Drafting Women?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
 
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
 
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.
 
"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.
 
women in armed forces

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!).
 
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:
 
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
And what does it say about our culture that we would want a future mother to go through that experience?
Click to expand...
...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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Yes.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

She's only got herself to worry about. Soldiers, if they screw up, can kill the lives of their teammates
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You just torpedoed your point; PT standards for women are far lower than those for men.
Click to expand...

Whoops.:eek: 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. :)
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

*snort*
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
Women to be drafted?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
2K
CannibalCrowley
C
J
  • Locked
US gearing up for draft Could it be true?
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Mark Tyson
M
W
  • Locked
Talking draft in light of Iraq occupation
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
2K
rayra
R
M
  • Locked
Nader tells youths to brace for draft...
Replies
21
Views
990
TheEgg
T
J
  • Locked
IDF to Increase Women in Combat Roles
Replies
1
Views
375
Jeff White
J
Back
Top