Women in the draft
Looking to see if somebody has already started this topic and some earlier date (new to AI for the most part) if so I can't find it so if somebody could link it to me or point me in the right direction that'd be great. Just got my Selective Service letter in the mail telling me to sign up, and I hear women don't have to so I'm a tad interested in why not. Anybody have any thoughts. (apologize if this post is against the guidlines since I have no real links)
Comments
Furthermore, just send in your damn draft card. There won't be a draft again anyway.
Originally posted by Argento
Looking to see if somebody has already started this topic and some earlier date (new to AI for the most part) if so I can't find it so if somebody could link it to me or point me in the right direction that'd be great. Just got my Selective Service letter in the mail telling me to sign up, and I hear women don't have to so I'm a tad interested in why not. Anybody have any thoughts. (apologize if this post is against the guidlines since I have no real links)
Women will demand equal rights but not equal responsibility. Typical.
If women were in charge of war, they'd drop bombs that would berate you, belittle you, & then take away your sports video channel...
Splinemodel: Of course people think war is 'inherently masculine' because females have been kept out of the military for so long. It's not actually inherently masculine like childbirth is inherently feminine. It's an artificial constraint.
aquafire: I'm not so sure the Brits could have handled those German troops you're speaking about without firing any shots. Some of them might fire blanks, but that's mostly genetic I think.
BR: I'm sure if Women finally had equal rights they wouldn't complain about equal responsibility.
i think that in general, women aren't going to be as forceful in fighting for equal draft rights. i mean, who would want to condemn them all to that? honestly, if you had a chance to fight for civil liberties, would you fight for an equal chance [for you and your brethren] at being forced to die for the [man]?
Originally posted by Argento
Looking to see if somebody has already started this topic and some earlier date
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...ighlight=draft
Originally posted by bunge
I'm sure if Women finally had equal rights they wouldn't complain about equal responsibility.
And just when are they going to get these equal rights so we can unload some of the responsibility? Those marches sure seem thin in the ranks and far between. Apathetic women? Who would have though?
Gimmie a gosh darn female president already (even if it's Hillary). Change has to start on all levels (top and bottom alike).
Originally posted by bunge
Splinemodel: Of course people think war is 'inherently masculine' because females have been kept out of the military for so long. It's not actually inherently masculine like childbirth is inherently feminine. It's an artificial constraint.
What do you mean "for so long?" Women have never been the fighters, aside from in myth. There was obviously a day back during the prehuman era where some instinctual decision making process made male prehumans the hunters and fighters, and it has been that way since. So there is a genetic and a heavily ingrained cultural tie between men and hunting/fighting/defending.
I argue that war, as we define it, is inherently masculine. If you're vehemently "nuture over nature" you will disagree, but the more acceptable conclusion is that conflict resolution through physical means is inherently masculine. There's little artificial about it.
Demographically speaking, wombs are of a far higher value than testicles.
However, when a group is pushed to the wall, it will resort to using all its able individuals to win the war, and if it does so efficiently, it will win.
Several historical examples (one of the more recent ones being Israel in 1948 ) disspell the misconception that female individuals have no use or place in combat, which is simply a prejudice toward members of a group, ignoring their individual specificities.
Another example: Jews have been deemed collectively unsuitable for warfare for ages (so much so that early 20th c. German archaeologists discovering an ancient inscription telling of the faits d'armes of Jewish soldiers in the armies of Alexander the Great, had great difficulty swallowing it), which neither the patriotic fervour of Jewish soldiers of the WW1 or WW2 armies could disspell. Only after 1967 did it enter popular perceptions that Jews could be ?badass? (now of course, the prejudice is one of crazy warlike Hebrews seeking perilous adventure, but that's another story).
An individual woman should have the same civil rights and duties as an individual male, and thus females suitable for military service should be drafted if ever such a drastic measure is required by necessity (which is not the case for most of your lucky countries), and allowed to serve if she desires it, when necessity isn't as dire.
Statistically of course, there's a far higher share of male individuals actually suitable for war than of similarly suitable female individuals, which might indicate an evolutionary mechanism working toward the preservation demographic stability.
haf*uckingha, i always like to see people getting a laugh out of genetic conditions, like the one that i have that prevents me from having the children that my wife and i desire. Bunge, go wash your brain.
Nick
Originally posted by Naderfan
Women are not allowed to be in combat situations.
They're not allowed in combat positions (in the Army and Marines, anyway), but that doesn't mean they aren't ever in combat situations. The combat those maintenance troops were in was as real as it gets. I haven't seen any reviews yet of female combat performance in Iraq, but I hope it will be done, eventually. I wonder if it will change any minds about females in combat.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Furthermore, just send in your damn draft card. There won't be a draft again anyway.
Already sent in my draft card, that's why I brought up the subject.
Secondly I was talking to a friend of mine who's in the army and he was telling me why he was so against women in combat situations. If he was ever wounded (he's 250 lbs by the way) he doesn't think that a woman would be able to haul his ass out of there on her own.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
What do you mean "for so long?" Women have never been the fighters, aside from in myth. There was obviously a day back during the prehuman era where some instinctual decision making process made male prehumans the hunters and fighters, and it has been that way since. So there is a genetic and a heavily ingrained cultural tie between men and hunting/fighting/defending.
I argue that war, as we define it, is inherently masculine. If you're vehemently "nuture over nature" you will disagree, but the more acceptable conclusion is that conflict resolution through physical means is inherently masculine. There's little artificial about it.
...of course you accept the fact that you're a wanker
Originally posted by Barto
...of course you accept the fact that you're a wanker
Only when it comes to Wankels.