Selective service, women, and gender equality

[KillerMuffin]

This question was brought up by our intriguing friend in another thread.

Modest Mouse said it

Should women be eligible for the draft?

(How fucking obnoxious is it to say 'eligible')

My personal take on the situation is that you can't be a truly for equal opportunities between genders if women are exempt from the draft.

I signed up for it, was laughed out of the post office, but I did try. I think the legislation should be changed to reflect an equal America where women don't get men's privileges without the men's responsibilities.

What do all ya'll think?

 

[alltherage]

I have no doubt that women should be eligible for the draft if one were ever reconstituted. Service in the armed forces should no longer be gender driven. We have women who fly combat missions in the air force and navy even now. The days of the macho brut school of military science seems to be ending very quickly and I for one say thank god. The Israelis have a very effective military and women have always served in it. Why not ours.

 

[Starfish]

This question was brought up by our intriguing friend in another thread.




My personal take on the situation is that you can't be a truly for equal opportunities between genders if women are exempt from the draft.

I signed up for it, was laughed out of the post office, but I did try. I think the legislation should be changed to reflect an equal America where women don't get men's privileges without the men's responsibilities.

What do all ya'll think?

I just adressed this matter with mouse in private.

I have a big problem with your putting it simply as "men's privileges". Who said being given the right to be treated fairly should be a privilege? The whole matter of "equality" isn't about privileges and who get's them. It is about just treatment, and the right to be able to partake in fair play of actions and roles that are open to be filled in our communities, government, and families. If this involves the draft, then I do agree that women owe somthing, but I do not agree that women will ever be the same as men, thus we will never be fully equal. This is not bad. This is natural.

Where the draft is concerned, I have issues with it to begin with.
Men are not to be wasted on wanton wars. Serious matters are one thing, but most patriots voleunteer in those cases anyway. Most people want to fight for what they believe in. I would.

I wanted to become a nurse's aid or a nurse on the side, so I'd have a better skill to offer up if needed, than a cook or toilet cleaner, but hell... whatever it takes to get the job done.

Fight on, Freedom fighters!

 

[WriterDom]

Depends. If the plan was to require all 19 years old to do some type of national service, then yes. Gearing up for a world war, I'd have to say no.

 

[Mae13]

Yes, yes, yes!

I think women should be enrolled in Selective Service just as readily as men.

As Starfishie said, there are several differences in men and women. We are not exact equals in several regards, but I don't think that has a lot to do with equal risk and equal benefit, especially in the military of today.

It is rare to find a job that deals wholly with physical strength. There are certainly fields where there would not be many women physically cut out for the job, but they are limited to the stronger of the men as well. There are several jobs that females actually do better in (such as sniping, though you'd never know it from the good ol boys club...)

Women used to be the warriors in times looooong ago. Societal changes are the only reasons this is not true today as well. But the more we are there, the more part we play...the better force we will become.

 

[Texan]

Women as volunteers in the military is a fine thing. But there are several practical problems with drafting women into the military. I'll point out the most obvious problem.

If a woman is pregnant or has a small child, would she be exempt from service? Is it appropriate to require a woman to leave her young children for a couple of years? It is one thing to make "accomodations" for women in the military; small children in the barracks would be incomprehensible.

When a woman volunteers, it is likely she will willingly decide to avoid pregnancy to fulfill her military commitment. If a woman does not want to be in the military, what is to prevent her from becoming pregnant to avoid service? Any society that "encourages" women to have children in order to avoid some negative consequence, is making a BIG mistake.

just a thought.

 

[christophe]

Absoloutley they should be! Perhaps not all females would be cut out for combat duty, but they certainly could preform other vital tasks essential to military operations!

 

[Ishmael]

Maybe

With regards to a mandantory government service system, of course. It should be gender neutral.

With regards, specifically, for military service. I'm not so sure. Ignoring the physical aspects of the issue for the time being. Most women are just not suitable for the military life stlye, regardless of job description. The military is NOT a job. It is a way of live. Isee no reason for the taxpayers of the country to waste their money making someone something that they aren't, and will never be. Perhaps psycological pre-profiling can take care of this

There are several jobs that females actually do better in (such as sniping, though you'd never know it from the good ol boys club...)

You're wrong Mae, dead wrong. Women, as a gender, are not better snipers and never will be. There are some women that may be suitable, but as a gender they are ill suited to the task.

Markmenship has very little to do with sniping. Any idiot can kill any other idiot, as long as the goal is ultimately suicide. The art of sniping is getting to the right position, at the right time, and getting out alive. It is EXTREMELY physical. The actuall shooting is less than 1% of the required skills.

Over the years, I have shot with and against some of the finest female marksmen the world has to offer. Sp4 Monez of Ft. Benning Ga. was, and probably still could be one of the best that has ever shot competitively. She was with U.S. Army Marksmenship Training Unit during the mid to late 60's She was accorded all the ammenities that the men were, and had earned them with her skill. But Karen could no more hump a ruck 20 miles and take a shot, and get out alive then most of the other ladies here on lit.

And the last point is that sniping is murder. Not really war. You are shooting at a person that has no idea that you are there, and is not shooting at you. Sniping is the terrorism of war. Unexpected death from unexpected quarters.

Women, by nature (thank God), are not generally capable of such cold blooded murder.

Ishmael

 

[Calamity Jane]

Re: Maybe

With regards to a mandantory government service system, of course. It should be gender neutral.

With regards, specifically, for military service. I'm not so sure. Ignoring the physical aspects of the issue for the time being. Most women are just not suitable for the military life stlye, regardless of job description. The military is NOT a job. It is a way of live. Isee no reason for the taxpayers of the country to waste their money making someone something that they aren't, and will never be. Perhaps psycological pre-profiling can take care of this

please explain how women are not suited to the lifestyle that is the military. i fail to see how adopting a certain lifestyle has anything at all to do with a person's gender.

You're wrong Mae, dead wrong. Women, as a gender, are not better snipers and never will be. There are some women that may be suitable, but as a gender they are ill suited to the task.

Markmenship has very little to do with sniping. Any idiot can kill any other idiot, as long as the goal is ultimately suicide. The art of sniping is getting to the right position, at the right time, and getting out alive. It is EXTREMELY physical. The actuall shooting is less than 1% of the required skills.

again, how does gender exclude women from this? i am a good shot. not sniper good, but that's training. i am physically as strong as most of the men that i know. i am mentally and emotionally MORE stable than most of the men that I know. when you're talking snipers, you're not talking about the average person off the street, you're talking about a highly trained person who knows exactly what they're doing and is trained to do it without question. how is this a gender issue?

Over the years, I have shot with and against some of the finest female marksmen the world has to offer. Sp4 Monez of Ft. Benning Ga. was, and probably still could be one of the best that has ever shot competitively. She was with U.S. Army Marksmenship Training Unit during the mid to late 60's She was accorded all the ammenities that the men were, and had earned them with her skill. But Karen could no more hump a ruck 20 miles and take a shot, and get out alive then most of the other ladies here on lit.

how do you KNOW this? was she sent on a mission and failed? did she tell you she was incapable of this? or do you assume that just because she isn't also hauling along a cock that she's incapable?

And the last point is that sniping is murder. Not really war. You are shooting at a person that has no idea that you are there, and is not shooting at you. Sniping is the terrorism of war. Unexpected death from unexpected quarters.

Women, by nature (thank God), are not generally capable of such cold blooded murder.

how do you know? most PEOPLE aren't capable of cold blooded murder. it's not gender related.

Ishmael

and for the record, i think women should be required to register for the draft. i also think you'd have one hell of a time getting me to leave my kids and go fight a war. but i'd do anything at home that was required of me to keep them safe.

 

[Ishmael]

Draft

OK Pagan, how do I know. I worked and shot beside Karen and a few other skilled women that we recruited for the all Army team.

I watched as she, and most of the other ladies, dropped out of "non-gender norm'd" PT. And this was without a 50lb ruck on our backs. Or carrying a 12lb rifle around. We hunted together, and while she was a hell of a wing shot, she couldn't quite bring herself to kill a deer.

Are there a few women out there capable enough? To be certain. Is the gender 'better suited' as implied to the post I was responding too. NO, NOT, NO WAY. The upper body strength isn't there for one. That is physiological. No amount of wishing will change that.

When you mention killing, it is one thing to conceptualize, and quite another to do it. It is one of the reasons that we instituted the 'buddy' system, or spotter/back-up, in the Army. It was because most men will not kill another man, unless his ego/honor is on the line. Hence, a witness with every sniper. That system is still in place today, for the same reasons.

I could go on, and will if need be. But feelings and thoughts aside, it is not in the nature of man to kill other men. Years of battlefield study have proven that time and again.

Ishmael
Vini Vidi Vici

 

[Calamity Jane]

Re: Draft

I could go on, and will if need be. But feelings and thoughts aside, it is not in the nature of man to kill other men. Years of battlefield study have proven that time and again.

Ishmael
Vini Vidi Vici

and that is a much truer statement than your original one when you said that women are specifically not suited to killing.

and FYI I can haul a 50 pound pack over some pretty hellacious terrain and still have the energy left to get in my kayak and fight a river. it's training.

 

[RisiaSkye]

I disagree with the draft in any case, but I think that the duties of citizens should be shared by all.

Whatever the differences in capacities, I think it's fair to consider it on an individual basis. We can argue tendencies by gender till the cows come home, but it addresses nothing. It deflects the real question.

Our national citizenship process won't really be equal until it's something that pertains to all citizens. We don't have many Presidents who didn't fight in a war or at least serve in the military, do we? Remember what a hoopla there was that Clinton was a student instead of a soldier? This doesn't matter only in times of war...it affects our whole process of government. If you are physically unable to serve, that's a different issue. But, in a vast structure like the military, there are positions to fill for all kinds of skills, requiring all kinds of bodies.

I think we're talking about this in a way that says it all: arguing about whether men or women make better snipers is a distracting side argument when it comes to discussing gender equality. Individual jobs aren't the point. There are many military duties which I think all can agree women's bodies and minds are more than capable of performing.

The fact that we're arguing this on gender lines is what tells me that governmental treatment will never be equal, because we are not equal in our thinking. We group people by race, class, gender, etc. etc. etc. We make it the way it is.

 

[bluespoke]

I read through this thread and formulated some thoughts for a reply.

Up popped RisiaSkye's post and it encapsulated everything I wanted to say.

so...... what she said!

 

[Ishmael]

equality vs reality

.................

Whatever the differences in capacities, I think it's fair to consider it on an individual basis. We can argue tendencies by gender till the cows come home, but it addresses nothing. It deflects the real question.

Our national citizenship process won't really be equal until it's something that pertains to all citizens. We don't have many Presidents who didn't fight in a war or at least serve in the military, do we? Remember what a hoopla there was that Clinton was a student instead of a soldier? This doesn't matter only in times of war...it affects our whole process of government. If you are physically unable to serve, that's a different issue. But, in a vast structure like the military, there are positions to fill for all kinds of skills, requiring all kinds of bodies.

I think we're talking about this in a way that says it all: arguing about whether men or women make better snipers is a distracting side argument when it comes to discussing gender equality. Individual jobs aren't the point. There are many military duties which I think all can agree women's bodies and minds are more than capable of performing.

The fact that we're arguing this on gender lines is what tells me that governmental treatment will never be equal, because we are not equal in our thinking. We group people by race, class, gender, etc. etc. etc. We make it the way it is.

The reality is that in an all volunteer Army, it is possible to test each applicant for fitness for the position sought. The tenure of the enlistment is proportional to the training time required for the Military Specialty. One of the reasons that women do fill so many critical positions.

In a draft environment, the tenure of service is fixed, and it's assumed that you don't want to be there. You didn't enlist after all. So very little training is given. These are the 'burger flippers' of the military establishment. Are many qualified for better duties? Of course. But the government will not waste it's money on people that will be terminating their service immediately after being trained at great expense. Regardless of whether you agree or not. This makes perfect sense to me.

I have already agreed to a gender nuetral 'National Service' regimine.

I will never agree to a gender nuetral 'Military Service' regimine. The studies, statistics, and quite frankly, the cost, are overwhelmingly against this type of program.

Ishmael

 

[privy2u]

Answer to original question - yes

Answer to those who had excuses or problems with equality across the board -

pregnant? it's called an exemption the same as for a man if he is married, or ,married with one child, or two, etc...adjustments in qualifications is called rating - 4F, 2A, etc...less threat more exemptions, higher threat fewer exemptions

Little training? Burger flippers? - you need to study your statistics in basic training somewhere and get your facts straight! All volunteer military does not encourage higher education citizens to enlist! Think about it, a person is looking at a starting salary of $75,000 and he joins the military instead. I dare say that the person who signs that payroll check was probably drafted when he was 19.


Not in mans nature to kill other men? History proves it out? Try to think of when man didn't kill man and say that out loud as you do until it sounds as backwards to you as it does to me!

One more thing before I get upset - yes I was drafted and served two years in the Vietnem era from 1969-1971 in the U.S. ARMY, Airborne Recon/forward observer - I served with thousands of hamburger flippers who didn't come home and thousands that did! Every single person I served with, man and woman alike, gave all they could and some gave everything. I have a military related permantly disablity which will end my life in the next few years and don't regret one hour of the time I served. Arguing over gender equality is as stupid as the argument that some of you are making for or against the draft! It was ended because it wasn't needed anymore. The time may come that it is needed again and that hamburger flipper is going to make damn sure you have the right to sit on your ass and criticize him or her while they get their lungs blown out like I did!

Don't bother to rant at me - I'm done!


sliding soapbox back under desk!


privy

 

[Ishmael]

re-read

Privy2u

I served from '63 - '67. I know the difference between RA, NG, and US. My statement still stands, the draftee's were not afforded the highly technical training that the RA's got.

I apologize for any offense that was given. The reference was to the relative level of training investment. Not to the importance of the job.

You are absolutely correct concerning your statement re. educational requirements. Infantrymen and artillery crew servers are still required.

Ishmael