Drafting Women?


PDA






cls12vg30
October 27, 2004, 05:25 PM
I caught this interesting quote from Oliver North in The Federalist Patriot:
"Though neither Kerry nor his campaign 'scare-mail' acknowledge
it, no president can require compulsory military service.
Our Constitution charges Congress with the responsibility to
'raise and support armies.' Short of a cataclysmic attack on the
United States, no Congress is going to vote for conscription --
particularly since it would inevitably force our daughters to
fight." --Oliver North

This got me to thinking. If sometime in the future a draft becomes necessary, would Congress consider including females? I know that women are now serving in many psuedo-combat roles, but I find it hard to believe they would ever be drafted. Who would push for such a move? I highly doubt NOW or any of the other feminist groups would lobby Congress and say, "We insist you draft us!" So if the women don't push for it, that leaves men. What kind of man would campaign for the conscription of women? I just don't see it happening.

If you enjoyed reading about "Drafting Women?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Daemon688
October 27, 2004, 05:38 PM
I've had this debate with others before.

My line is "If women can't get drafted then they don't deserve to vote"

Sometimes they agree......most times they don't :D

We need the women to stay home and work at the factories anyways.

El Tejon
October 27, 2004, 05:38 PM
Ummm, no, that is incorrect. NOW has rountinely voiced support for the inclusion of females in registration for the draft and to change the Selective Service Act to include women as well as lobbying DACO(half)WITS to include females.

Anything that would weaken and destroy their Great Satan (the USA) is favored by NOW. Women now are lot closer to the FEBA than you relate, especially in a conflict like Iraq.

What kind of man would campaign for the conscription of women? Alan Alda.

Yooper
October 27, 2004, 05:41 PM
You're probably right, but the only way to know for certain is to put it to the test.

Women fought very effectively for the Russians in WWII, so I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss them as warriors.

Sleeping Dog
October 27, 2004, 05:44 PM
Daemon, how does that argument work when there is no draft? Nobody gets to vote? Or, only gray-haired old guys who were around when the draft was active?

Regards.

Zrex
October 27, 2004, 05:50 PM
Even if women were drafted, they would not necessarily have to be in combat units. Think of all the support personnel involved with keeping an infantry division fighting.

Ian
October 27, 2004, 06:17 PM
Historically, women have proven themselves capable of being excellent warriors. The idea does offend many delicate sensibilities, though. :rolleyes: ;)

sumpnz
October 27, 2004, 06:43 PM
I don't want to speak for Daemon but I'm pretty sure he meant 'could be drafted'. Just because you (or I) haven't been drafted, and just becuase they currently aren't drafting anyone, it doesn't mean you (or I) can't be drafted. Since there is currently no mechanism in place to conscript females regardless of any attempt to reinstate the draft women cannot be drafted while men certainly can be drafted.

JL2152
October 27, 2004, 06:56 PM
I think that if women want equal rights they must have equal responsibility in society. I personaly don't have to worry about being drafted I already voulenteered. All I have to worry about now is stop loss.

WT
October 27, 2004, 07:07 PM
I have read some comments about sending women with PMS into combat.

Mr. Clark
October 27, 2004, 09:01 PM
I have used this topic as a quick hypocrite test in the past. Anyone who says they believe in equal rights for women but who thinks woman shouldn't be registered for the draft does NOT believe in equal rights. This includes more than half of the women I've asked. They want the benefits without any of the responsibility.

That said, I don't think anyone should have to register for the draft. If America can't raise a volunteer army to defeat those who would harm us, America deserves what it gets.

Roon
October 27, 2004, 10:40 PM
Why are we even having this discussion? If there is ever a draft again, or some version of national service, which I support, why shouldn't women serve?

"This must be a dirty rotten commie trick!", Gen. Buck Turgidsen.

Daemon688
October 27, 2004, 10:40 PM
Daemon, how does that argument work when there is no draft? Nobody gets to vote? Or, only gray-haired old guys who were around when the draft was active?

They should be eligible for the draft if there is one. Like others said, if they want equal rights they should share the same duty to their country.

Joey2
October 27, 2004, 11:25 PM
Women being drafted is the break up of the family and the traditional role women have in holding the family structure togather.

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

jefnvk
October 27, 2004, 11:52 PM
Women get to vote, get equal rights, they can get drafted.

That being said, there certainly needs to be some of way to discharge some. Certainly you don't believe that a 90lb, 5' girl would be eligible for combat.

jefnvk
October 27, 2004, 11:53 PM
And joey, methinks that your idea already happened. Women are in the workforce, it is no different. Tradityional roles are for a large part already gone.

JerryM
October 28, 2004, 12:29 AM
Women cause more problems in the military than they help solve.
There are problems of logistics, sexual problems, men being concerned about a woman, jealousy between men for a woman, facility problems, lack of strength of women, pregnancies, and having to leave children causing problems. When they have to leave their children they complain about it.

All in all it is a mistake, and women are too valuable to be in the military. The greatest thing a woman can do is to be a homemaker and good mother for future generations. Families depend upon good and loving mothers. A soldier is greatly comforted knowing that his wife is at home with the kids, and not in another unit getting shot at.

I really do not care what any general or congressman, or NOW says. It is a bad idea.

Jerry

Roon
October 28, 2004, 12:35 AM
Think National Service, not just as military service, but lots of things that work towards the betterment of our nation.

Ian
October 28, 2004, 01:36 AM
Certainly you don't believe that a 90lb, 5' girl would be eligible for combat.

They do; basic PT standards. I know a lady who volunteered, failed to meet the basic stength quals by the end of boot camp, and was discharged (honorably).

If I were organizing a militia unit (I won't ever be in the federal army, and so won't encouter the issue there), I would certainly accept women for combat roles (provided they met the training standards, as with male volunteers). Actual combat, I think, is more a matter of will than physical strength.

thefitzvh
October 28, 2004, 04:40 AM
Actual combat, I think, is more a matter of will than physical strength.

I'd have to disagree with you there... certainly will is a factor, but the lady who can't hump a 90 pound ruck a few hundred miles is the lady I don't want in combat with me. When she's fatigued, her buddies have to carry her gear, and that slows the whole unit down.

A patrol is only as fast as its slowest member.


James

cracked butt
October 28, 2004, 05:18 AM
No draft for women.

They should be home taking care of the kids.

If they want to volunteer, all the better.

Viking6
October 28, 2004, 07:47 AM
"but the lady who can't hump a 90 pound ruck a few hundred miles is the lady I don't want in combat with me. "

There aren't many men that can hump a 90 lb ruck a few hundred miles and if they do, they ain't gonna be doing much in the way of fighting when they get there. But your point is well taken. Below, I have pasted an article in the Washington Times.

Washington Times
October 22, 2004
Pg. 1
Female Soldiers Eyed For Combat
Army seeks end of 1994 ban
By Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times

The Army is negotiating with civilian leaders about eliminating a women-in-combat ban so it can place mixed-sex support companies within warfighting units, starting with a division going to Iraq in January.
Despite the legal prohibition, Army plans already have included such collocation of women-men units in blueprints for a lighter force of 10 active divisions, according to Defense Department sources.

An Army spokesman yesterday, in response to questions from The Washington Times, said the Army is now in discussions with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's staff to see whether the 10-year-old ban in this one area should be lifted. The ban prohibits the Army from putting women in units that "collocate" with ground combatants.

"When that policy was made up, there was a different threat," said Lt. Col. Chris Rodney, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon. "We imagined a more linear combat environment. Now, with the nature of asymmetrical threats, we have to relook at that policy."

Col. Rodney cited the fighting in Iraq as typifying the new threat whereby all soldiers, support or combat, face attack by rockets, mortars, roadside bombs and ambushes.

"Everybody faces a similar threat," he said. "There is no front-line threat right now."

Since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the Army has suffered 793 combat deaths, including 24 female soldiers.

The Army is not seeking to lift the ban on women in direct combat units, such as infantry or armor.

What is being examined is the part of the exclusion rule that says mixed-sex support companies may not be positioned with ground combat teams.

In the disputed instance, the transformation plan of Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, calls for creating Forward Support Companies, which are made up of men and women. These companies would collocate with reconnaissance squadrons, which are combat units and are part of larger brigade "units of action."

The problem is a 1994 ban signed by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin that excludes women from land combat units. Mr. Aspin added an additional restriction. Women could not serve "where units and positions are doctrinally required to physically collocate and remain with direct ground combat units that are closed to women."

Some Pentagon officials, who asked not to be named, said the proposed Forward Support Companies are at the least "skirting" the existing ban if not violating it. They suspect the new units are a way to inch women closer to land combat despite Congress' prohibition against it.

Elaine Donnelly, who leads the pro-military Center for Military Readiness, says Congress needs to be informed of the Army's plans.

"There is a law requiring notice to Congress that has not happened, and there are regulations that forbid the Army from taking infantry units and collocating gender-integrated units with them," said Mrs. Donnelly, who opposes women in combat. "If they are doing this, putting women in land combat units would be a violation of law and policy."

The Pentagon long has banned women from combat roles. In the early 1990s, the new Clinton administration changed the rules by allowing women for the first time to serve on combat ships and pilot combat aircraft, such as jet fighters and helicopters.

But the Pentagon retained the ban on women participating in direct combat and issued the new Aspin rules.

Mr. Aspin said in a January 1994 memo to the services that "women should be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground." The policy then defined direct combat as "engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew-served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile force's personnel. Direct combat takes place well forward on the battlefield while locating and closing with the enemy to defeat them by fire, maneuver, or shock effect."

Mr. Aspin then went further in denying collocation of mixed-sex and combat units. The Army accepted the limitation, documents show.

The 3rd Infantry Division, which played a major role in the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, is scheduled to return to Iraq early next year. It would be the first division to be reconfigured into "units of action" that would contain the new mixed-sex Forward Support Companies.

In all, Gen. Schoomaker is increasing the number of combat brigades from 33 to 48, and naming them "units of action." The brigades are being married up permanently with support units so they can move out more quickly to war zones, instead of waiting for the additional personnel to arrive.

Early in the Bush administration, Mrs. Donnelly successfully persuaded the Pentagon to restrict female soldiers from certain reconnaissance units after Army planners had penciled them into those new units.

Barbara
October 28, 2004, 07:52 AM
If I weren't over the legal age, I'd volunteer.

joab
October 28, 2004, 08:03 AM
If I were organizing a militia unit (I won't ever be in the federal army, and so won't encouter the issue there) No offense but with a self imposed lack of any military training what would make you qualified to form your own militia and who would follow you.failed to meet the basic stength quals by the end of boot camp, and was discharged (honorably). Probably would have been a General not a full Honorable

Tall Man
October 28, 2004, 01:14 PM
Certainly you don't believe that a 90lb, 5' girl would be eligible for combat. They do; basic PT standards. I know a lady who volunteered, failed to meet the basic stength quals by the end of boot camp, and was discharged (honorably).
That doesn't sound right.

If an individual leaves active duty prior to the completion of military basic, they've not been in uniform long enough to characterize their service as Honorable.

Your lady friend's departure, predicated on her failure to meet established standards, only serves to strengthen this observation.

What probably occurred here is that this recruit was processed out under the auspices of an Entry Level Separation.

If in fact she left boot camp with an Honorable Discharge in hand (and has paperwork available to prove such a transaction) then an gross injustice occurred. This non-vet will have access to unearned Veteran's benefits. I sincerely hope that this is not the case here.

TM

Ezekiel
October 28, 2004, 01:24 PM
My wife is 5'2" and about 115 lbs. I'm not certain she could carry something even as large as an M-1 carbine all day, so the Infantry is O-U-T. Still, as example, she has both a BA and an MA in Communication and is the best "Operations Analyst" of which I've borne witness in the business sector. I'm certain, militarily, she'd be useful somewhere.

I'm fine with an overall draft of all Americans of age: but make the MOS work!

I've often wondered what, if any, MOS I'd be deemed well suited for based upon testing...

pax
October 28, 2004, 01:35 PM
Equal rights for everyone.

The draft is inherently a bad idea -- no one should be drafted, ever, no matter how righteous the war may be. If citizens do not believe the war is important enough to volunteer, or if our society has sunk so low that its citizens no longer believe it is worth risking their own lives to defend it, then we deserve to lose the cause du jour.

Those who volunteer for combat -- men and women alike -- should have to meet exactly the same standards. If men have to hump a 90 pound ruck for 50 miles in order to pass Basic, so should women. No double standards. No exceptions.

pax

Mk VII
October 28, 2004, 02:11 PM
We have enough problems with the willing female volunteers, let alone the ones which would start with drafting the unwilling ones. We are already seeing fitness standards degraded so that women can pass them, and so avoid the "de facto discrimination" claims. It's an unsuitable job for a woman, anyway. And I don't care who says men and women should be equal. They aren't.

Viking6
October 28, 2004, 02:25 PM
"If in fact she left boot camp with an Honorable Discharge in hand (and has paperwork available to prove such a transaction) then an gross injustice occurred. This non-vet will have access to unearned Veteran's benefits. I sincerely hope that this is not the case here."

If I'm not mistaken, a soldier has to have completed 180 days of active duty before they are eligible for veteran's benefits, barring service related injury.

richyoung
October 28, 2004, 02:43 PM
Every modern army, (French Resistance, Soviet, Isreali) that used women in combat was compelled to do so by emergency manpower shortages, encountered NUMEROUS operational problems, and immediately stopped using them as soon as possible. One only has to examine the chaos that their inclusion in the U.S. military has caused, (mostly ignored by the eliberal media), not to mention the effect it has had on retention rates and morale of not only the warriors, but their families, (For some strange reason, wives don't want their husbands deployed for 6 monthes on a carrier known as "The Love Boat"...go figger!).

TooTaxed
October 28, 2004, 03:00 PM
Women can serve very capably. My Aunt was a WAC in France during the Battle of the Bulge. Although the Army promptly evacuated the WACs, my aunt and one other lady refused to go...said they'd handle paperwork and free a couple of men to fight. (We hosted her 95th Birthday party last week...and she's still very spry, no medical problems, drives and plays competitive bridge several times a week, and is a whiz on crossword puzzles! Retired as a Major.) The WACs, the WAVEs, our women fliers were quite valuable during WW II.

In my experience...observations at Fort Benning and my own daughter, who joined the Naval Reserve, and expects to go to IRAQ in the spring...surviving the rigors and discipline of military boot camp benefits them as much as the young men...GREATLY improved self confidence and personal pride. (I can't BELIEVE how it turned my previously aimless daughter's life around!) I'd recommend military service for any young person...and very frequently, young women need that more than young men. (Check out some of the attractive young soldiers at Fort Benning wearing jump badges!) It will serve them well in the rest of their life as mothers, home makers, and workers.

Yes, women are capable of performing well in combat, as shown by the Israelis and the Russians in WW II. But I think it's a matter of individual temperament, and I don't think most women would choose to do so.

There are natural human problems of mixing the sexes in units. Perhaps all/mostly female units would minimize problems. If they should choose combat duty, let them do it.:what:

CannibalCrowley
October 28, 2004, 03:21 PM
They do; basic PT standards. I know a lady who volunteered, failed to meet the basic stength quals by the end of boot camp, and was discharged (honorably). Just because a woman can pass basic female PT standards doesn't mean she'd be able to pull her own weight in a line unit.

Men and women have more differences than just plumbing. This is why if females were to be drafted, then they should stay out of combat MOSs. In addition, the presence of females tends to make unit cohesions suffer due to "competition" for the women. Such a thing would be a disaster for infantry units. Furthermore, the presence of females creates further logistical problems which are compounded when they're further away from the supplying units.

In short, the draft shouldn't exist in the first place; but since it does, women should be eligible to be drafted for non-combat roles.

TooTaxed
October 28, 2004, 04:12 PM
Remember...only a rather small percentage of military (10%?) are front-line combat troops. The rest are support, primarily in the United States. There's no reason why women couldn't capably handle the logistics.

The draft isn't an issue...although the Selective Service Board was established in 1940, and has been funded ever since in both war and peace, with the function of maintaining plans for augmenting military strength, it hasn't been used in many wars. President Carter (Democrat) instituted automatic registration for the draft in 1980...required ever since. But, although Democrats Holling and Rangel introduced S#89 and HR#163 in Jan 2003 to restart the draft, the Senate Bill still languishes in committee, and HR#163 was forced to a floor vote expressly to kill it...which happened Oct. 5, 2004 with a vote of 402 to 2. It is highly unlikely that Congress will change its mind and introduce a draft.

Ginger
October 28, 2004, 04:16 PM
I like the idea of national service but not a military draft. In the national service arena women can read to kids or pick up trash or whatever the same as men. I also think women can and have served very well in noncombat positions in the military although I think they served better when the sexes were segregated more.

I don't doubt that individual women can be effective in combat but I think they would be more trouble than they're worth. What does it do to unit morale when a woman turns up pregnant and gets free shot out of the combat zone? What does it do to unit morale when female soldiers are raped?

And what does it say about our culture that we would want a future mother to go through that experience?

Roon
October 28, 2004, 05:05 PM
And what does it say about our culture that we would want a future mother to go through that experience? ...or a future father.

Fact is, war will probably be with us as long as our species exists, and women have been part and parcel to war since the apple, or whatever metaphor rings your bell.

There have been a few very effective female generals/wartime leaders during history, as well. Given "equal rights", it's pretty hard to say "no" to this and "yes" to that.

Oleg Volk
October 28, 2004, 05:36 PM
Regarding physical standards...what's there to keep a draftee from faking being weaker than he or she really is and failing to meet the minimum requirements to get out of the Army or, at least, out of combat units?

And, back to my older question, what's there to keep an unwilling draftee from engineering fatal mishaps for his superior offiers during deployment...or from using the combat skills learned in the Army to kill those who approved the draft upon return from bondage?

jefnvk
October 28, 2004, 05:38 PM
Is there a different set of standard for men and women to pass in joining the military?

Jay Kominek
October 28, 2004, 05:55 PM
Its fascinating that so many people immediately mention that women need to stay home with their kids, and thus, obviously can't be drafted.
Now, I don't get out and about much, but I hear from my friends that there are a lot of young, unmarried, childless women hanging around in the bars, drinking themselves stupid right alongside young men.
Seems like they're just as good for all sorts of military jobs.
If there are jobs they're not considered appropriate for, so what? Give them the ones they are appropriate for, and there will be that many more men available for the jobs that only they can perform.
If you're fixated on the idea of women being acceptable only for cooking and cleaning, then, hey, I hear the military needs cooks and janitors, too.

CannibalCrowley
October 28, 2004, 07:35 PM
jefnvk Is there a different set of standard for men and women to pass in joining the military? Yes.

Mulliga
October 28, 2004, 10:21 PM
If you ask me, women should be on the front lines of every single future conflict the U.S. participates in.

Why? Read here:
http://www.john-ross.net/islam.htm

Methinks if you believe a woman would be a liability on the battlefield, you must also believe a woman can't defend herself against an attacker with her concealed-carry gun, either. I mean, isn't that what guns are for? Evening out the differences in size and strength between people?

Can women withstand pain and stress? Yes. Can they haul gear? Yes. Can they pull a trigger? Yes. Are they as smart as men? Yes.

If our women can kick enemy butt, I say, send 'em in.

jefnvk
October 29, 2004, 12:34 AM
Yes.

So, umm, then, when the shooting starts, are women expected to perform at a leser level then the men?

Personally, if the shooting starts, I don't want someone that had a reduced physical requirement covering me.

Screw discrimination. I can't join the military because I'm diabetic; if the women can't do what's required of a man, then too bad for them.

tyme
October 29, 2004, 01:21 AM
What kind of man would campaign for the conscription of women? Alan Alda.
If (unconstitutional) conscription is reinstated, the government in the precarious position of deciding whether to place women into slavery along with men.

It's easy to see both sides of the argument. Most women don't want to be treated differently by the law, so they should probably be drafted along with men in the interest of overall fairness and non-discrimination.

However, it's still slavery, and there's the philosophy that if you can't save them all, you can at least save some. Whether it's women, gays, blacks... saving one or some of those groups from slavery might be more important than the principle of non-discrimination.

As long as military service remains voluntary, those two conflicting arguments can be rehashed all day long and they won't make any difference. Rather than spending energy on that, I think it's more productive to fight the draft by trying to abolish the selective service system. That avoids the inevitable partisan split between draft-them-all democrats and women-should-stay-home republicans.

richyoung
October 29, 2004, 02:52 PM
Methinks if you believe a woman would be a liability on the battlefield, you must also believe a woman can't defend herself against an attacker with her concealed-carry gun, either.

(not the same thing - emergency, unanticipated violence in response to criminal attack vs. premeditated destruction of fellow human beings in the furtherence of national interests are VERY different - not to mention that the first does NOT involve choice on either the personal or the national level.)

I mean, isn't that what guns are for? Evening out the differences in size and strength between people?

Obviously, you have never carried a .50 MG tripod at a dead run, or climbed out of a 7 foot trench with 2X basic ammo load, enough rations for three days, entrenching tool, 4 canteens, flashlight, shelter half, pancho, spare socks, 1st aid kit, changed a 5-ton truck tire, carried a wounded 200lb man, etc. A gun doesn't even out THOSE differences in size and strength. When that 90 lb salvage pump has to be carried up and back down 4 flights of ladders in the dark, with smoke, with a 15 degree list,with ONE hand,...well if the carrier is depending on a WOMAN to do that, 5000 guys are about to go swimming...

If women REALLY want to serve their country, they should be back at home, making the next generation of warriors and their mates, preferably from warrior stock, as this is one areqa of human endeavor that men absolutely can't perform...and NOT all wars are over in 100 hours, some last decades.

Thumper
October 29, 2004, 04:00 PM
They do; basic PT standards.

You just torpedoed your point; PT standards for women are far lower than those for men.

thefitzvh
October 29, 2004, 04:14 PM
Methinks if you believe a woman would be a liability on the battlefield, you must also believe a woman can't defend herself against an attacker with her concealed-carry gun, either

She's only got herself to worry about. Soldiers, if they screw up, can kill the lives of their teammates

CannibalCrowley
October 29, 2004, 04:34 PM
richyoung If women REALLY want to serve their country, they should be back at home, making the next generation of warriors and their mates, preferably from warrior stock, as this is one areqa of human endeavor that men absolutely can't perform...and NOT all wars are over in 100 hours, some last decades. That's taking things too far. There are plenty of jobs in the military which women can do as well as men. There's no reason to take women completely out of the military. In fact, doing so could mean disaster for some fields.

Ian
October 29, 2004, 05:31 PM
You just torpedoed your point; PT standards for women are far lower than those for men.

Whoops.:o Didn't know that.

I guess I'll just retreat to the position that the draft is an unconstitutional and immoral enterprise, and nobody should be drafted at all. :)

GEM
October 29, 2004, 05:56 PM
If there were a new draft:

1. There can't be student deferrments that discriminate against the poor folk who aren't in college.

2. Can't defer folks who start cranking out babies to avoid the draft

3. Men will sue if women aren't drafted.

4. Women will sue to be subject to draft as they want equal rights

5. Gays will sue to have the ability to serve their countries.

6. Straights will sue because why should they get killed while others are exempt because of their sex life.

7. Many folks will decide they are gay because that way they can avoid the draft. After the war, they can go get preached to and become straight. Hopefully the draft police won't be checking in your bedroom to see who that is next to you.

8. No soft rich guy units like during Viet Nam.

Thus, given the massive disruption of society unless we need a draft to fighta cataclysmic war - there will be no draft.

Barbara
October 29, 2004, 09:26 PM
If women REALLY want to serve their country, they should be back at home, making the next generation of warriors and their mates, preferably from warrior stock, as this is one areqa of human endeavor that men absolutely can't perform...and NOT all wars are over in 100 hours, some last decades.

*snort*

one45auto
October 29, 2004, 10:08 PM
Personally, I'm against sending women into combat because no matter what anyone says to the contrary, men and women are not physically equal. The fact that they are held to different physical training standard or requirement during basic training proves that. While thier lower body strength might be superior to ours, unless you're serving alongside a female bodybuilder odds are good that she won't be able to pick up a wounded comrade, sling him or her over thier back, and haul @ss while carrying her rifle and other gear. No, let them serve but in support positions or as pilots.

Barbara
October 29, 2004, 10:29 PM
Set one standard, make everyone stick to it and let it go at that. If a person can pass the physical exam (one exam for everyone) they can do the job.

SodiumBenzoate
October 29, 2004, 10:37 PM
No one should be drafted, regardless of gender. I'd rather see DC burn to the ground than another draft. The survival of a nation cannot, in my mind, justify forcing people to die, especially when they have done absolutely nothing to justify it. Would I volunteer for the military if the country was under attack? Most assuredly. Would I support people being forced into the military? No.

jefnvk
October 30, 2004, 01:39 AM
Set one standard, make everyone stick to it and let it go at that. If a person can pass the physical exam (one exam for everyone) they can do the job.

Bingo!

tyme
October 30, 2004, 09:49 AM
Barbara, what about pregnancy? Should the military force female soldiers to be on birth control... in all situations? In some situations (like submarines)? Not at all?

And... what if the birth control fails or there is no birth control and a female soldier becomes pregnant? Then some medical, logistical, and administrative resources are directed toward dealing with that rather than fighting a war.

Furthermore, imagine the immense burden on resources if a hard Christian-right no-abortion no-exceptions policy included women in the military.

Thumper
October 30, 2004, 12:14 PM
I think the pregnancy thing could be dealt with. The disparity of strength thing is the problem.

Barbara suggests having one particular PT test for both sexes.

Unfortunately, very, very, few females could pass the current men's standards for their age group. The eventual drop in standards only dilute the force. Then you have the huge gap in upper body strength. Some marginal male troops develop into fine soldiers over time. Women don't have the capacity for that kind of development.

It's a very simple fact: 11B is an occupation that holds physical strength at a premium. Trying to make it "fair" is counterproductive. What is...is.

Wanna fight? Fly a 'plane. I think I read that men and women have similar resistance levels to G's. I'd certainly be ok with that.

Barbara
October 30, 2004, 12:39 PM
Unfortunately, very, very, few females could pass the current men's standards for their age group.

I'm good with that. It's the blanket "can't do it even if you're qualified that annoys me." Standards shouldn't be lowered for anyone.

I have to clarify, though.. I think the draft is a horrible idea for anyone. I'm talking about volunteers.

Mulliga
October 30, 2004, 01:20 PM
Obviously, you have never carried a .50 MG tripod at a dead run, or climbed out of a 7 foot trench with 2X basic ammo load, enough rations for three days, entrenching tool, 4 canteens, flashlight, shelter half, pancho, spare socks, 1st aid kit, changed a 5-ton truck tire, carried a wounded 200lb man, etc

Er...many men in our society couldn't do those things, either. If women can meet the physical standards, why not let them in? Mentally, they're just as competent as men.

Take me, for example. I'm a decent shot, and good with electronics, but I don't have much in the way of upper body strength. Why should I get drafted when a strong woman (not hulking bodybuilder, but not a beanpole, either) can't?

It seems to me some of the things you talk about would be nullified if women were in the army...is it not easier to carry a wounded 125 lb woman out than a 200 lb man? Aren't women shorter and smaller than men, meaning less need for deep trenches and less time entrenching, not to mention the ability to field smaller vehicles?

If there were more women on the battlefield, we would change the way we fight wars. Think the "band of brothers" impulse is strong? What about the intrinsic feeling of men to protect women, or, even more, the maternal instinct a woman might develop with the boys in her unit? What about the psychological impact on our enemies when they see women armed to the teeth and killing them left and right?

Selfdfenz
October 30, 2004, 02:29 PM
"If there were more women on the battlefield, we would change the way we fight wars. Think the "band of brothers" impulse is strong? What about the intrinsic feeling of men to protect women, or, even more, the maternal instinct a woman might develop with the boys in her unit? What about the psychological impact on our enemies when they see women armed to the teeth and killing them left and right?"

Come on now, you are pulling our legs....aren't you?

"If there were more women on the battlefield, we would change the way we fight wars. "

We might change the tools but the the idea you can change the way wars are and the way they must be addressed is illogical. Every once in a while it's going to turn into something like the 101st in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge or the Marines on Iwo Jima.
Women got no place in places like that. That would just be wrong.
S-

Old Dog
October 31, 2004, 12:26 PM
Drafting females would require a whole-sale paradigm shift for the military establishment ...

First -- to reinstate a draft ... "don't ask, don't tell" will have to go away. Because, currently, as you all know, we do separate personnel should they make an admission of homosexuality. No one really wants to deal with this issue right now ...

The pregancy factor. For the past many years since I've been on active duty, I cannot begin to count the numbers of females I've seen get out of deployments by becoming pregnant (usually, of course, with the help of willing active duty male personnel). Think we can draft women and legally stop them from becoming pregnant? I think not.

I don't believe it would "change the way we fight wars." As long as men serving alongside women had confidence that the women could do their jobs when the fighting started.

I have seen, over the years, a number of females who could outperform males ... especially in fields where calmness, common sense, and thinking ability are required (ATC, AIC, intel, ops, supply, admin, medical) ... of course, women can serve, even on the front lines. I've also seen female divers and EOD techs who've been quite competent. I've witnessed any number of females who could outshoot many males with 1911s, M9s, M-14s, M-16s and M-4s.

If a female could perform requisite tasks/requirements (especially physical) up to the same standards as a male -- no gender-norming -- they should be allowed to serve in any job. Except ...

One thing no one addresses though -- and I see it when deployed -- when males and females serve together, away from their home base/home port -- the whole sex thing becomes totally magnified. When, previously, there were no females present, men could deal with sexual abstinence. Add a handful of women to the mix during a deployment -- there will be sexual tension. This, to me is a big factor in my belief that it's not a good idea for women to serve alongside men in deployed units. Of course, that's not my official position ...

If you enjoyed reading about "Drafting Women?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!