discussion here; I'll try to catch up overnight. I just wanted to point out that this isn't true. One is gender-based discrimination, the other is age-based discrimination. One might be justified while the other is not; the arguments might be different.

 

[Dawguard]

That's not an argument. And I can't begin to imagine how you can use the term "unemotional" when you are suggesting to someone that they try to visualize people they know in the setting of an incredibly emotionally charged film.

All of war is emotionally charged, you can't consider war without emotions being there. If you do then it isn't war, it is some vague, unreal concept that has yet to exist in real life.

If you were actually trying to argue that the average woman was so inferior to the average man as to justify not drafting them, that would be one thing. But when you constantly make these ridiculous arguments that appeal to "common sense", "reality", and emotion, it gives me good reason to think that you really aren't arguing from any sort of rational position.

Not inferior, just not as capable to fight in war as men. What rational do you want? Do you want me to argue from sheer words and ideas instead of reality? Fine, have it your way.
You cannot deny that both the psycology and physiology of men and women are different. Thus, logically, it follows that there are things that men and women are naturally inclined too, or have natural aptitude. Once again, logicaly, since war involves extreme physical endurence and the willingness to destroy life, it follows that men, not women, are naturally suited for war.
There, logical enough?

That argument that you aren't making is insufficient anyways. pattylou has outlined one of the major problems: that decisions are being made not based upon the qualities that matter, but based upon a (alledgedly) statistically correlated quality.

You needn't say alledgedly, you know as well as I that it is true. What qualities matter, expect the ability to perform all the functions of war. As outlined above, I agree with Evo that such things run contrary to women's upbringing and body.

The other major problem is that it leads to the conclusion "It's efficient to exclude women from the draft". More work has to be done to get all the way to "it's just to exclude women from the draft".

Incidentally, this is exactly the form of one of the traditional forms of "bad" discrimination. If I were to argue:

"We shouldn't give Hispanics high school educations because they have the highest dropout rate amongst all ethnicities"¹

I think you could easily see the injustice. What you need to do is explain why the point you are arguing is not a similar form of injustice.

Don't put words in my mouth, and don't draw conclusions from what I said that aren't even related. You can't pull a cheap trick like this just to make me look like a racist. It is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen since the two situations are different. You put words in my mouth, and I refuse to allow that.

As for why it's fair and just not to draft women, I outlined the reasons both in this post and previously. I stated why I think women aren't suited to war and therefore shouldn't be drafted. You have issues with that, tell me. So far all you have done is equate it with racism and unfair discrimination.

Now, before this turns into a virtual shouting match, I just want an explanation why you think women can be capable of being drafted. That is my main point, and so far it has yet to be addressed.

 

[Gokul43201]

Dawguard, is it your argument that it is justified to require that only men be drafted because statistics show that men are better suited to warfare than women ?

In a nutshell, yes. Now, before you start screaming misogynist at me, let me tell you I don't think it's a matter of right and wrong. You might say we want compelte equality, and sure in theory it isn't fair to only draft men. Sure women should be included in a draft if we want absolute equality. Unfortunatly we live in a world where there are two different sexes with different bodies and minds. It is a matter of being statistically suited to a combat role, or even a role that comes near combat.

True. And along the same lines, I suggest that only the rich be taxed, because they are statistically more capable of surviving with say, 75% of their income docked. Of course, the poor should not be denied the opportunity to pay taxes, but it shouldn't be mandatory for them.

 

[honestrosewater]

Now, before this turns into a virtual shouting match, I just want an explanation why you think women can be capable of being drafted. That is my main point, and so far it has yet to be addressed.

Well, just so this is perfectly clear, once again, no one who registers with the SS ever needs to be drafted. DoD even claims that it wouldn't draft women -- that is what they put forward as their main justification for this gender-based discrimination: they probably wouldn't need women in a future draft (because women are not allowed to fill the positions that the draftees would likely be filling). I don't think that's a good enough reason -- heck, I'm not even sure it's true anymore -- and they already have an Alternative Service Program for conscientious objectors in which they could place anyone else who they thought wasn't fit for the Armed Services -- or just don't draft them, for the umpteenth time.

Anywho, I am not suggesting that the military draft people who aren't fit to serve. Unless you change some of our fundamental laws, the government needs to meet certain requirements if it wants to discriminate based on gender. I don't think it has met those requirements in this case. Discriminate based on fitness to serve, and I will stop complaining. Being a woman does not make one unfit for service, and saving money isn't a good enough reason to break the law or abandon our principles. If some women want to receive special treatment because they are women, then they need to change the law. As things stand now, they all deserve equal treatment.

I grew up being told that men and women were equal as citizens, so I have no reason to expect special treatment. (And personally, I don't want special treatment.) But if some women were given some reason to expect special treatment, perhaps it would be fairer to exclude them from the requirement. What if you allowed women to register starting ASAP but only started requiring women to register (at the age of 18) in, say, 18 years? That way, the women that would be required to register will have been born and raised with that expectation just as men are currently born and raised with that expectation.

 

[vanesch]

This simply shows the problem with the idea of unilateral drafting. If you want complete equality then you should indeed draft all ages. Need I point out how stupid that is? I don't think so.

Well, the equality that matters to me here, and the only one that really counts, is this: why should society decide that MY CHANCES TO GET KILLED OR DISABLED must become rather high, to go and solve a problem that benefits essentially OTHERS, while a big chunk of society's chances to get killed or disabled aren't altered (or even slightly improved because of my sacrifice) ?
This is no minor "discrimination". I find it a MAJOR discrimination towards young, healthy males that society decides that their probability to get killed or disables is going to be multiplied by 1000 or so. That's something else than the potential right to be part of the football team or not. We're talking about death and injury here.
So my argument was, that IF society is in such a deep poop that it must require such sacrifices from its members, then THIS BURDEN MUST BE CARRIED EQUALLY BY ALL OF THEIR MEMBERS. If not, I consider this a serious injustice that some must carry this burden (young healthy males) and others go around happily. This, in my book, is A SERIOUS DISCRIMINATION of one of my most valued rights: the right to live.

Now, it might be impractical, for several reasons, to send grandma to the battlefield. All right. But then, to make the injustice go away, EVERYBODY should participate in a draft, those that are fit should go to the battlefield, and those that aren't, for any particular reason, practically fit to do so, should be EXECUTED OR DISMEMBERED IN EQUAL PROPORTIONS as those that suffer those sorts on the battlefield. In that way, the burden is carried equally by all members of society (and those members might then - as moonbear suggested - think twice before deciding that that sacrifice is indeed the one that is required).

 

[daveb]

Hmm...the same argument again and again, with the same simple reasoning. Need I quote my entire last post, or can't you get past words? You want unilateral equality, give women balls so they can feel the pain of being kicked in the groin, and give men wombs so they can feel the pain of childbirth. Genetically engineer an asexual species and you can have pure equality.
Now, I'm not saying that either men or women are better then the other. Perhaps I haven't been explaining it well, or perhaps you can't get past simple statements. This type of "bumber sticker" arguments get us nowhere, and is akin to children saying, 'I'm right': 'no I'm right'! Now, I've given you my reasons why I think that it isn't unfair, so please either refute them or give a new argument, don't just parrot what other people have said here.

Ah, you should have been a journalist. If you had continued reading the entire post, instead of just choosing a portion of the post to focus upon, you would have realized that I never stated I wanted unilateral equality, and claiming I do is a strawman argument (and you must logically claim I do want it - otherwise why quote me?). That's impossible, because men and women are different in many ways. I merely stated that "it" was discrimination. Perhaps I should not have said "it" but instead said "required registration", but since the OP was about required registration (and not the drafting of men over women), I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that people would know to what I was referring. I further went on to point out that men have legal ramifications for not registering, which I do not believe was ever pointed out before that. Therefore, I did not "parrot" other posts. I also never stated that the registration requirement in itself was unfair. Yes, I did state that if a draft were to be instituted, it was grave discrimination (implying it was unfair). As for that opinion, it was based upon the reasoning (previously mentioned) that it violated equal protection. However, I pointed out differently how it violates equal protection.

As for your statements that men are statistically better at combat than women, can you provide references for these statistics?

 

[daveb]

Now, it might be impractical, for several reasons, to send grandma to the battlefield. All right. But then, to make the injustice go away, EVERYBODY should participate in a draft, those that are fit should go to the battlefield, and those that aren't, for any particular reason, practically fit to do so, should be EXECUTED OR DISMEMBERED IN EQUAL PROPORTIONS as those that suffer those sorts on the battlefield. In that way, the burden is carried equally by all members of society (and those members might then - as moonbear suggested - think twice before deciding that that sacrifice is indeed the one that is required).

You've been reading Jonathan Swift lately, haven't you?

 

[vanesch]

You've been reading Jonathan Swift lately, haven't you?

 

[BobG]

Being qualified to be drafted and being qualified for infantry combat aren't the same thing. A person doesn't have to be qualified for 100% of military jobs - they just have to be qualified to fill some jobs. The jobs women can and can't fill tend to be based more which jobs women aren't physically able to perform than the dangerousness of the job - but there are jobs that many men wouldn't be physically able to fill, as well (some jobs take some incredible strength, while some jobs aren't well suited to particularly tall individuals, while some people can't fill some jobs due to color blindness, etc.).

Assuming the percentages would be similar to Viet Nam (not a very reliable assumption, I admit), you would expect a little over 50% of those "drafted" to actually enter the military, and a little over a third those draftees entering the military (a little over a sixth overall?) to actually see combat.

One reason it would probably be wrong to assume the percentages would stay the same is that the draftees that did see combat had a higher chance of dying than the volunteer "lifers". Training, experience, and motivation make a difference - even more so today with a greater reliance on technology (one reason a draft would be more unpopular with the military than the public). I would imagine that draftees would be more likely to wind up in jobs that didn't have a quite so critical affect on other people's lives.

There's good reasons to not have a draft at all, but not a very good reason to discriminate between which sex is drafted.

Viet Nam stats from the VFW: Viet Nam - Statistical Profile (I would probably be more impressed if their reference wasn't their own magazine, but ...)
Draft stats from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/13/the.draft/

 

[loseyourname]

Aren't people that are drafted already screened for their physical and psychological condition? Wouldn't this ensure that only those fit for military service of some sort are actually drafted and employed?

It seems we can make an analogy to another huge institution that draws from a large pool of candidates to select those best fit for the rigors it offers: higher education. Saying that the military should only draft men, because on statistical average, they are more fit for combat duty, is like saying that a college should admit only asians, because statistically they do better in college than any other group considered a race by the US Census Bureau. Why should not the draft board simply do what colleges do? Screen each candidate individually, and select only those who are fit, which will require rejecting both males and females that have insufficient upper body strength or anything else that you may believe will inhibit their ability to perform the job assigned to them.

Personally, I agree with Bob's post above: draftees in general are terrible fighters, lacking training and expertise, that don't want to be there and don't serve any purpose other than that of a human shield, preferably one that manages to take out a few enemies or help hold a position for some while before meeting his end (if placed in a combat role, anyway). Surely both sexes can serve this mediocre and compromising function equally well.

If Evo can't handle her cramping for four days out of every month, fine, exempt her. That's no reason for exempting every American with a similar anatomy whether or not they have the same problem. Hell, men are 20 times more likely than women to be color blind, a condition that got my father rejected when he tried to enlist in the Army. Surely that doesn't mean we should now reject all men.

 

[russ_watters]

Aren't people that are drafted already screened for their physical and psychological condition? Wouldn't this ensure that only those fit for military service of some sort are actually drafted and employed?

It's been a while, but I don't recall there being a questionaire in my SS registration form.

Saying that the military should only draft men, because on statistical average, they are more fit for combat duty, is like saying that a college should admit only asians, because statistically they do better in college than any other group considered a race by the US Census Bureau. Why should not the draft board simply do what colleges do? Screen each candidate individually, and select only those who are fit, which will require rejecting both males and females that have insufficient upper body strength or anything else that you may believe will inhibit their ability to perform the job assigned to them.

I tend to agree.

Personally, I agree with Bob's post above: draftees in general are terrible fighters, lacking training and expertise, that don't want to be there and don't serve any purpose other than that of a human shield, preferably one that manages to take out a few enemies or help hold a position for some while before meeting his end (if placed in a combat role, anyway). Surely both sexes can serve this mediocre and compromising function equally well.

I wouldn't go that far, but definitely the usefulness of a draftee depends on the job.

Don't forget, guys, that infantry is not the only job and someone who is physically unsuitable for infantry may still be suitable for administrative work, for example.

 

[honestrosewater]

If people don't believe me, here it is straight from the horse's mouth:

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

Here is a brief overview of what would occur if the United States returned to a draft:

1. CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT AUTHORIZE A DRAFT
A crisis occurs which requires more troops than the volunteer military can supply. Congress passes and the President signs legislation which starts a draft.

2. THE LOTTERY
A lottery based on birthdays determines the order in which registered men are called up by Selective Service. The first to be called, in a sequence determined by the lottery, will be men whose 20th birthday falls during that year, followed, if needed, by those aged 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. 18-year-olds and those turning 19 would probably not be drafted.

3. ALL PARTS OF SELECTIVE SERVICE ARE ACTIVATED
The Agency activates and orders its State Directors and Reserve Forces Officers to report for duty. See also Agency Structure.

4. PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND MORAL EVALUATION OF REGISTRANTS
Registrants with low lottery numbers are ordered to report for a physical, mental, and moral evaluation at a Military Entrance Processing Station to determine whether they are fit for military service. Once he is notified of the results of the evaluation, a registrant will be given 10 days to file a claim for exemption, postponement, or deferment. See also Classifications.

5. LOCAL AND APPEAL BOARDS ACTIVATED AND INDUCTION NOTICES SENT
Local and Appeal Boards will process registrant claims. Those who pass the military evaluation will receive induction orders. An inductee will have 10 days to report to a local Military Entrance Processing Station for induction.

6. FIRST DRAFTEES ARE INDUCTED
According to current plans, Selective Service must deliver the first inductees to the military within 193 days from the onset of a crisis.

- http://www.sss.gov/seq.htm [emphasis added]

Again, the list that the SS maintains is just a list of potential draftees. I would hope the government wasn't so incompetent as to spend much time and money screening people for a nonexistent draft.

 

[Bystander]

Aren't people that are drafted already screened for their physical and psychological condition? Wouldn't this ensure that only those fit for military service of some sort are actually drafted and employed?(snip)

The Vietnam Era steps:

1) register with local board;

2) cross fingers and pray, get student deferment, or married with children;

3) local board gets instructions to furnish x bodies for physical;

4) "short straw;"

5) report for physical in tutu, drunk, stoned, limp-wristed, with pencil still inserted through eardrum, or minus fingers or toes;

6) be classified 1A to 4F depending on evaluation of mental and physical examinations, acting ability, and degree of self-mutilation;

7) go back home and wait for nasty letter to report for induction --- lots of luck finding a job in the interim;

8) listen to stories about KC sending over 50% to the Marines;

9)

a) enlist in another branch in effort to gain some control over fate;
b) gamble that local board is not required to furnish your body for induction.​

Personally, I agree with Bob's post above: draftees in general are terrible fighters, lacking training and expertise, that don't want to be there and don't serve any purpose other than that of a human shield, preferably one that manages to take out a few enemies or help hold a position for some while before meeting his end (if placed in a combat role, anyway). (snip)

Gonna have to take exceptions to this:

1) "training and expertise" - same as the volunteers;

2) "don't want to be there" - no one but a psychopath wants to spend time in a war zone;

3) "human shield" - U. S. tactical doctrine has never included "half a league..." (Balaclava) and "Alamo" or "Greasy Grass" or "Thermopylae" human wave or suicide tactics;

4) "terrible fighters" - saved this for last --- don't say this out loud in the wrong bar --- you'll learn a whole new meaning for the phrase.​

Regarding Bob G's Nam statistics:

1) see Shelby Stanton's Order of Battle, for a breakdown by rank, and keep in mind that E-6 and up, and O-4 and up are generally "career" types;

2) during the Nam era, the draft was furnishing manpower to large garrisons in Korea and Europe;

3) at the time of my all expense paid tropical vacation, the in service ranking of desirability of station among the "lifers" was Nam, Korea, Europe, stateside;

4) the ranking of desirability among draftees and single enlistment types was Nam, Korea, Europe, and stateside;

5) "lifers" got precedence in choice of duty over us peons;

6) items 3 & 4 could only be observed (overheard) at stateside postings (I'm sick of all this godda**ed bullsh*t! I'm going back.) or in SEA when draftees and single enlistments were approaching DEROS (I'm extending. I can't take 6 months (or a year) of stateside bullsh*t.)​

You can train until you're blue in the face and still be useless. The four months people got for the Nam was a little light, but it took 2-3 mos. for anyone to get up to speed, be they 20 year lifer or sad sack draftee. Then, there'd be 6-8 mos. of very competent performance. Getting short? Back to watching out for number one, and making mistakes.

 

[Cyrus]

Again, the list that the SS maintains is just a list of potential draftees. I would hope the government wasn't so incompetent as to spend much time and money screening people for a nonexistent draft.

.....the government did not screen me when I signed up honestrosewater. They do that only after you are selected from the lottery.

 

[sanchecl]

After a quick review of this thread, I see a lot of opinions being expressed. I also don't see many that have actually served in the armed forces. Just an observation I found interesting!

 

[Dawguard]

After a quick review of this thread, I see a lot of opinions being expressed. I also don't see many that have actually served in the armed forces. Just an observation I found interesting!

Excellent, I had noticed that too. Most people are arguing from rules and ideals, not from experience.

 

[Hurkyl]

Not inferior, just not as capable to fight in war as men.

In other words, they're inferior (for combat). I guess I should have clarified.

What rational do you want? Do you want me to argue from sheer words and ideas instead of reality?

I want you to argue with reason. I.E. put forth a logical argument. I don't care if you base the argument on principles or practical experience -- as long as there is (an attempt at) an unbroken chain of (logical) steps that lead to "It is just to exclude women from the draft".

Specifically, I would like you to stay away from appeal to common sense and appeal to emotion.


The other problem is that you don't seem to have tried to argue "It is just to exclude women from the draft" at all -- you're merely arguing that women are generally less able to fight in combat.

I tried to draw up an analogy to demonstrate the vast difference between:
(1) Demonstrating that a demographics performs statistically badly at something as compared to other demographics.
(2) Arguing that it's just to exclude said demographic from that something.

Don't put words in my mouth, and don't draw conclusions from what I said that aren't even related. You can't pull a cheap trick like this just to make me look like a racist.

But you seem to have missed the point. Try reading what I wrote again, but with the above in mind.

Now, before this turns into a virtual shouting match, I just want an explanation why you think women can be capable of being drafted.

Why? So you can feel better about your position by attacking someone elses? I'm not sure if I have an opinion yet either way on this topic, and I certainly don't have an opinion that I'm willing to defend, so I'll have to decline your request.

You needn't say alledgedly, you know as well as I that it is true.

Sure I need to say alledgedly. I've decided that evaluating the truth of the statement was irrelevant to the discussion, so I opted not to. Thus, I label the claim as being "alledged", because I wish neither to conform nor deny it.

(It's interesting that you claim to know what I know...)

Excellent, I had noticed that too. Most people are arguing from rules and ideals, not from experience.

This whole thread is about rules and ideals -- it's about notions of "justice", "fairness", "equality", and "legality". Maybe experience in the armed forces would be helpful to such an argument (or maybe it will simply bias you) -- but either way, in order to talk about these notions, you have to talk about the principles upon which they're based.

 

[russ_watters]

Excellent, I had noticed that too. Most people are arguing from rules and ideals, not from experience.

Don't make that assumption - just because people don't mention it, doesn't mean they didn't serve. Several people in this thread have - including me.

 

[Dawguard]

First off, I'd like to apologize for any offense or problems I might have caused. I overly reacted to the idea, immediatly aghast at it. I still stick to my position, but you're right, I have indeed been arguing from irrational bases.
I'll have to give this more thought and come back with a proper argument for my position. Thank you for pointing this out, and for putting up with me.

 

[sanchecl]

Don't make that assumption - just because people don't mention it, doesn't mean they didn't serve. Several people in this thread have - including me.

It was not meant as an assumption, simply an observation. Perhaps a better word might be perception. Earlier posts demonstrate that the person making the post served while others lack any indication of prior service.

The perspective of those that have served (or are doing so currently) is valuable because it adds some balance to what may otherwise be simply an academic discussion. The real world is very different that the textbooks!

 

[loseyourname]

It was not meant as an assumption, simply an observation. Perhaps a better word might be perception. Earlier posts demonstrate that the person making the post served while others lack any indication of prior service.

The perspective of those that have served (or are doing so currently) is valuable because it adds some balance to what may otherwise be simply an academic discussion. The real world is very different that the textbooks!

Perhaps, but there isn't a single person alive that has had experience serving alongside female draftees, to see that they've performed any more poorly than their male counterparts. Anyone arguing that they either are, or are not, capable simply by virtue of their sex, is engaging in an academic argument. Even if we limit the discussion to female capability in actual combat, it's academic, as no one has ever observed a female soldier in combat.

 

[vanesch]

I
The perspective of those that have served (or are doing so currently) is valuable because it adds some balance to what may otherwise be simply an academic discussion. The real world is very different that the textbooks!

What is so different between textbooks and the real world, that the right to live of those sent to the battle front is seriously baffled, while that right for those who are not sent, isn't ?
Is the battle front, after all, not so deadly in reality than it is in textbooks ?
Are you less dead when you are killed with experience, than when you are killed without ?

I'm not talking about the practical issue of whether it is an efficient idea to send girls on the battle front: I'm discussing why women's or elder's or children's right to life should be respected, while the right to live for a young healthy male shouldn't.