NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a thought.
If there ever was a draft (and I know not likely to happen) would it have to include the women? Fair/equal... etc. Just wondering what people's thoughts on this were.

I'm more inclined to say no, however, this "We can do anything men can" attitude would shoot them right in the left breast if a Draft occurred.

I think that since this problem was started by men, the solution was screwed up by men, and everything went to hell because of men...

...that it'll probably take a woman to get us out of this mess. :p

Oh aye. AND they'd have to get crewcuts :D

Yes, it should include women. Saying this as a chick.

I'm more inclined to say no, however, this "We can do anything men can" attitude would shoot them right in the left breast if a Draft occurred.

Are you making a witty reference to the alleged Amazon practice of searing the left breast for battle, or am I reading in too far?

Ive been thinking about this as well. I dont think there will be a draft but if there happened to be one, then this issue would assuredly come up (and if it didn't I would bring it up). If there was a draft they would have to modify the entire prosess as well for a multitude of reasons, such as the number of potential draftee's...exc.

Are you making a witty reference to the alleged Amazon practice of searing the left breast for battle, or am I reading in too far?

Good for you for knowing your Herodotus. I doubt Imperial Puerto Rico is familar with the reference.

Are you making a witty reference to the alleged Amazon practice of searing the left breast for battle, or am I reading in too far?
I thought it was the right breast, could be wrong..

I hope if a draft occurs, though I don't think it actually would, that woman would be included because we bitch about equal rights, so, it's about time that we take all of what's included with that.

I thought it was the right breast, could be wrong..

Blast. Maybe.

I thought it was the right breast, could be wrong..

You are correct. Herodotus wrote that the women, “have no right breast; for while they are yet babies their mothers make red-hot a bronze instrument constructed for this very purpose and apply it to the right breast and cauterize it, so that its growth is arrested, and all its strength and bulk are diverted to the right shoulder and right arm.”

You are awarded a laurel leaf crown.

put on your critical thinking caps people!

we need to draft only women and send only the women off to war. think how quickly the conflicts would be resolved.

there would be the menstrual battallion who would be the brutal fighters. the men would not want to fight back and get slaughtered. the men back home would want to bring them home right away because they need someone to cook for them and wash their clothes.

so many possibilities. we can at least try it this once.

put on your critical thinking caps people!

we need to draft only women and send only the women off to war. think how quickly the conflicts would be resolved.

there would be the menstrual battallion who would be the brutal fighters. the men would not want to fight back and get slaughtered. the men back home would want to bring them home right away because they need someone to cook for them and wash their clothes.

so many possibilities. we can at least try it this once.

You were trying for humor, weren't you?

Women have to be drafted. I have no doubt they would be too. If they were not to... somebodys gotta die. If we only send men who will be our priests? Women? I think not they arnt worthy. Let the females get killed for mans freedom.

Women have to be drafted. I have no doubt they would be too. If they were not to... somebodys gotta die. If we only send men who will be our priests? Women? I think not they arnt worthy. Let the females get killed for mans freedom.
Eek!

I firmly believe that all those who can should defend their country, their neighborhoods, their homes and their young and old. Futhermore, I believe that fighting wars abroad is not a defense of my Nation.

There are plenty of people with the lust to kill there should never be a reason to draft men or women to engage in a war they do not believe in. Plenty of people of all genders find peace and comfort in the death of another. (Just listen to the murder statistics and read about the mercenaries fighting anyone's war for money.) If I believe in something, I should fight for it. Forcing me to fight for what another believes in is immoral.

Sweden has mandatory military service for everyone, male and female - but they don't fight wars. Go figure.

Slender Goddess

Sweden has mandatory military service for everyone, male and female - but they don't fight wars. Go figure.

Thirty Swedes crept through the weeds
Chased by one Norwegian....

Yes, men and women should be drafted equally. With equal rights come equal responsabilities. Or is the life of a man less valuable then that of a women?

To take the argument a bit further, I allways protest when people say 'ladies first' (it happens all the time, when ppl try to be gentlemen). Or when they say in the news '12 people got killed, 3 of them were women'. What's the difference between a man getting killed and a woman getting killed?

Yes, men and women should be drafted equally. With equal rights come equal responsabilities. Or is the life of a man less valuable then that of a women?

In the past, the reason women did not fight in wars is very much because the lives of women were more valuable than the lives of men. Women were much more important for reproductive purposes than men.

In the past, the reason women did not fight in wars is very much because the lives of women were more valuable than the lives of men. Women were much more important for reproductive purposes than men.

I think that's a cultural thing. I've read about a tribe in western africa where men are regarded more valuable. When they suffer a famine they reserve all food for the men. The reason: in a hunter-gather society only men are able to provide food and thereby end the famine. Feeding the women and children would be a waste.

But you're correct, in our culture women used te be regarded as more valuable.

In the past, the reason women did not fight in wars is very much because the lives of women were more valuable than the lives of men. Women were much more important for reproductive purposes than men.

Based on this argument... a women only draft would be necessary. Great way of population control. Women are the limiting factor in population growth.
Obviously, don't think this should be the case. Just makes you think on what you should base the reasoning.

In the past, the reason women did not fight in wars is very much because the lives of women were more valuable than the lives of men. Women were much more important for reproductive purposes than men.

There is no past when women did not fight. According to Herodotus (and others) Amazon women warriors joined with Scythians to form a kingdom on the Black Sea 2,600 years ago. The Jewish Torah tells of Deborah who led a Hebrew revolt against the Canaanites and of Judith who personally killed one of Nebuchadnezzar's generals. Artemisia of Halicarnassus (present day south-western Turkey) was a naval commander to Xerxes of Persia in the battle of Salamis.

The Roman Empire had to face their share of military women; the Cimbrian women participated in battles against the Romans, Boudicca of Britain led a revolt against Roman domination, and Mavia, queen of the Saracens, led her troops into Egypt against the Empire.

The Trung sisters led the Vietnamese revolt against China, the Chinese Princess Pingyang commanded 70,000 troops in the last years of the Sui dynasty and helped to establish the Tang dynasty, and Yang Miaozhen led a peasant army against the Jin, Mongols, and Song for nearly two decades.

In the modern period women made significant contributions in World War II. The French resistance had 4,000 women in the ATS, the Yugoslavians had 100,000 women in their forces (about 12% of the total), and 10% of the Russian resistance was composed of women.

The Russians actually formed three air regiments composed of women, with the 588th Night Bombers (the "Night Witches") pobably the most famous. The regiment was composed entirely of female pilots, navigators, and mechanics, and flew over 24,000 combat missions.

Lilia Litvyak, the first female pilot to shot down an enemy plane (she actually shot down two on only her second combat mission - a Junkers-88 bomber and a Messershmitt-109 fighter), became an ace, flying 168 combat sorties and recording 12 personal "kills" and three shared victories before being shot down and killed at the age of 22.

Sorry for the long history lesson but the history of female warriors, especially the women pilots of Russia during the "Great Patriotic War," are a bit of a hobby for me.

No, I don't they should be. Somebody needs to run the factories while the men are off fighting.

drafting women frees up more of the male draftees to serve as cannon fodder.

You are correct. Herodotus wrote that the women, “have no right breast; for while they are yet babies their mothers make red-hot a bronze instrument constructed for this very purpose and apply it to the right breast and cauterize it, so that its growth is arrested, and all its strength and bulk are diverted to the right shoulder and right arm.”

Surley it would depend if the Amazon was left or right-handed? I was led to believe the Amazonians cut off their breast so they could fire bows well.

I know it's been said. If you want equal rights, that includes the possibility to be drafted.

I hope if a draft occurs, though I don't think it actually would, that woman would be included because we bitch about equal rights, so, it's about time that we take all of what's included with that.

Agreed, women can't possibly push for equal rights and the like and yet when the draft comes say, "No sorry, we're women, we can't do that."
On the other side however, is the reason why the draft works. I can confidently say that 85% of men in America are very capable of making decent-superb soldiers with fast, but effective training. Men are simply built that way, mentally. I'm not saying women cannot, but what percent of women 18+ would make good soldiers? Lower than the men I do believe. Because of this, it would be a waste of time drafting women at random because a high percent of them will never be half the soldier a man can be. I say, encourage women who believe themselves capable to join up in the time of a draft, but not force them.
Sorry if it sounds sexist, I really don't mean it to be.

No, I don't they should be. Somebody needs to run the factories while the men are off fighting.

Ummm how bout having men who arnt sent away because their billet was filled by a woman man the factory (in equal amount)


I mean if you are sending less men because there are women being included that means while there is less women to man the factories … there will be more men that had not gotten sent

I vote Ogiek to stfu. Your quasi-intellectual attempt to impress people with your amazing education is annoying at best.

I think that's a cultural thing. I've read about a tribe in western africa where men are regarded more valuable. When they suffer a famine they reserve all food for the men. The reason: in a hunter-gather society only men are able to provide food and thereby end the famine. Feeding the women and children would be a waste.

But you're correct, in our culture women used te be regarded as more valuable.

You are very misinformed my friend. As a cultural anthropologist, I can say with 100% assurance that in most hunter-gatherer societies in Africa, while men DO tend to be more valued, they obtain the majority of their food through the gathering practices of the women. The men hunt, indeed, but they rarely bring down any large number of animals. The meat they do rarely obtain provides quite a feast, but about 70% (Rough guess, I forget the exact) of the hunter-gatherer society's food is GATHERED, which tends to be a strictly female activity.

I vote Ogiek to stfu. Your quasi-intellectual attempt to impress people with your amazing education is annoying at best.
Do you find it objectionable that he knew something? Or was it the material?

I didn’t seem him posturing … just sharing information (of witch I doubt you knew … and if you did must not have been confident enough to share)

Ummm how bout having men who arnt sent away because their billet was filled by a woman man the factory (in equal amount)


I mean if you are sending less men because there are women being included that means while there is less women to man the factories … there will be more men that had not gotten sent

I think that would be generally counter productive because men generally make better soldiers then women.

Key word: generally

Yes, it should include women. Saying this as a chick.



Are you making a witty reference to the alleged Amazon practice of searing the left breast for battle, or am I reading in too far?

It was the right breast, the purpose was to make it easier to fire arrows.

Unless you're left handed, searing the left breast would be rather pointless.

I vote Ogiek to stfu. Your quasi-intellectual attempt to impress people with your amazing education is annoying at best.

No doubt you are correct, however, I'm not such a "quasi-intellectual" that I know what or where "stfu" is.

Also, if the pontificating is too much you can always opt to post on some of the less lofty threads such as, "My favorite Joke of all time," "you're definatly a nerd when..." (my guess is you are definitely a nerd when you can't spell definitely - damn! there I go again with that quasi-intellect), "The Spam Song," or my favorite, "I'm drunk, how about you?"

Saying this as a female, I think that if a draft is instituted in the near future women will be amongst the armsmen. We've been fighting for equal rights for so long, we can't pick and choose what equal means.
(Of course, if I personally were drafted I would plead religious opposition to war. But that's just me.)

Of COURSE it should include women. We could have some wonderful sharpshooters! You all do know that women are better sharpshooters than men, right?

Women, even more so than men, should avoid drafts. Getting a "chest cold" can be a much more serious affair for women than for men. :)

Of COURSE it should include women. We could have some wonderful sharpshooters! You all do know that women are better sharpshooters than men, right?
The ones that can handle it are.

Err.. my apologies, but was the question whether or not women WOULD be drafted, or whether or not they SHOULD?

Should they be? Definately. Equal rights are equal rights, not just when the benefit us.

Would they be? Not as of right now. Currently the Selective Service rules state quite clearly that only men may be drafted.

I think history supports the argument that women can and have pulled their own weight as warriors. However, even if we were to assume the contrary, actual fighting troops make up the minority of those who serve in the military. During the American war in Vietnam the ratio of support personnel to combat soldiers was 17:1. In the highly technical and complex modern army I would think that ratio would be even greater.

For those who oppose drafting women for combat what is the argument against drafting them as support personnel?

I think that would be generally counter productive because men generally make better soldiers then women.

Key word: generally


Really?

I have heard this stated over and over but is it honestly true? Modern army style? (everything from support troupes to pilots) ?

How about based on the current women in the military how do they stack up? I have a feeling the same if not better?

Really is silly considering we probably do not have enough data to go on to make a claim like this.
(just one of thoes common knolege things that might not be true)

how about if it is proven they make better factory workers too ... then how would we choose

I think women should be drafted but they should continue to be barred from fighting in the front lines.

As for men being better in war than women, I don't have any proof, but I think on average a man would be better, but there are definatly many exceptions. Men are physically stronger and I think their emotions and thought patterns would work better. But for support and being a pilot and stuff I'd imagine they both perform equally.


Why is it that women are better sharpshooters again? I forget, is it the slower heart rate?

I think history supports the argument that women can and have pulled their own weight as warriors. However, even if we were to assume the contrary, actual fighting troops make up the minority of those who serve in the military. During the American war in Vietnam the ratio of support personnel to combat soldiers was 17:1. In the highly technical and complex modern army I would think that ratio would be even greater.

For those who oppose drafting women for combat what is the argument against drafting them as support personnel?

Send the warhawk women in there who voted for Bush. Iraq is a good thing? Go for it. Sign up, why wait for a draft?

Yes, men and women should be drafted equally. With equal rights come equal responsabilities. Or is the life of a man less valuable then that of a women?

Well, they are drafted equally, but the choice to subscipt is up to the individual. It just so happens that the vast majority of folk who show an interest in joining and warring are male. Surely in order for there to be equality there must also be free choice?
And in reply to your last question - is the life of an infant of equal value to an o.a.p's? The answer is no. As is the same to the question you asked. It was seen in times of war that women's lives were of more worth than a man's. This was because if by chance suddenly the world's population should decline due to lots of men dying in the war, there would be more women to impregnate - the world's population would be given it's greatest chance to re-boot itself as quickly as possible. One may have noticed that this view reflects in our biological bodies - notice the power of a man and the womb a woman carries. This was the view but does not hold as strong today as our world is now rather over-populated.

Or when they say in the news '12 people got killed, 3 of them were women'. What's the difference between a man getting killed and a woman getting killed?

Women are the weaker sex and few are in the military, e.g. there are no women in the Al-Quieda. Therefore when they are killed, most likely by men, it is seen as cruelty. Though when they say what you said in the news they are just distinguishing the dead because some folk seem to care - it just so happens that when the dead are female it is more likely that the dead were a civilian crowd.

You were trying for humor, weren't you?

you are talking shit to me because?

I abhor the idea of conscription, but I think that if there ever is a draft, it sould include women, because it would be hypocritical for any feminist not to believe this after so many decades of demanding equal rights. However, I think that if this were to happen, perhaps women should be given the option of not serving on the front line. Before anyone calls me a hypocrite for believing this, I'd like to point out that female soldiers are inherently disadvantaged on the front line, as they have a much higher risk than men of being raped if they are captured, and dealing with changing tampons etc. would be both impractical and very unpleasant in those circumstances. But then of course women do have an option for avoiding the draft that men don't: getting pregnant.

In the first place, to suggest that equality is for wars to be instigated primarily by men, but fought equally by men and women, seems a bit strange. I notice that whenever equality comes up there is some automatic assumption that for both sexes to be equal women have to 'as men'. I dont see how making one gender conform to the tendancies traditionally displayed by the other is equality. That's like suggesting religious equality is achieved by forcing everyone to adhere to the same religion rather than allowing everyone equal opportunity to find their own path.

In the second place, have those people who support drafting women noticed that women get pregnant? If they have, could one of them please explain to me how they expect this issue to be dealt with in practise? Would they get around this issue by forcing pregnant women to continue to serve, removing the child to it's father's care (presuming he hasnt also been drafted) or to the care of another relative or to a State military child care facility, or would we just force abortions on any women who become pregnant after or directly prior to being drafted? Or would we just force all women who are elligable for the draft to take contraceptives so they cant get pregnant? Whichever solution you go with, doesnt this require an infringement on women's rights well in excess of the infringements on mens rights that a draft constitutes? As well as the general loss of freedom men experiance as a result of being drafted, women would find thier reproductive functions controlled by the State. To be honest I find the thought of controlling citizen's reproductive functions to be anathema to free society, and to be an absolute anacceptable intrusion, in short I find that repugnant. No man is required by the draft system to render control of his reproductive functioning to the State, but a draft that included women, cannot properly function unless it included some means of preventing women from 'draft dodging' by intentionally becoming pregnant to avoid serving.

It's all good and well to talk about equality, but when you confuse equality with identical, the question arises, who is to be remade over as who? The answer inevitably seems to be that women must strive to be 'as men' whilst men can continue to be themselves....I suggest that is the opposite of equality. :rolleyes:

you are talking shit to me because?

...because your previous post was sexist, juvenile, stupid, and worst of all, not funny. I would have thought that was self evident.

In the second place, have those people who support drafting women noticed that women get pregnant? If they have, could one of them please explain to me how they expect this issue to be dealt with in practise?


What do you do when a man is incapacitated? Do the same for pregnant women. It isn't an issue unless one is looking for an excuse to disqualify women.

Also, I think history supports the argument that women can and have pulled their own weight as warriors. However, even if we were to assume the contrary, actual fighting troops make up the minority of those who serve in the military. During the American war in Vietnam the ratio of support personnel to combat soldiers was 17:1. In the highly technical and complex modern army I would think that ratio would be even greater.

For those who oppose drafting women for combat what is the argument against drafting them as support personnel?

What do you do when a man is incapacitated? Do the same for pregnant women. It isn't an issue unless one is looking for an excuse to disqualify women.

Also, I think history supports the argument that women can and have pulled their own weight as warriors. However, even if we were to assume the contrary, actual fighting troops make up the minority of those who serve in the military. During the American war in Vietnam the ratio of support personnel to combat soldiers was 17:1. In the highly technical and complex modern army I would think that ratio would be even greater.

For those who oppose drafting women for combat what is the argument against drafting them as support personnel?
Of course women's reproductive role is an issue. Every single human society has featured a sexualised division of labour. This isnt because of some sexist conspiracy, nor is it a merely a monumental coincidence, rather it is a reflection of biological facts. It is so not 'not an issue' that human societies ubiquitously are in same way shaped by this biological reality.

If people choose to injure themselves to avoid the draft, then they are injured, if women choose to get pregnant to avoid the draft, there is the child to consider. Do we want young 18 year old girls getting pregnant even though they dont want and are not ready yet to have children, just so they can avoid the draft? Do you think that is fair to the unwanted children who are concieved as a means to an end, rather than being wanted for themselves? Evidently may I ask does the draft system that includes women have provision so that married couples are not both drafted or do we have state orphanages for infants who find both their parents drafted? Do we if we have a rule that only one parent in a family can be drafted make provision for solo parents? Do we say that with regards to parents, always the man or 50/50, and if 50/50, have we really considered this in light of current culture and biological realities, and if we say only the man, are we not right back at supposed inequality?

It's not just about combat, someone has to look after children once they are born? Is the purpose of drafting women to increase the overall numbers, or are we to suggest that an army of 50 men and 50 women is going to be as desirable as an army of 100 men? Really someone please explain exactly how this draft business would work, because no matter how I look at it, I see it as inherently problematic, and likely to be counterproductive.

Is ideological 'equality' (translate as forcing one gender to take on the traditonal behaviour of the other, something I still am not convinced actually is equality) more important than practical effects? Is this 'equality' to take primacy over the usual aims of a draft (to get the most efficient fighting force with the least possible cost to the nation socially and financially)?

And once we have drafted women because men should never experiance anything unpleasent that women dont experiance (for their to be 'equality) when do we instigate the 'state rape' program. You know the one where we get the figures of women raped in the preceeding year, subtract the number of men raped over the same period then have a randomly chosen group of men equal in number to the number of women who were raped in excess of men, raped. After all if equality means women must take the bad (like being drafted) along with the good, then men too must take their share of the other gender's problems right? And when is the pill that forces men to bleed up to week each month going to be forced on men? Not to mention the drug that makes men's bodies act as though they are pregnant. If women must be drafted to be equal, then men should surely expect to experiance as many of the pangs of pregnancy as medical science can force on them, if they are to be equal, right? Or maybe we could all get real and face the fact that women are not men, men are not women, and although people are greatly varied, there are due to biological and/or cultural reasons, differences between the two, that cannot be 'equalised' by forcing one sex to adopt the traditional behaviours of the other.

It's all good and well to talk about equality, but when you confuse equality with identical, the question arises, who is to be remade over as who? The answer inevitably seems to be that women must strive to be 'as men' whilst men can continue to be themselves....I suggest that is the opposite of equality. :rolleyes:
I'd agree with you in pretty much any context other than this. How is being forced into military service "men being themselves"?

Peopleandstuff, your post degenerated into silliness. I have no idea what you are talking about with your discussion of rape, but suffice it to say that no policy should be drawn up based on the fact that some people break the law. People who break the law should be punished. That has nothing to do with this issue.

Of course men and women are different. This isn't about making men and women the same. It is about equality of opportunity and responsibility, which is very different.

Any draft would have to address the issue of drafting parents. This is not difficult to do. What does any company do when its female employees get pregnant? Women continue to work through their pregnancy and take time off to have the baby. There are plenty of support positions where this would not be an issue. At any rate you are talking about a minority of cases.

Yes!

I'd agree with you in pretty much any context other than this. How is being forced into military service "men being themselves"?
Well it's not, however if we are objective, we can see that of those who volunteer to be part of a military group, more are men than are women. If we look at who is primarily responsible for instigating wars, if we look at who throughout history has been primarily responsible for fighting wars, we see a clear pattern developing. War fighting is traditionally a 'mens' role. Biologically the reasons why are obivious. Culturally this cannot not have an effect. Whilst any one woman may have no motherly feelings, and whilst any one man may lack any and all aggresive tendancies, due to either cultural, biological (or more likely both) elements, more men than women tend to be suited to war fighting, whilst more women than men tend to be suited for tending to young infants.


Peopleandstuff, your post degenerated into silliness. I have no idea what you are talking about with your discussion of rape, but suffice it to say that no policy should be drawn up based on the fact that some people break the law. People who break the law should be punished. That has nothing to do with this issue.

Of course men and women are different. This isn't about making men and women the same. It is about equality of opportunity and responsibility, which is very different.

Any draft would have to address the issue of drafting parents. This is not difficult to do. What does any company do when its female employees get pregnant? Women continue to work through their pregnancy and take time off to have the baby. There are plenty of support positions where this would not be an issue. At any rate you are talking about a minority of cases.
You cant have it both ways and call that equality. Being drafted an unpleasant possible repucussion of being a man, fact is if you are a man you are more likely to be drafted than if you are not a man. The same can be said about women and being raped. So if women have to take on the less pleasant aspects of being a man, then why would this not obligate male kind to take on the less pleasant aspects of being a woman?

To suggest that military and civil service are the same with regards to pregnancy is silliness. Most companies do not expect their employees to live in company barracks many miles away from their homes which they dont return to for many months on end.

So far as I have noticed, more men like to watch war films than women, more boys play with toy soldiers than girls, boys seem to like toy guns more than girls etc. While I do not claim that every man is more war like than every woman, it is pretty obvious to any objective person that males are more dispossed to physical confrontation than are females. Forcing women to be as active in physical confrontations as men are, (ie drafting them into the ultimate category of physical confrontation) is forcing them to be 'as men', yet it doesnt require men to be forced to act more 'as women'. The physical differences between men and women effect our behaviour, and our perspective, coupled with socialisation by the time men and women reach 18 years old, there are definate tendancies towards certain activities, behaviours and roles. It is fact that one of those roles for men is military tasks, and forcing women to take on this task equally is forcing women to be more like men, without forcing a reciprocal requirement on men to become more like women. That's not equality, it's merely another form of male dominance.

Are you 12 or do you not comprehend the difference between being equal (i.e. the same) and equality of opportunity? This is an issue of equality of opportunity and responsibility.

When we say people of all races should have equality of opportunity it does not mean everyone is guaranteed the same job, regardless of their qualifications. It means everyone has the same opportunity to compete for that job, without hindrances based upon race.

The same applies to the debate about women serving in the military.

Peopleandstuff, your post just made me want to read Choke again..

Are you 12 or do you not comprehend the difference between being equal (i.e. the same) and equality of opportunity? This is an issue of equality of opportunity and responsibility.
I do not see that being equal means being the same. Being equal and having equality most certainly does mean the same thing. It doesnt mean being the same, it doesnt mean being treated identically. It seems to me that I understand the difference between 'equal' and 'same' better than yourself, indeed that is the point of my earlier posts...

When we say people of all races should have equality of opportunity it does not mean everyone is guaranteed the same job, regardless of their qualifications.
No it means that everyone is treated according to their merits.

It means everyone has the same opportunity to compete for that job, without hindrances based upon race.

The same applies to the debate about women serving in the military.
I'm really not sure what you mean here, we are talking about a draft, not about being allowed to choose to serve. If women want to join the armed forces, they should be able to compete alongside everyone else who wishes to have a military career. If due to necessity we must suspend certain preferred aspects of a free society by for instance instigating a draft that forces people to take part in war, should this be done so as to achieve the military goal with a minimum of social disruption, or should it be done as some sort of ideological exercise? Drafts should be avoided, if they become absolutely necessary they should be constructed so as to avoid any more social disruption and suspension of freedoms as is absolutely necessary. I dont perceive that including women in the draft is the most efficient means of achieving military objectives, nor the least socially disruptive.

Is it just me or does the idea of a draft PERIOD offend anyone else. Should people be forced to die for something they don't believe in? I think that the number of people joining the forces are as much of a market force as supply and demand, and if you don't have enough support, then back off, don't make anyone die for your war, go out and do it yourself.

Drafts should be avoided, if they become absolutely necessary they should be constructed so as to avoid any more social disruption and suspension of freedoms as is absolutely necessary. I dont perceive that including women in the draft is the most efficient means of achieving military objectives, nor the least socially disruptive.

The purpose of a society based upon equality of opportunity AND responsibility (you conveniently leave that off in each of your posts) is not to be the most efficient, nor the least disruptive.

The fact is we have a society in which men and women are judged to have equality of opportunity, which carries with it an obligation of equality of responsibility. Women can and should perform many of the same tasks as men in the military. Anything less denies women opportunity for military advancement and unfairly saddles men with responsibility that should be born by all.

Is it just me or does the idea of a draft PERIOD offend anyone else. Should people be forced to die for something they don't believe in? I think that the number of people joining the forces are as much of a market force as supply and demand, and if you don't have enough support, then back off, don't make anyone die for your war, go out and do it yourself.

Tell me should people enjoy the fruits of a free society paid for by the blood of those too poor or with too few opportunities to be able to opt out of military service?

Should life be all Christmas and no paying for the presents?

Perhaps everyone should give a year or two of service to our country (military or other) given how much we all take from our country.

Tell me should people enjoy the fruits of a free society paid for by the blood of those too poor or with too few opportunities to be able to opt out of military service?

Should life be all Christmas and no paying for the presents?

Perhaps everyone should give a year or two of service to our country (military or other) given how much we all take from our country.

Sadly which country we are born in determines much in terms of our lives, it is the fault of a child born in somalia to have no food? or a minor in sweden that they enjoy greater social benefits? until global mobility is as easy as choosing which ideological persepective best suits a person and that person can move as they please to countries in which that situation is in practice the arguement is invalid, especially considering the sentimental value people have towards family homes, certain landscapes etc..

The purpose of a society based upon equality of opportunity AND responsibility (you conveniently leave that off in each of your posts) is not to be the most efficient, nor the least disruptive.

The fact is we have a society in which men and women are judged to have equality of opportunity, which carries with it an obligation of equality of responsibility. Women can and should perform many of the same tasks as men in the military. Anything less denies women opportunity for military advancement and unfairly saddles men with responsibility that should be born by all.

Best post in whole thread.

The purpose of a society based upon equality of opportunity AND responsibility (you conveniently leave that off in each of your posts) is not to be the most efficient, nor the least disruptive.

The fact is we have a society in which men and women are judged to have equality of opportunity, which carries with it an obligation of equality of responsibility. Women can and should perform many of the same tasks as men in the military. Anything less denies women opportunity for military advancement and unfairly saddles men with responsibility that should be born by all.
Are you suggesting that social disruption is desirable, or even 'not undesirable'? Are you really suggesting that if something that negates the freedoms on which free societies is based, must in the short term be in some way suspended in order to ensure freedom in the long term, that we shouldnt be trying to minimise the suspension of ordinary freedoms, whilst maximising the benefits derived from doing so? What is the purpose of a draft? Is it to try to achieve a military goal, or is to promote social ideologies? If it is for the earlier then unless you think more social disruption than is necessary is good, or you think that prolonging wars, or loosing them outright is desirable, then how can you disagree that if we must draft that we do so in a way that infringes on the least number of people to the least possible degree whilst still achieving the objective? Do you really think that the ideologic notion of forcing women into the military for the sake of 'fairness' is more important than winning the war with the least possible cost?

It's all good and well to talk about equal responsibility and accountabilty in theory, but in practise we cannot pragmatically ignore biological realities. Are men equally responsible for giving birth to children? Is it necessary to find a medical means of achieving male child birth before there can be equality? You talk about being equally responsible, well so far as I can see the number of women serving in the military isnt too far out of line with the number of women who are responsible for there being a war. Saddam, a man, G.W. Bush, a man, Osama Bin Laden, another man, the Taliban, also men, do you see a pattern emerging here? Perhaps the reason men are more accountable when it comes to fighting wars, is related to their being primarily responsible for instigating them.

Saddam, a man, G.W. Bush, a man, Osama Bin Laden, another man, the Taliban, also men, do you see a pattern emerging here? Perhaps the reason men are more accountable when it comes to fighting wars, is related to their being primarily responsible for instigating them.
That is so much garbage. I couldn't count the number of women I've met whose sole purpose in life seems to be getting their boyfriend to kick people's asses.

Are you suggesting that social disruption is desirable, or even 'not undesirable'?

Integrating Blacks into the military was socially disruptive. So what?

Saddam, a man, G.W. Bush, a man, Osama Bin Laden, another man, the Taliban, also men, do you see a pattern emerging here? Perhaps the reason men are more accountable when it comes to fighting wars, is related to their being primarily responsible for instigating them.

I'm going to take a wild guess that each one of those men had a mom.

Shall we blame those women for the war-like tendencies of their sons?

That is so much garbage. I couldn't count the number of women I've met whose sole purpose in life seems to be getting their boyfriend to kick people's asses.
Right so by your admission you have lost count of the number of women who are so unable to act on their aggressive tendancies, that they need to get someone else to have physical confrontations on their behalf? How bizaare, none of the women I know have this problem....perhaps this is more about the kind of people you choose to associate with, than it is about people generally. The fact that I am highlighting is that men display more tendancies towards physically confrontational behaviour than do women. If you doubt this, have a look at the statistics regarding violent offenses, take a look at any volunteer army and the percentage of males who choose to be in the military compared to the percentage of females who choose to be in the military. Take a look at murder statistics, the number of males who murder people is higher than the number of females who murder people. Have a look at domestic child abuse, the number of men who assault children in their care is provably higher than the number of women who do likewise, this is despite the fact that every study done in the last few decades regarding the amount of time spent caring for children, has shown that women spend a much greater amount of time caring for children than men do, and so have more opportunity and provacation to loose their temper and lash out. List as many annecdotes as you like, the empiracal statistically verifiable fact is that men as a group have more of a tendancy to physical aggression than do women as a group.

Integrating Blacks into the military was socially disruptive. So what?

No it wasnt, (although I suspect what you really mean is that desegregating the US armed forces was socially disruptive). Regardless, the two are materially distinguishable. There is no reason to believe that the material differences between men and women and any differences between black people and people who are not black are comparable for the purposes of this discussion. Black men dont get pregnant and give birth, they are no more likely (if they fall into enemy hands) to be raped than a white man, and I suggest they are a lot less likely to experiance sexualised harrassment from their own. There is no reason to believe that black people as a group are physically less muscular and responsive to muscle conditioning than non black people, there is no reason to beleive that black people are any more or less aggressive than non-black people (so far as I can ascertain). The same can not be said with regards to males and females. We know that biologically men are predispossed to being physically more muscular and that male bodies are more responsive to activities that increase muscle mass/strength, than are female bodies. We can reason that it is an adaptive advantage for a speicies configured as we are to have females who have strong tendancies to nuture and males who are at least physically defensive, if not overtly offensive, and frankly I see no reason to suppose that such an adaption has not occured. Socially we most certainly have an arrangement which encourages certain behaviours and outlooks amongst members of one sex, and alternative behaviours and outlooks amongst members of the other, and it so happens that the behaviours and outlooks encouraged amongst our males better suits them to the role of soldiers than does the behaviours and outlooks our society encourages amongst the female sex.

Basically I see no real purpose (beyond ideological pursuits) to drafting women, I do however see many disadvantages, and further I am not convinced that the alledged ideological benefits actually are benefits, I am not convinced that forcing traditionally masculine roles onto females is equality.

As a female, I have always stated that, if there is to be a mechanism for a draft, both men and women should be included.

Also, while less women would meet the physical requirements for certain positions, there should be no position a woman cannot hold simply because of her gender.

I am not convinced that forcing traditionally masculine roles onto females is equality.

As to the "traditionally masculine role," I refer you to my earlier post on just a small fraction of women who have served as warriors:

There is no past when women did not fight. According to Herodotus (and others) Amazon women warriors joined with Scythians to form a kingdom on the Black Sea 2,600 years ago. The Jewish Torah tells of Deborah who led a Hebrew revolt against the Canaanites and of Judith who personally killed one of Nebuchadnezzar's generals. Artemisia of Halicarnassus (present day south-western Turkey) was a naval commander to Xerxes of Persia in the battle of Salamis.

The Roman Empire had to face their share of military women; the Cimbrian women participated in battles against the Romans, Boudicca of Britain led a revolt against Roman domination, and Mavia, queen of the Saracens, led her troops into Egypt against the Empire.

The Trung sisters led the Vietnamese revolt against China, the Chinese Princess Pingyang commanded 70,000 troops in the last years of the Sui dynasty and helped to establish the Tang dynasty, and Yang Miaozhen led a peasant army against the Jin, Mongols, and Song for nearly two decades.

In the modern period women made significant contributions in World War II. The French resistance had 4,000 women in the ATS, the Yugoslavians had 100,000 women in their forces (about 12% of the total), and 10% of the Russian resistance was composed of women.

The Russians actually formed three air regiments composed of women, with the 588th Night Bombers (the "Night Witches") pobably the most famous. The regiment was composed entirely of female pilots, navigators, and mechanics, and flew over 24,000 combat missions.

Lilia Litvyak, the first female pilot to shot down an enemy plane (she actually shot down two on only her second combat mission - a Junkers-88 bomber and a Messershmitt-109 fighter), became an ace, flying 168 combat sorties and recording 12 personal "kills" and three shared victories before being shot down and killed at the age of 22.

Sorry for the long history lesson but the history of female warriors, especially the women pilots of Russia during the "Great Patriotic War," is a bit of a hobby for me.

I'm going to take a wild guess that each one of those men had a mom.

Shall we blame those women for the war-like tendencies of their sons?
What has blame got to do with it. You said that for women to be equal they have to be equally responsible and accountable. You can only be accountable for what you are responsible for, so if you want women to bear equal accountability for the fighting of wars, regardless of personal appitides or qualities, then you have to ensure that they are equally responsible for starting them. If men starting wars can be seen as equally women's responsibility because a women mothered them, then women can be seen as being accountable for war fighting because all women have fathers and many have brothers, and sons, and husbands. Women are less active in starting wars, why should they not be less active in fighting them. It seems to me that equality has come to mean that men carry on running a men's world and women have to become as men whilst still carrying on the tasks associated with womenhood.

So we have gone from women not being able to choose a career and having the burden of being the primary caregivers, to women needing to have a career for most family units to survive financially and women having the burden of being the primary caregivers. Now you want women to be forced to be equally accountable for fighting wars, without seeming to care whether they are given equal opportunity to influence whether or not a war happens. I just dont see that expecting men to carry on as usual while women become 'as men' is equality, I see that as just another form of male dominance.

No, I was being sarcastic about your silly comment that men are solely responsible for wars, failing to take into account that many wars are supported by the beligerent nations' women.

Please see my previous post for a tiny list of women who also exhibit the warlike behavior you apply only to men.

As to the "traditionally masculine role," I refer you to my earlier post on just a small fraction of women who have served as warriors:

As for your earlier post, I refer to you to the the concept of logical fallacy in the form of depending on A-typical examples to prove your point. Citing the exception only highlights the rule. The women you refer to are 'remarkable' because they are not typical, which really only proves my point.

As for your earlier post, I refer to you to the the concept of logical fallacy in the form of depending on A-typical examples to prove your point. Citing the exception only highlights the rule. The women you refer to are 'remarkable' because they are not typicla, which really only proves my point.

I never claimed that there haven't been more men than women involved in war, merely that women can and should be allowed to shoulder some of the responsibility.

Certainly, there are enough examples in history to demonstrate that women can and have taken on the role of warrior.

No, I was being sarcastic about your silly comment that men are soley responsible for wars, failing to take into account that many wars are supported by the beligerent nations' women.

Please see my previous post for a tiny list of women who also exhibit the warlike behavior you apply only to men.
My comment is not silly, it is a legitimate fact, my comments did not state nor imply that men are soley responsible for wars, anymore than it stated that men currently are soley accountable for fighting them. What I did point out is that those who currently are responsible for whether or not wars occur (either by provoking one, starting one, or refusing to join one) are predominately men, so if you are after equal accountability, I suggest that women are currently about as accountable for the fighting of wars as they are responsible for them occuring. If you would wish women to be more accountable for fighting wars for the purpose of equality, then you are being inconsistent if you dont also insist that those who are responsible for whether or not a war occurs should be as equally comprised of women as men.
If you are under the impression that I believe or attribute war like behaviour only to men, or to all men, I can only suggest that you re-read my comments, and hope that clarifies matters for you.

In the first place, to suggest that equality is for wars to be instigated primarily by men, but fought equally by men and women, seems a bit strange. I notice that whenever equality comes up there is some automatic assumption that for both sexes to be equal women have to 'as men'. I dont see how making one gender conform to the tendancies traditionally displayed by the other is equality. That's like suggesting religious equality is achieved by forcing everyone to adhere to the same religion rather than allowing everyone equal opportunity to find their own path.

In the second place, have those people who support drafting women noticed that women get pregnant? If they have, could one of them please explain to me how they expect this issue to be dealt with in practise? Would they get around this issue by forcing pregnant women to continue to serve, removing the child to it's father's care (presuming he hasnt also been drafted) or to the care of another relative or to a State military child care facility, or would we just force abortions on any women who become pregnant after or directly prior to being drafted? Or would we just force all women who are elligable for the draft to take contraceptives so they cant get pregnant? Whichever solution you go with, doesnt this require an infringement on women's rights well in excess of the infringements on mens rights that a draft constitutes? As well as the general loss of freedom men experiance as a result of being drafted, women would find thier reproductive functions controlled by the State. To be honest I find the thought of controlling citizen's reproductive functions to be anathema to free society, and to be an absolute anacceptable intrusion, in short I find that repugnant. No man is required by the draft system to render control of his reproductive functioning to the State, but a draft that included women, cannot properly function unless it included some means of preventing women from 'draft dodging' by intentionally becoming pregnant to avoid serving.

It's all good and well to talk about equality, but when you confuse equality with identical, the question arises, who is to be remade over as who? The answer inevitably seems to be that women must strive to be 'as men' whilst men can continue to be themselves....I suggest that is the opposite of equality. :rolleyes:

And this is where I have to step in if I am to keep a clean conscience.

I'd first like to point out that, as far as recent history is concerned, women have held the majority vote since the 1984 presidential elections, and have gained an increased representation with each passing election. What does this have to do with the draft? Not much directly. But, it DOES have something to do with the notion that men are somehow to -blame- for wars. Women hold the majority. The majority kept Bush in office. Besides, pick up a copy of any of the "Uppity Women" series and you'll get example after example of women in leadership and military positions who were incredibly bloodthirsty and viscious rulers. My point here is that trying to pin a war on a gender is ludicrous, insulting, and naive. The politics of war are far more complicated than that. I'm male. I oppose war in general. I oppose the current war specifically and with great zeal. But based on your argument, I should be held accountable for the war simply because I was born with a Y chromosome in place of one of your X's? Hrm.

Secondly, yes, the military very much does infringe upon men's reproductive rights. And parenting rights. And financial rights. And right to livelihood. You are removed from your spouse (if you have one), or SO (if you have one), and can only have intercourse either under very specific conditions or with people you might not (and according to military doctrine SHOULD not) want to. Men, in this country, are expendable. The slogan for women is "A woman's body..a woman's choice". That's great. Women -should- have their own choice. But for men, the slogan is "A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do"..and that's taken off of a draft registration poster. See, we don't HAVE a choice when it comes to our body. Never have. And yes, medical conditions that would cause you to no longer be able to serve (particularly in such an anti-abortion political climate as the military) would remove you from service. I'm sure that would include being pregnant. So please don't try to convince me that it would be -more- of an infringement on a woman's rights than a man's because you would be granted an additional method of leaving service. And with the sexual tension in mixed-sex units (assuming combat drafting), you'd have a pretty good chance of that happening.

However, I agree with you on one major point. Equal and equitable are not the same. While many people think that equality needs to be equal, I disagree. It should be equitable. Men and women ARE different. I enjoy most of those differences.

Now as for whether or not I feel women should be drafted. Yes, I do. Of course, I also feel that we should have compulsory military service for all high school graduates of both genders. I think we might rethink our strategies if we were sending ALL of our children to war rather than just the middle and lower class young males. Men are expendable. The middle class and poverty class is expendable. It's easy to send troops right now. I don't think that women "have it coming" or that they should be drafted to "see how they like it" or any such rubbish. That would be the same as blaming war on men.

Saddam, a man, G.W. Bush, a man, Osama Bin Laden, another man, the Taliban, also men, do you see a pattern emerging here? Perhaps the reason men are more accountable when it comes to fighting wars, is related to their being primarily responsible for instigating them.


While it is true that a majority of US presidents and Islamic leaders that have instigated wars were men, it can also be said that all the women to ever become a US president, or a powerful islamic leader has also instigated war. You are using flawed logic, as all these societies are patriarchal, all the leaders are men.

Please, name a single female US president who did not start a war with another country.

The fact is men and women are different. Men have a killer instinct, it's science. Men would be the best on the front lines and thats why they were the ones who were drafted, but in todays military there are lots of non-combat jobs so yes, women should be drafted, they can be cooks, pilots, supply personal, work the computers, and many more non leathal jobs.


:sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
:mp5: :mp5:


(thought these would relate to the topic)

Alanthea,
I dont contend that men are to blame for war, I simply point out that if women are expected to be equally accountable for carrying out the fighting, because anything else would be unequal, then surely this ideology must (if it is to be internally consistent) also apply to women being in positions of responsibilty with regards to provoking, instigating or avoiding wars. My point is that women make up less of the group responsible for whether or not war occurs, just as they make up less of the group accountable for carrying out the actual fighting, and that it's not reasonable to expect women to be as accountable for carrying on the fighting as men, when they do not have equal responsibility for deciding when to go to war, and how to conduct the war. To claim that the only way to achieve equality is to artifically cause women to fight in wars in numbers equal to men (ie to make them equally elligable to drafted) is as sensible as claiming that we can only have equality if we artifically cause women to be those who make the decisions that lead to war, in equal numbers to men.

To suggest that the limitations military service places on people is infringing on men's reproductive rights does not make sense in so far as the phrase 'infringement of reproductive rights' is normatively used. Most employers conditions of employment require that employees refrain from sexual activities during working hours, yet we dont normatively describe this as an infringement of reproductive rights. Women will have to serve while pregnant, or not get pregnant, or be able to get out of service by getting pregnant. No matter what you do, you cant have equality with regards to a draft, biological realities precludes this from being possible, so a draft that includes women will not result in equality, but it does pose significant social risks, logistical problems, and raises all sorts of ethical concerns, in excess of those that apply to men and being drafted.

Ralina, my logic is not flawed. It can also be said that none of the female US Presidents has ever started a war. The point is not how many females have started wars, but rather how much direct influence do females have over when where and how wars are conducted, and the answer is 'not very much', and in light of this fact, womens' contribution to fighting wars being 'not very much' is not unreasonable.

Peopleandstuff,
I still strongly disagree with the contention that men, as a class, are responsible for war. If you don't mind, I'm going to keep my framework within the course of my lifetime, meaning that I'm going to refer to those events within the past 34 years. In that time, it can be reasonably asserted that men have held the majority..even the vast majority...of political positions here in the states. I'll give you that as there is really no logical way of contesting it and I'm personally not into attempting to contest fact. However, this does not exclude women from the decision to wage war. Leaders are voted into office and much of their platforms are based upon their foreign policies, including war. Local offices lead the way to State offices which lead the way to National offices. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women have voted in higher numbers than men since 1984. This tells me that the leaders being placed in office are being placed there largely by the choice of women. Women also play a large part in rearing our children. The same children who have grown up to be today's political leaders. Where did they get their values? When 9/11 occured, I got into worried conversations with many of my family members. Those who said things like "We should bomb the bleep out of those bleepers" were the women of my family. My father said something like "Let's hope he (the president) will be reasonable instead of jumping the gun." That makes it obvious to me that at least -some- women wanted the violent response.

The problem with saying something like (paraphrase) "Men are responsible for intigating war and so men should be responsible for fighting it" is like saying "Blacks beat me up in school and so Blacks are violent" or "Jews were stingy with me in that business deal so Jews are greedy." It's taking an individual characteristic and generalizing it over a broad class of people. "Men" were not responsible for the war. "Men" is a class of people, those born with Y chromosomes, to oversimplify. For example, I am not responbible for the war, even though I'm male. Should we look for other birth characteristics of those who decided to go to war and use them? Perhaps most have blue eyes and we should only draft blue-eyed people? In this country, they're probably all white, so should we stick to only whites? That sounds ridiculous, but uses the same logic.

I'd also like to remind you that our current leaders are not exclusively male. Congress backed the war. There are currently 62 women in the House and 14 in the Senate. Women have served in congress for my entire life. (Since 1916, in fact). It isn't only men making wartime decisions. It isn't only men who help to create the climate where a warlike decision is an acceptable or desired option. Women participate in politics. They participate in founding our belief systems, our values, our attitudes, etc. Our cultural identity is produced by men and women and that identity spawns decisions to go to war, not the fact that the person making the public declaration happened to have a penis.

I have to say, though, that you seem to be lucid, respectful, and intelligent and I value your thoughts on the matter.

...because your previous post was sexist, juvenile, stupid, and worst of all, not funny. I would have thought that was self evident.


ok then show me what real humor is. Pleae help me to bust a gut since you are such a master at the funny.

Otherwise, have a nice big glass of shut the hell up and use some tact for gods sake. Talking shit to me definitely wasn't juvenile was it? Oh wait... yes it was very much so.

I was merely joking around, so maybe you could grow a freakin' sense of humor.

Alanthea, you seem to think I have designated men as being responsible for war in the sense that they are the cause and to blame. This is not at all what my comments are intending to convey. My point is that those who are responsible for the making of decisions that either lead to war or do not (ie those empowered with the authority to directly act to instigate, provoke or avoid war, for instance the President and his advisors in the US) are primarily men. It is only within the last decade that the first female Secretary of State was appointed in the US. How many Generals in the US are women? It's not about 'it the fault of this group', but rather about the fact that those who make the decisions and decide how to implement the decisions are men. It's not just merely that it is men making these decisions, but also that it is men who the armed forces have been designed for, it is men that designed it, and it remains men who primarily make decisions about the continued operational methodologies. Putting aside general objections to drafting, then to the drafting of women, I could not in good faith agree to women being drafted into a system that was invented without any regard for their needs, by people not necessarily able to envision or understand their needs, and which has not sufficiently adapted to their presence for it to be a safe enviroment for them emotionally and physically.

As for the women in your family, your annecdote with all respect is no more convincing to me than I expect my own experiance (of not having come across a single women who supported the US war against Iraq, yet knowing few men who dont support it) is to you.

As I pointed out I make no claim that men are responsible for war, what I am stating (and this is empiracally undeniable) is that those in positions that require and enable them to be directly responsible for whether or not a war occurs are primarily men. If artificially increasing the percentage of women serving is an ok way to ensure equality, then why is not artificially increasing the percentage of women in such offices also ok? It's not just about the political offices, I would feel less uncomfortable forcing women to serve in the armed forces if those who influence the running of the armed forces included more women. There just is not enough of a female influence in the running of these matters for it to seem reasonable and equitable to expect to force women to slot into what was initially designed as a men's arena, unless and until that arena has been sufficiently adapted to take equal account of the needs and dispositions of women as it does of men.

I am aware that there are some women in positions of influence regarding war, and that is my point, there are a few women who are in positions that afford them the ability and impose on them the duty of being responsible for decisions that determine whether or not war occurs, just as there are a few women fighting in those wars. My point is that the porportion of women fighting is probably somewhat similar to the porportion involved in decision making, and I dont see that as being unreasonable.

I have to say, though, that you seem to be lucid, respectful, and intelligent and I value your thoughts on the matter.
Aha, right back at Alanthea... ;)