NationStates Jolt Archive

Just because I haven’t heard an argument on this in a while

1) Women in the military … should a woman be allowed in combat if she has passed all the same standards and tests to be assigned to that duty that a man has.
2) Draft … do you find it fair that men are drafted and women aren’t

(For 2 keep in mind I know the argument is going to go towards the “they are generally less capable” just because some are not incapable that does not mean all of them are (same with men just because some are not fit for combat does not mean they all aren’t))

The poll will be on women allowed into combat I think

I have no problems with a woman in the military. I fail to see why people think them "less capable" than men in combat situations.

As for the draft..it pisses me off that women aren't drafted, as well as men. People want equal rights, I think it extends to that, as well.

I have little to no problem with women in the military. I think that if a woman is capable and really wants to fight, power to her. However, I'm concerned about some of the training methods that have been re-implimented with women since they started complaining that they could handle it all as well as men.....one of my close friends recently joined the USMC and smashed her hip during basic training. Sure, she got an "honorable discharge", but she's probably never going to walk right again.....

I do not have problems with women in the military. I would prefer that they are not allowed on to the front lines(it could be a distraction because a bunch of guys out in the middle of nowhere might try to get some lovin' in a way that could be a threat to the military). I also have no problem with men being the race to be drafted, men and women are equal but different and it is a man's place to fight and die for his country and his woman(women are needed back home to replenish the population anyway).

The only country I know of that drafts women is Israel, but they serve less time. The arguement behind women not getting drafted comes from the idea that since they are usually the ones that bear the pains of birth, there is no reason for them to provide further mandatory service to society.

There should be no special (lowered) requirements for women, but if a woman can meet all the strength requirements, there is no reason not to let her in the military. When a woman doesn't have to be as strong as a man to get into the military, is it because the extra strength isn't needed? If so, it's unfair to guys who don't meet the requirements. If the extra strength is necessary, the women shouldn't be allowed.
The same goes for the draft. Not all men who are drafted go to war. If you are not strong enough, you should not fight, male or female. A larger percentage of women drafted would not meet the requirements, but if men are being forced to fight, then those women who are capable should fight too.
That is not to say that I think that anyone should be forced to fight, but that's another issue.

i see you are from minnesota, up. did you miss the part where we dont have a draft?

sure men have to register. i think that should be utterly dropped as it is a waste of time and money. when my son "forgot", they sent him a reminder with his name, address and SS number. the only thing they didnt have was his home phone number. so why do we need registration?

if we get into a situation where we need a draft (and lord knows the republicans are steering us in that direction) we may well find that it includes women as well as men.

I have no problems with a woman in the military. I fail to see why people think them "less capable" than men in combat situations.

As for the draft..it pisses me off that women aren't drafted, as well as men. People want equal rights, I think it extends to that, as well.

Ditto. Wasn’t one of the arguments for lowering voting age to 18 that young people could get drafted into a war, but didn’t have any say in running the government? Seems like it should work the other way too. If women can vote, why not get drafted?

I have no problems with a woman in the military. I fail to see why people think them "less capable" than men in combat situations.

As for the draft..it pisses me off that women aren't drafted, as well as men. People want equal rights, I think it extends to that, as well.

I'm with that. Another thing that sucks is that a woman in the military (the US military that is) gets paid and promoted at exactly the same rate as a man in the military but men are the ones who actually get shot at unless there are raids going on behind our lines or something.

Either we're equal all the way around or we're not... can't have it both ways.

As for the draft..it pisses me off that women aren't drafted, as well as men. People want equal rights, I think it extends to that, as well.
Or...get rid of the draft for men too....that would also be equal rights....

Simonist']I have little to no problem with women in the military. I think that if a woman is capable and really wants to fight, power to her. However, I'm concerned about some of the training methods that have been re-implimented with women since they started complaining that they could handle it all as well as men.....one of my close friends recently joined the USMC and smashed her hip during basic training. Sure, she got an "honorable discharge", but she's probably never going to walk right again.....
She made an informed decision to do something that was potentially hazardous

it will be entertaining to see a band of pregnant waddling women going into combat, because of communal sleeping arrangements.. would millitary fatigues come in maternity sizes easily? two girl dogs will fight to the death, is the same true of humans? if so, we coudl tap a great resource.. what better way to ease international relations, than to have a woman soldier of our country sleep with a soldier from a another country, to produce the first of a long line of people from a newly merged country..ensuring mutual destrcution if we went to war, there4 preventing it..

Just because I haven’t heard an argument on this in a while

1) Women in the military … should a woman be allowed in combat if she has passed all the same standards and tests to be assigned to that duty that a man has.
2) Draft … do you find it fair that men are drafted and women aren’t
As I have been at pains to point out several times on here, if we want to say that women and men should have the same freedom of action and opportunity, then we have no legitimate basis for saying that women who choose to do so and can pass the requirements cannot serve in combat units.

There are some women who have the attitudes and physical abilities to handle combat. If they want to serve in a combat role, they should be allowed to do so ... period.

Or...get rid of the draft for men too....that would also be equal rights....
Aye that it would … I personally only thing a draft is reasonable for defense of the country… you shouldn’t go picking a fight and then draft when you underestimated your ability to make war..

If women can vote, why not get drafted?
Cause men don't know what it's like to give birth (and I don't think we'll ever find out).

She made an informed decision to do something that was potentially hazardous
Actually she did it not only so she could get college funding (something that a lot of the poor in our area get pigeon-holed into), but also because they assured her that basic training for the Marines was probably the safest there was -- that there was little to no risk of injury altogether.

Officers prefer not to have women in their ranks on the battlefield. Generally they are weaker. Now if a woman was just as strong as a man and would not be a detriment to her squad in combat, more power to her. But otherwise it would be better for them to not work in combat, because they are usually a setback. The military is fine, there are tons and tons of non-combat occupations in the military.

Why shouldn't women be drafted. Once again, I'm sure there are plenty of non-combat positions in the military that could be filled by draftees. Although I'm sure acceptions would have to be made in case both parents of children are to be drafted, or something like that, that would make kids orphans and whatnot.

Cause men don't know what it's like to give birth (and I don't think we'll ever find out).

Of course, women aren't thrown in jail if they opt not to get pregnant, whereas men who ignore the draft notice are.

I distinctly remember reading about a feminist magazine that ranted against Iceland denying women the right to serve in its military. The magazine forgot to mention that that was on the basis of equal opportunity, since men can't serve either; Iceland has no own military.

As I have been at pains to point out several times on here, if we want to say that women and men should have the same freedom of action and opportunity, then we have no legitimate basis for saying that women who choose to do so and can pass the requirements cannot serve in combat units.

There are some women who have the attitudes and physical abilities to handle combat. If they want to serve in a combat role, they should be allowed to do so ... period.
Absolutely agreed here

I distinctly remember reading about a feminist magazine that ranted against Iceland denying women the right to serve in its military. The magazine forgot to mention that that was on the basis of equal opportunity, since men can't serve either; Iceland has no own military.
I have seen people report this before though I have never caught the actual article

Of course, women aren't thrown in jail if they opt not to get pregnant, whereas men who ignore the draft notice are.
Women and have to live with the consequences pregnancy. That's almost a life sentence right there.

I have seen people report this before though I have never caught the actual articleI read it in the strange facts sections of one of my dad's war magazines. Must have been in the 80s or so.

Women and have to live with the consequences pregnancy. That's almost a life sentence right there.

I'm tempted to make just a post with a rolleyes smiley, but I won't. I'll add some text. :rolleyes:

Women and have to live with the consequences pregnancy. That's almost a life sentence right there.

I don't think most people who have children view that as a 'life sentence'... if they do then they shouldn't have kids. A lot of men who get drafted end up dead or maimed... speaking for myself I'd rather change diapers.

You're also assuming that women are all staying at home doing the domestic role once they have kids. That's not so much the case anymore.

Officers prefer not to have women in their ranks on the battlefield. Generally they are weaker. Now if a woman was just as strong as a man and would not be a detriment to her squad in combat, more power to her. But otherwise it would be better for them to not work in combat, because they are usually a setback. The military is fine, there are tons and tons of non-combat occupations in the military.

Why shouldn't women be drafted. Once again, I'm sure there are plenty of non-combat positions in the military that could be filled by draftees. Although I'm sure acceptions would have to be made in case both parents of children are to be drafted, or something like that, that would make kids orphans and whatnot.
You've been on "the battlefield?" You've been in "combat?"

Simonist']Actually she did it not only so she could get college funding (something that a lot of the poor in our area get pigeon-holed into), but also because they assured her that basic training for the Marines was probably the safest there was -- that there was little to no risk of injury altogether.
She chose the potentially hazardous duty to make a potential gain in her life standing
It was one way for her to do it that had a risk associated with it

There are other ways …. I put my self through two masters degrees with nothing but working 50 hrs a week and living thrifty she was not FORCED to go to an optional potentially hazardous field for money she chose to do that.

Besides assuming she made it through the training did she think the marines were going to be a walk in the park? There is always the potential for conflict.

She made the decision to take that increased risk for the benefits that come from it

IMO its more of a public-relations issue why women arn't allowed on the front lines. It's more 'tragic' for some reason if a women dies or is captured. I mean, look at all the media coverage they had of that Private What's-her-name (they even made a bloody movie!) I doubt such attention would be given if that lady had been born as a man.

You've been on "the battlefield?" You've been in "combat?"

No, but my Father has....I don't see why it matters.....

Simonist']Actually she did it not only so she could get college funding (something that a lot of the poor in our area get pigeon-holed into), but also because they assured her that basic training for the Marines was probably the safest there was -- that there was little to no risk of injury altogether.

Did she know what the Marines are there for?

Despite what the recruiter told her, she should have known that they aren't planting flowers with those guns... people who join the military have a chance of getting hurt.

Did she know what the Marines are there for?

Despite what the recruiter told her, she should have known that they aren't planting flowers with those guns... people who join the military have a chance of getting hurt.
Absolutely … it is a hazardous field to go into from training to duty.

No, but my Father has....I don't see why it matters.....
Because you have made assumptions about “commanders in the field” think … (just a hint Eutrusca himself has served long and hard … and first hand experience always trumps hearsay)

I don't think most people who have children view that as a 'life sentence'... if they do then they shouldn't have kids. A lot of men who get drafted end up dead or maimed... speaking for myself I'd rather change diapers.

You're also assuming that women are all staying at home doing the domestic role once they have kids. That's not so much the case anymore.
Trust me, at some point in life, you'll regret having children. I personally don't have any, but I've worked in a program that helps young kids do their homework. It's incredible tiring and frustrating while at the same time gratifying, my own mom's serving three sentences right now :D

Don't get me wrong on the domestic role thing. Goodness I'd never be for anything like that! I should have clarified that men are able to run away from the responsibility of parenthood during the nine months the woman has to carry the baby around. It's a lot easier to escape the responsibility if you're male.

Not all draftees end dead or maimed. German draftees can't be used in combat at all unless they volonteer or we got invaded.

We don't have a draft, but if one was reinstated men and women should be drafted.

"Allowed" in combat is kind of a weird way to look at it. Female troops can be every bit as good as male-but.
You're sacrificing long-term capability if you do it-particularly in Infantry and Armour MOS's.

Who kept the country running during WWI, WWII, and Korea? Yah. Women.


Should women be allowed into the Military? Gods yes. Should they be trained in Combat? Certainly. Should they be deployed in offense roles in ground combat? No. women are not as expendable as men.

(think about it this way: How many MEN have been/can be impregnated by a single woman? Which parent has a greater impact on how a child is raised?) Someone needs to keep the factories and farms running, and serve as an emergency reserve in case the Menfolk really screw up bad and the enemy is coming over the border. Israel tends to fight defensive wars with an offensive component-drafting female troops makes sense with an enemy that out numbers them hundereds to one and possesses near-technological parity.
The larger western nations can afford to be more selective.

We don't have a draft, but if one was reinstated men and women should be drafted.Who's "we"?

Did she know what the Marines are there for?

Despite what the recruiter told her, she should have known that they aren't planting flowers with those guns... people who join the military have a chance of getting hurt.
Her injury had nothing to do with guns, or flowers for that matter. It was actually the physical training that she got hurt doing, something that she hadn't ever thought would happen (and apparently neither did the recruiting officers) because of her athletic background. And I got the impression you all think she was injured in duty -- I've already said she got hurt IN BASIC TRAINING.

However, I'm not sure maybe you all go through the same crap we do here. We live in an area that you're pretty much either incredibly rich or incredibly not. A lot of the military recruiters we get are intentionally dishonest with us to try to get us to sign up -- they even offer CASH to high schoolers, on site, in exchange for their signing themselves away. I've never experienced any other regions where the military are so deceptive to the people they're trying to attract.

Luckily I didn't worry about it much during high school -- I have a physical condition that would well enough keep me out of the military, on the off chance I did go insane and want to join.

Cause men don't know what it's like to give birth (and I don't think we'll ever find out).

In addition to what others have said (draft is compulsory, drafted men can die, etc) I think we’re talking about different things. You might feel a moral reason for women not being drafted is that they make up for it in other ways. Perhaps, could be a good, separate debate.
But I was thinking along the lines of a legal, equal rights argument. It is a fact that, as they stand, draft laws are sexist in that men are required to register while women are not. If a law was passed banning women from voting, you would probably admit that such a law would be sexist, and I’m sure you wouldn’t stand for it.
How can we have equal rights if every law can be circumvented by the argument that whoever that law would otherwise harm should be able to avoid that law because of some other contribution to society?

"Allowed" in combat is kind of a weird way to look at it. Female troops can be every bit as good as male-but.
You're sacrificing long-term capability if you do it-particularly in Infantry and Armour MOS's.

Who kept the country running during WWI, WWII, and Korea? Yah. Women.


Should women be allowed into the Military? Gods yes. Should they be trained in Combat? Certainly. Should they be deployed in offense roles in ground combat? No. women are not as expendable as men.

(think about it this way: How many MEN have been/can be impregnated by a single woman? Which parent has a greater impact on how a child is raised?) Someone needs to keep the factories and farms running, and serve as an emergency reserve in case the Menfolk really screw up bad and the enemy is coming over the border. Israel tends to fight defensive wars with an offensive component-drafting female troops makes sense with an enemy that out numbers them hundereds to one and possesses near-technological parity.
The larger western nations can afford to be more selective.


Western nations can also sacrifice a bit more efficiency for the sake of equality

While your statements make sense if we were in an all out war and human emotions were not involved (namely the reproductive selections females make) but in the real world leaving a willing solder behind because they MAY choose to get pregnant maybe seems kind of silly

In addition to what others have said (draft is compulsory, drafted men can die, etc) I think we’re talking about different things. You might feel a moral reason for women not being drafted is that they make up for it in other ways. Perhaps, could be a good, separate debate.
But I was thinking along the lines of a legal, equal rights argument. It is a fact that, as they stand, draft laws are sexist in that men are required to register while women are not. If a law was passed banning women from voting, you would probably admit that such a law would be sexist, and I’m sure you wouldn’t stand for it.
How can we have equal rights if every law can be circumvented by the argument that whoever that law would otherwise harm should be able to avoid that law because of some other contribution to society?
With all due respect, but the motherhood arguement is the legal background for exempting women from the draft in Germany. Not that they care, a lot of them do volonteer service anyway.

Simonist']Her injury had nothing to do with guns, or flowers for that matter. It was actually the physical training that she got hurt doing, something that she hadn't ever thought would happen (and apparently neither did the recruiting officers) because of her athletic background. And I got the impression you all think she was injured in duty -- I've already said she got hurt IN BASIC TRAINING.

However, I'm not sure maybe you all go through the same crap we do here. We live in an area that you're pretty much either incredibly rich or incredibly not. A lot of the military recruiters we get are intentionally dishonest with us to try to get us to sign up -- they even offer CASH to high schoolers, on site, in exchange for their signing themselves away. I've never experienced any other regions where the military are so deceptive to the people they're trying to attract.

Luckily I didn't worry about it much during high school -- I have a physical condition that would well enough keep me out of the military, on the off chance I did go insane and want to join.


Even so she was going into a dangerous field … she CHOSE to go into this danger … it was her responsibility to find out how much danger she was subjecting herself to plenty of people had made it through the program … I am sure simply asking someone on a forum would have informed her on some of the difficulties of training.

She had an accident … I feel sorry for her sure but she made the decision to go into a field that is hardly safe even at the best of times

Even so she was going into a dangerous field … she CHOSE to go into this danger … it was her responsibility to find out how much danger she was subjecting herself to plenty of people had made it through the program … I am sure simply asking someone on a forum would have informed her on some of the difficulties of training.
Asking someone on what forum? The only people most of these poor kids have to compare notes to are the other kids in the area, who have been told the same lies.

Simonist']Asking someone on what forum? The only people most of these poor kids have to compare notes to are the other kids in the area, who have been told the same lies.
Then ask someone … singing away your life (what 4 years or more) without properly informing yourself on the subject is hardly a smart way to take care of yourself

With all due respect, but the motherhood arguement is the legal background for exempting women from the draft in Germany. Not that they care, a lot of them do volonteer service anyway.

Isn’t the fallacy in using motherhood as a basis for that argument that not all women are mothers? Then women who never plan on having children aren’t contributing anything: they neither serve nor give birth (minus those that choose to serve, of course). I understand your point; I simply disagree with the premise that because some women give birth all women should be treated differently.
P.S. I'm in America and am uneducated in the laws of other countries, so I will have to ask you to understand if my arguements skew toward an American pov.

"Allowed" in combat is kind of a weird way to look at it. Female troops can be every bit as good as male-but.
You're sacrificing long-term capability if you do it-particularly in Infantry and Armour MOS's.

Who kept the country running during WWI, WWII, and Korea? Yah. Women.


Should women be allowed into the Military? Gods yes. Should they be trained in Combat? Certainly. Should they be deployed in offense roles in ground combat? No. women are not as expendable as men.

(think about it this way: How many MEN have been/can be impregnated by a single woman? Which parent has a greater impact on how a child is raised?) Someone needs to keep the factories and farms running, and serve as an emergency reserve in case the Menfolk really screw up bad and the enemy is coming over the border. Israel tends to fight defensive wars with an offensive component-drafting female troops makes sense with an enemy that out numbers them hundereds to one and possesses near-technological parity.
The larger western nations can afford to be more selective.

But speaking of the rights of the individual... is drafting and forcing a man to go into combat for a war that he might well not even believe in any better than drafting a woman and sending her into combat?

Women kept the country running back then because men couldn't ... they were forced to put on soldier suits and get shot at, not because they were in some way more capable than men.

I don't think I'm very 'expendable' at all, BTW. I don't consider any member of society, based merely upon whether they were born male or female, to be any more expendable than another.

At the end of world war II, many, many men were dead but I haven't heard stories of guys impregnating bunches of women to make up for the shortage of men. Of course you're right that one man can impregnate thousands of women but you aren't taking the rules of society into account.

Then ask someone … singing away your life (what 4 years or more) without properly informing yourself on the subject is hardly a smart way to take care of yourself
Makes me glad the German army thought I was unfit for military service :D

I do not have problems with women in the military. I would prefer that they are not allowed on to the front lines(it could be a distraction because a bunch of guys out in the middle of nowhere might try to get some lovin' in a way that could be a threat to the military).

In other words, "The men in the military have no self-control, so we shouldn't let women have equal treatment."

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you here - on both counts.

I also have no problem with men being the race to be drafted, men and women are equal but different and it is a man's place to fight and die for his country and his woman(women are needed back home to replenish the population anyway).

(a) There is no reason that men should be drafted but women should not. If there is to be a draft, it should apply to all citizens equally.

(b) I hate to break it to you, but women need men around to "replenish the population).

think about it this way: How many MEN have been/can be impregnated by a single woman?

Dr. Strangelove, anyone?

But speaking of the rights of the individual... is drafting and forcing a man to go into combat for a war that he might well not even believe in any better than drafting a woman and sending her into combat?

You don't necessarily need to send draftees into combat. There's more jobs around than just combat jobs in a military. Like I stated before, only volonteers can be used in combat roles in the German army, unless things went to heck. I can't imagine any other industrialized nation's army that has the draft besides maybe Israel that would send draftees into combat nowadays.

Simonist']Actually she did it not only so she could get college funding (something that a lot of the poor in our area get pigeon-holed into), but also because they assured her that basic training for the Marines was probably the safest there was -- that there was little to no risk of injury altogether.

These are the same people who join up and then complain when they get sent off to combat. I have no sympathy for someone who puts themselves in a dangerous situation, and then complains, "I only did it for education," when something happens that they don't like.

Meanwhile, I doubt very seriously that any recruiter told her there was absolutely no risk of injury. They may have downplayed it, but I doubt they said "There is no chance whatsoever that you will get hurt." Most likely, she heard what she wanted to hear.

(a) There is no reason that men should be drafted but women should not. If there is to be a draft, it should apply to all citizens equally.
Yes there is. On average, women are physically weaker and shorter than men. I'd be able to support a draft if women were subjected to the same phyisical requirements as men for entry requirements, and I mean the exact same ones.

These are the same people who join up and then complain when they get sent off to combat. I have no sympathy for someone who puts themselves in a dangerous situation, and then complains, "I only did it for education," when something happens that they don't like.

Meanwhile, I doubt [b[very[/b] seriously that any recruiter told her there was absolutely no risk of injury. They may have downplayed it, but I doubt they said "There is no chance whatsoever that you will get hurt." Most likely, she heard what she wanted to hear.
Exactly it’s the marines they chose to view the bennies outweighing the risks … and she got unlucky

Western nations can also sacrifice a bit more efficiency for the sake of equality

While your statements make sense if we were in an all out war and human emotions were not involved (namely the reproductive selections females make) but in the real world leaving a willing solder behind because they MAY choose to get pregnant maybe seems kind of silly

Going to war without a reserve of willing personnel is also silly. Think of it this way: do you spend every penny of your account to buy anything if you have a choice? In war, the sacrifice of "Efficiency" for "Equality" leads to eventual "Defeat". Losing a War is the only thing in mortal life worse than fighting a war. Further, the odds favour a martially-inclined woman having kids later in life, provided she isn't killed in combat before she can, so your other argument doesn't wash. She makes the choice, but... she has to be alive to make that later choice, doesn't she? A man can spread his genetic material pretty widely and still die before the first kid is born. How many kids can a dead woman produce minus Artificial Inemination and a few willing surrogates?

In military matters, it's counterproductive to assume that all conflicts will be low-level and controlled. There were hundereds of skirmishes between each major War in the last two centuries. In general terms, the side that addressed future conflicts as more likely to be worse/bloodier tended to win.
(For example: Germany expected a minor border skirmish and some hurt feelings in 1914, and later, in the next war, did not assume wartime levels of production until 1943.)

Military service requires people of a certain physical and emotional temperament. Much of the emotional can be trained in, but the physicals are heavily influenced by genetics. When you use up both halves of the reproductive equation you end up with a less-capable follow-on generation for the inevitable "Next time".

Even so she was going into a dangerous field … she CHOSE to go into this danger … it was her responsibility to find out how much danger she was subjecting herself to plenty of people had made it through the program … I am sure simply asking someone on a forum would have informed her on some of the difficulties of training.

Indeed.

And, on top of that, people are making out like she got hurt in training because she is a girl.

I call bullshit.

I have a friend who recently went into basic training. He injured himself as well. He pushed his body too hard and ended up with microfractures turning into actual fractures in his legs. He had to be in bed for 6 months recovering before he could finish his training (and probably could have been discharged, if he had wanted to).

The training is hard. Men or women, even those who have already been athletic, run the risk of getting injured during it.

Simonist']Her injury had nothing to do with guns, or flowers for that matter. It was actually the physical training that she got hurt doing, something that she hadn't ever thought would happen (and apparently neither did the recruiting officers) because of her athletic background. And I got the impression you all think she was injured in duty -- I've already said she got hurt IN BASIC TRAINING.

However, I'm not sure maybe you all go through the same crap we do here. We live in an area that you're pretty much either incredibly rich or incredibly not. A lot of the military recruiters we get are intentionally dishonest with us to try to get us to sign up -- they even offer CASH to high schoolers, on site, in exchange for their signing themselves away. I've never experienced any other regions where the military are so deceptive to the people they're trying to attract.

Luckily I didn't worry about it much during high school -- I have a physical condition that would well enough keep me out of the military, on the off chance I did go insane and want to join.

I wasn't rich growing up... I was in the military, too (though thankfully I was not in combat). And even when I joined at 18 I was not naive enough to believe that the GI Bill came without a price or risk on my part, or that the recruiter was 100% straight with me. Recruiters are like used car salesmen - they have a quota to meet and they will bend the rules at much as possible to meet that quota.

I read before that she was hurt in Basic Training. In basic training you perform intense physical activity which is designed to somewhat acclaimate you to the military environment and potential combat. When you perform physical strenous activity, sometimes you get hurt. Look how often athletes are injured. Marine boot camp in particular busts your ass and is well-known for doing so.

I respect anyone who was hurt in the line of duty... and I consider someone who gets hurt in basic training as hurt in the line of duty just as if they were hurt in another area of service. You're still serving your country, and you still got hurt. But getting hurt at basic training then claiming that this is unfair because the recruiter said it was 100% safe just seems a bit naive.

Yes there is. On average, women are physically weaker and shorter than men. I'd be able to support a draft if women were subjected to the same phyisical requirements as men for entry requirements, and I mean the exact same ones.

Um...I don't think anyone advocating equal rights has a problem with this (so long as the physical requirements make sense - and aren't artificially inflated to keep more women out).

You don't necessarily need to send draftees into combat. There's more jobs around than just combat jobs in a military. Like I stated before, only volonteers can be used in combat roles in the German army, unless things went to heck. I can't imagine any other industrialized nation's army that has the draft besides maybe Israel that would send draftees into combat nowadays.

I disagree with the draft in principle but if it must be enacted then you've got the right idea with that over there in Germany... let the people who believe in the war and want to fight, fight. Let others contribute in other ways.

But speaking of the rights of the individual... is drafting and forcing a man to go into combat for a war that he might well not even believe in any better than drafting a woman and sending her into combat?

Women kept the country running back then because men couldn't ... they were forced to put on soldier suits and get shot at, not because they were in some way more capable than men.

I don't think I'm very 'expendable' at all, BTW. I don't consider any member of society, based merely upon whether they were born male or female, to be any more expendable than another.

At the end of world war II, many, many men were dead but I haven't heard stories of guys impregnating bunches of women to make up for the shortage of men. Of course you're right that one man can impregnate thousands of women but you aren't taking the rules of society into account.



Once the killing and the bleeding and the screaming starts, issues about whether or not someone is more expendable become a lot more pressing. In small-scale, it's called "Triage". You don't risk more valuable assets if you don't have to. Strategicallly, women are inherently more valuable than men-they're a finite resource. As for WWII, and your contention, two words:

BABY BOOM.

Fewer mothers means fewer kids are born.

Also: once the killing and the bleeding and the screaming start, if you need a draft, a draft there will be. The Draft-Riots of the 1860's made the antiwar movement of the 1960's look pretty tame. See, you don't have to believe in a war, it will believe in you.

An interesting topic, and some interesting responses, most of which have missed the mark entirely.

I am a six-year veteran of the US Army. My wife is currently serving in the US Army. I was a Combat Engineer (then 12B, now 21B), and my wife is in a Signal MOS.

I believe in not only the right, but the obligation of any individual to serve their nation by enlisting at least once in her defense. With that in mind, I also believe that we, as a society, are not yet ready to see our women engage in combat. There are a couple of reasons, and I'll start with what I think of as the least important.

First, the families at home are not prepared for the reality of their sisters, wives, and daughters being killed in action. We've already seen it with the current conflict in Iraq: families generally regard the deaths of young men in combat to be "heroic sacrifices," and the deaths of young women in combat to be "needless losses." That very attitude alone would prevent women from being in combat, and has been the driving force for our legislaters to further limit the role of women in hostile fire areas.

Secondly, and more important, the typical male cannot handle the idea of watching a female companion be killed or injured. Watching a woman receive a critical injury and then continuing the mission is anathema not only to our societal upbringing but to our very basic instincts to "protect" women from harm. Our troops are not prepared, as a whole, for the reality of women in combat roles. While many may regard this as "punishing" those women who wish to serve in combat arms, it's more an issue of ensuring that the mission of our troops is not compromised by reactions that are largely out of their control.

Perhaps in the future we may have different social norms that will allow women to serve honorably in combat roles, or perhaps we'll have a way of training our troops to ignore current social norms in favor of completing the mission. In the meantime, it is not feasible for women to be on the front lines, as it endangers our troops and their mission.

Indeed.

And, on top of that, people are making out like she got hurt in training because she is a girl.

I call bullshit.

I have a friend who recently went into basic training. He injured himself as well. He pushed his body too hard and ended up with microfractures turning into actual fractures in his legs. He had to be in bed for 6 months recovering before he could finish his training (and probably could have been discharged, if he had wanted to).

The training is hard. Men or women, even those who have already been athletic, run the risk of getting injured during it.
Agreed … I would like to see it proven that the injury happened because of her female status as well

Once the killing and the bleeding and the screaming starts, issues about whether or not someone is more expendable become a lot more pressing. In small-scale, it's called "Triage". You don't risk more valuable assets if you don't have to. Strategicallly, women are inherently more valuable than men-they're a finite resource. As for WWII, and your contention, two words:

BABY BOOM.

Fewer mothers means fewer kids are born.

Also: once the killing and the bleeding and the screaming start, if you need a draft, a draft there will be. The Draft-Riots of the 1860's made the antiwar movement of the 1960's look pretty tame. See, you don't have to believe in a war, it will believe in you.
You assume baby producing automatons … a woman may be physically capable of producing a baby but that does not mean she is willing to.

Why should a willing woman that has no plans to get pregnant not fight instead ?

Look, I still stand by my claim. The rigors of warfare are more likely to cause reproductive problems within a population if the females of said population are dead or injured in a way to promote infertility. Besides, in the worst of situations it would be easier to produce a population with only 1 man and 100 women then in a situation with 1 woman and 100 men.

I am not going to argue that a woman's place is in the kitchen and that they should not hold jobs, but I think that it is the menfolks place to fight and die for their nation, and to fight and die for there way of life. Men are designed to be expendable warriors(we have less body fat by percentage and since the beginning of time are the ones to carry the highest risk).

This is not a question of equal rights in my mind(fighting on the front line is dangerous, deadly and dirty work) but instead of the male position as warrior and defender(because without these roles men have nothing at all while women can always fall back on their societal position as the bringers of life). I say that men should be the only ones to fight on the front lines because they are more expendable to a society in many ways, and it is a man's duty to fight and die for his country and way of life. Women sacrifice enough by being mothers and because they are probably better with children than the average male(they often have practice).

Look, I still stand by my claim. The rigors of warfare are more likely to cause reproductive problems within a population if the females of said population are dead or injured in a way to promote infertility. Besides, in the worst of situations it would be easier to produce a population with only 1 man and 100 women then in a situation with 1 woman and 100 men.

I am not going to argue that a woman's place is in the kitchen and that they should not hold jobs, but I think that it is the menfolks place to fight and die for their nation, and to fight and die for there way of life. Men are designed to be expendable warriors(we have less body fat by percentage and since the beginning of time are the ones to carry the highest risk).


In general ... but there are women just as suited to fighting as men they are the ones that should be allowed

Women are not baby making atomotons ... just because they are not allowed in battle does not mean that they will turn into a baby factory

You assume baby producing automatons … a woman may be physically capable of producing a baby but that does not mean she is willing to.

Why should a willing woman that has no plans to get pregnant not fight instead ?

Under draft conditions, your willing woman wiht no plans to get pregnant has a better role defending those that do have such plans-at home. It's a basic division of labour-you send hte men out, who stands guard, and serves as your defensive reserve? The whole debate becomes moot once the direction of motion is headed homeward. In a defensive fight, men, women, even kids wind up on the front lines and fighting, willing or not. BUT...on the offensive, it's better to expend your men first, than to expend both.

This is not a question of equal rights in my mind(fighting on the front line is dangerous, deadly and dirty work) but instead of the male position as warrior and defender(because without these roles men have nothing at all while women can always fall back on their societal position as the bringers of life).
Yes...because men are of no use as fathers or caregivers, that clearly being a woman's job...and if men didn't have the army, or the job with the highest salary in the relationship, my goodness...what would happen to society? :rolleyes:

Under draft conditions, your willing woman wiht no plans to get pregnant has a better role defending those that do have such plans-at home. It's a basic division of labour-you send hte men out, who stands guard, and serves as your defensive reserve? The whole debate becomes moot once the direction of motion is headed homeward. In a defensive fight, men, women, even kids wind up on the front lines and fighting, willing or not. BUT...on the offensive, it's better to expend your men first, than to expend both.
And why are they placed in a defensive reserve while the men are sent out?

"...then we should draft women too, as long as we don't send them into combat. Now, I know that there are tough women out there who would be effective in combat. Women give birth-they're certainly able to withstand pain! There are female triathletes who could make it through SEAL training. I'm certain of that. That's not the problem. The problem is men. There's something inherent in men that makes us want to protect women. And that would be disastrous in battle. You have to act as a unit; you can't favor some soliders over others. Can we train ourselves out of it? I don't know. If it's just a cultural thing, maybe we could over time. Human beings can override their instincts but usually not without a good bit of effort. Besides, are we absolutely certain we want to train that protective impulse out of men?"-Jesse Ventura

I'm bush like. Now just because my wife can beat me up does not mean that woment need to be allowed in combat. What they ought to do is go home and make babies and clean the house. Thats what my dad said their job was to do.

"...then we should draft women too, as long as we don't send them into combat. Now, I know that there are tough women out there who would be effective in combat. Women give birth-they're certainly able to withstand pain! There are female triathletes who could make it through SEAL training. I'm certain of that. That's not the problem. The problem is men. There's something inherent in men that makes us want to protect women. And that would be disastrous in battle. You have to act as a unit; you can't favor some soliders over others. Can we train ourselves out of it? I don't know. If it's just a cultural thing, maybe we could over time. Human beings can override their instincts but usually not without a good bit of effort. Besides, are we absolutely certain we want to train that protective impulse out of men?"-Jesse Ventura
And I have a quote from earlier in the thread


In other words, "The men in the military have no self-control, so we shouldn't let women have equal treatment."

I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you here - on both counts.

An interesting topic, and some interesting responses, most of which have missed the mark entirely.

I am a six-year veteran of the US Army. My wife is currently serving in the US Army. I was a Combat Engineer (then 12B, now 21B), and my wife is in a Signal MOS.

I believe in not only the right, but the obligation of any individual to serve their nation by enlisting at least once in her defense. With that in mind, I also believe that we, as a society, are not yet ready to see our women engage in combat. There are a couple of reasons, and I'll start with what I think of as the least important.

First, the families at home are not prepared for the reality of their sisters, wives, and daughters being killed in action. We've already seen it with the current conflict in Iraq: families generally regard the deaths of young men in combat to be "heroic sacrifices," and the deaths of young women in combat to be "needless losses." That very attitude alone would prevent women from being in combat, and has been the driving force for our legislaters to further limit the role of women in hostile fire areas.

Secondly, and more important, the typical male cannot handle the idea of watching a female companion be killed or injured. Watching a woman receive a critical injury and then continuing the mission is anathema not only to our societal upbringing but to our very basic instincts to "protect" women from harm. Our troops are not prepared, as a whole, for the reality of women in combat roles. While many may regard this as "punishing" those women who wish to serve in combat arms, it's more an issue of ensuring that the mission of our troops is not compromised by reactions that are largely out of their control.

Perhaps in the future we may have different social norms that will allow women to serve honorably in combat roles, or perhaps we'll have a way of training our troops to ignore current social norms in favor of completing the mission. In the meantime, it is not feasible for women to be on the front lines, as it endangers our troops and their mission.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

YAY! I was just about to make that same point but you made it better than I could have, I applaud your eloquence and experience.

Yes...because men are of no use as fathers or caregivers, that clearly being a woman's job...and if men didn't have the army, or the job with the highest salary in the relationship, my goodness...what would happen to society? :rolleyes:

I really do think you're missing the point. In the 1980's there were complaints about something called "The mommy track". Nine months out of action to produce the baby. Six plus weeks of physical recovery after birth-so it's a year minimum she can't serve in the field. In military terms, that's a fuckload of a long time for an injury resulting from consensual behaviour.
In economic terms, Pregnancy lowers your earning potential, as does parenthood. In some occupations, it doesn't matter (note: those occupations tend to have a more-equal balance of male-female participants.) BUT. In dangerous physical work requireing a skilled labourer (construction, some industrial occupations) the difference-in-parity is much wider, because of who takes more days off.

There's a lot more to that inequality than you're looking at.

As for the Army-it's not a "Benefit" for the people who serve, it's an "Obligation". NOT being drafted is a 'benefit'.

And why are they placed in a defensive reserve while the men are sent out?

Greater inherent value to society, one. Two: Women tend to be harder fighters in a defensive situation and less likely to surrender once the fighting actually starts than men are. (I'll look up the study later.)

Look, I still stand by my claim. The rigors of warfare are more likely to cause reproductive problems within a population if the females of said population are dead or injured in a way to promote infertility. Besides, in the worst of situations it would be easier to produce a population with only 1 man and 100 women then in a situation with 1 woman and 100 men.

I am not going to argue that a woman's place is in the kitchen and that they should not hold jobs, but I think that it is the menfolks place to fight and die for their nation, and to fight and die for there way of life. Men are designed to be expendable warriors(we have less body fat by percentage and since the beginning of time are the ones to carry the highest risk).

This is not a question of equal rights in my mind(fighting on the front line is dangerous, deadly and dirty work) but instead of the male position as warrior and defender(because without these roles men have nothing at all while women can always fall back on their societal position as the bringers of life). I say that men should be the only ones to fight on the front lines because they are more expendable to a society in many ways, and it is a man's duty to fight and die for his country and way of life. Women sacrifice enough by being mothers and because they are probably better with children than the average male(they often have practice).

This is the new double standard that men are complaining about. Women don't have to perform the stereotypical female roles if they don't want to, but we still have to go get shot at if some politician tells us to? What's up with that?

I'll answer yours and Cadillacs posts here...

What you guys are saying is good strategy in a wargame, or good if you're talking about the survival of the human race as a whole. But most of us here live in democracies. Democracy by nature isn't 100% efficient because it is based upon choice and the free will of the individual. Is a country which gets away from that in the name of efficiency a country worth fighting for?

The Axis powers in World War II were very efficient societies... perhaps the most efficient societies in the history of the world. Militarily they were almost unbeatable. But was that the right idea? There's more to society than 'winning'... If your society is only looking at people in terms of their value as resources then you aren't really winning anything in my view.

Women should be allowed to serve as nurses but not combat soldiers. they have a job back home to raise a family and men have the job to be called upon to serve.

Anything you can do, I can do better,
I can do anything better then you...

My personal veiw on the situation is this; Women should be put to the same standards as men. Unfortunatly, some of the military men don't think this, and think woman are inferior. As such, there's a lot of rape, abuse, etc. etc., and men trying to put women down. They try to prove the girls are weaker by exploting there biological weakness.

Womem can actually rape men. But that's for another topic.

Yes...because men are of no use as fathers or caregivers, that clearly being a woman's job...and if men didn't have the army, or the job with the highest salary in the relationship, my goodness...what would happen to society? :rolleyes:

Well, have you ever seen a man get pregnant? It is not a pretty picture. Besides men are relatively useless without dying for some stupid cause or trying to get rich. I have no problem with female CEOs or anything just so long as there is a parent watching over the children. It is just that I see males as having the job to watch over and protect everything. Really, with men getting the big bucks women can focus on developing themselves through education, raising children and most importantly of all, getting foot-rubs. Women produce children, from what I have heard giving birth to children is hard work and although a job can be good for some, I have never heard of anybody loving the front-lines of combat. I see no problem with job equality except for this dirty, stupid, and ultimately risky and dangerous job that is better put in the hands of someone who has not paid back his debt to society(I mean men, but prisoners would work too).

But speaking of the rights of the individual... is drafting and forcing a man to go into combat for a war that he might well not even believe in any better than drafting a woman and sending her into combat?

Women kept the country running back then because men couldn't ... they were forced to put on soldier suits and get shot at, not because they were in some way more capable than men.

I don't think I'm very 'expendable' at all, BTW. I don't consider any member of society, based merely upon whether they were born male or female, to be any more expendable than another.

At the end of world war II, many, many men were dead but I haven't heard stories of guys impregnating bunches of women to make up for the shortage of men. Of course you're right that one man can impregnate thousands of women but you aren't taking the rules of society into account.
Ever hear of "the baby-boomers?" Ever wonder where they came from?

[ Starting rant ] This isn't directed at you, it's just something I've been wanting to say for quite some time:

NEWS FLASH: No one lives in a vacume. As a member of a society you have responsbilities toward it. You do not have personal veto power over what sort of decisions are made by either your government or your society. You benefit from being a member of this society ... schooling, security/safety, public services ( water, power, garbage collection, transportation, etc. ), on and on. If there is an opportunity for you to serve and partially repay the huge debt you owe to the society in which you live, it is your responsibility as a human being to do so. If anyone would rather not, then I would rather not be around them, since I have zero respect for selfish, self-centered people. I hope the Golden Gate doesn't hit them in the ass on their way out of the Country. [/Rant]

This is the new double standard that men are complaining about. Women don't have to perform the stereotypical female roles if they don't want to, but we still have to go get shot at if some politician tells us to? What's up with that?

The Axis powers in World War II were very efficient societies... perhaps the most efficient societies in the history of the world. Militarily they were almost unbeatable. But was that the right idea? There's more to society than 'winning'... If your society is only looking at people in terms of their value as resources then you aren't really winning anything in my view.

One thing is that winning is everything. You are not a good American if you do not believe that. :D Truthfully, I do not think that everything should be democratic despite the fact that we are a republic. Our society should try to be efficient but not oppressive(efficiency is important, in some ways it is more important than some made up political ideal)

My response to the double standard is that I am a male. I say that women should get special rights because they do have to pop little rats out of their bodies. A man that disagrees should try to negotiate with his woman to try to get an answer that is mutually acceptable. A man that disagrees with that view should buck it up and be a MAN not a scum sucking loser. Women are respected, they are to be honored, and most importantly they are meant to be treated as the godesses they are(I am half joking but still partially serious). I see the males position as the female's servant in many ways(after all the female has to provide what the male wants and possibly offspring so the male has to do something for his part of the bargain)

As for the Army-it's not a "Benefit" for the people who serve, it's an "Obligation". NOT being drafted is a 'benefit'.

One cannot expect equality in the benefits without also accepting equality in the obligations.

Well, have you ever seen a man get pregnant? It is not a pretty picture. Besides men are relatively useless without dying for some stupid cause or trying to get rich. I have no problem with female CEOs or anything just so long as there is a parent watching over the children. It is just that I see males as having the job to watch over and protect everything. Really, with men getting the big bucks women can focus on developing themselves through education, raising children and most importantly of all, getting foot-rubs. Women produce children, from what I have heard giving birth to children is hard work and although a job can be good for some, I have never heard of anybody loving the front-lines of combat. I see no problem with job equality except for this dirty, stupid, and ultimately risky and dangerous job that is better put in the hands of someone who has not paid back his debt to society(I mean men, but prisoners would work too).

I can see your point. However, I'm forced to disagree. Yes, men are generally built stronger and are the food bearers and warriors of society, where as women are the caretakers of babys.
But does that matter?
It is not specifically a man's job. If it were, women wouldn't be able to pass the standard and qualify themselves.
Infact, to my knowledge, women are far superior leaders then men. They actually think about the thing that matters most-lives-instead of waving their boobs around as a man would have his cock and shouting,
"LOOK AT ME! I'M A MORE IMPORTANT PERSON THEN YOU ARE, SO I AM GOING TO BLOW THE SHIT OUT OF YOU!"
By the way, the fascination of boob-size in woman was created to impress men. Meaning that if you're going to say, "What do you mean? Woman always fight over breast size!" Yes, they do. But they didn't before modern man thought "Bigger Boobs = Better."

This is the new double standard that men are complaining about. Women don't have to perform the stereotypical female roles if they don't want to, but we still have to go get shot at if some politician tells us to? What's up with that?

I'll answer yours and Cadillacs posts here...

What you guys are saying is good strategy in a wargame, or good if you're talking about the survival of the human race as a whole. But most of us here live in democracies. Democracy by nature isn't 100% efficient because it is based upon choice and the free will of the individual. Is a country which gets away from that in the name of efficiency a country worth fighting for?

The Axis powers in World War II were very efficient societies... perhaps the most efficient societies in the history of the world. Militarily they were almost unbeatable. But was that the right idea? There's more to society than 'winning'... If your society is only looking at people in terms of their value as resources then you aren't really winning anything in my view.

War=/= society. War is a narrow set of circumstances that can break/annihilate a civilization. War is 100% about survival, if it isn't, you can probably avoid it.

Most of the "Yes" people are looking at this from an idealistic standpoint, and actually seem to be viewing war as some kind of Glorious Adventure, that girls are being unfairly excluded from...
It is not.

The real line of Civilization is held by the womenfolk. This is why they speak "English" in Great Britain, instead of Norman French, it's why Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are Nations today, instead of being provinces of Russia.

Sacrificing the long-term survival of your society for a short-term manpower advantage by including Females in Infantry, Armour, and other offense MOS groups is risking the future of your democracy for a momentary cosmetic display of 'equality'.

And don't fool yourself, it's purely cosmetic. Military service may be service to that democratic society, but Military life is anything but democratic.

War=/= society. War is a narrow set of circumstances that can break/annihilate a civilization. War is 100% about survival, if it isn't, you can probably avoid it.

Most of the "Yes" people are looking at this from an idealistic standpoint, and actually seem to be viewing war as some kind of Glorious Adventure, that girls are being unfairly excluded from...
It is not.

The real line of Civilization is held by the womenfolk. This is why they speak "English" in Great Britain, instead of Norman French, it's why Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are Nations today, instead of being provinces of Russia.

Sacrificing the long-term survival of your society for a short-term manpower advantage by including Females in Infantry, Armour, and other offense MOS groups is risking the future of your democracy for a momentary cosmetic display of 'equality'.

And don't fool yourself, it's purely cosmetic. Military service may be service to that democratic society, but Military life is anything but democratic.

No. War is Hell. My Grandfathers and Grandmother taught me that. (Especially my father's side grandfather, who my father used to describe as fun man until after the war, when he became a serious, sterm man. He still is, and can be very harsh. It's almost scary how he changes from quiet and soft to loud and angry.) I don't think it's an honorable, either.

I don't want to fight in the army. Nobody should. But if I wanted to serve my country, I should be able to. Not all woman will go and fight, just as not all men will go off and fight. And that way, we still can reproduce.

I think oyu're assuming that all qualifying women are going to be sent to war, tha'ts not what we're discussing. We're discussing that we should be ABLE to fight.

Infact, to my knowledge, women are far superior leaders then men. They actually think about the thing that matters most-lives-instead of waving their boobs around as a man would have his cock and shouting,
"LOOK AT ME! I'M A MORE IMPORTANT PERSON THEN YOU ARE, SO I AM GOING TO BLOW THE SHIT OUT OF YOU!"


Look, thinking is not that useful on the battle field, acting is. A good soldier needs to be intelligent enough to make good decisions but because the battle field is such a constant threat, instant decisions and authoritarian commanders are a necessity. I am not saying that women can not do the job of military leader(joan of arc did) but I think that men would be better due to the fact that they are aggressive, tough, and because we have pretty much instilled ideals of stoicism and competition into the average man from birth and the battlefield is what those traits were meant for.

Look, thinking is not that useful on the battle field, acting is. A good soldier needs to be intelligent enough to make good decisions but because the battle field is such a constant threat, instant decisions and authoritarian commanders are a necessity. I am not saying that women can not do the job of military leader(joan of arc did) but I think that men would be better due to the fact that they are aggressive, tough, and because we have pretty much instilled ideals of stoicism and competition into the average man from birth and the battlefield is what those traits were meant for.

And you don't think I can be stoic? You don't think I'm not agressive, tough, and competitive?

Competition is an advantage on the battlefield. But it is also a disadvantage. If you let it get to you, you will forget what you're fighting against, and soon, starting shooting your friends because they think they killed more guys then you have.
Now that's nothing to be proud of, but it is an example.
Also, if you build a tank that's big, loud, heavy, noisy, then it's pretty much a sitting duck. THINKING is how you get a victory on the battlefield.
You can be outnumbered, outgunned, and outsized, but if you start using tactical manuevers, you can kick some ass, and woman can make those decisions faster, and make them safer then a man could.

EDIT: I'm going home. It'll take a halfhour. See yout hen.

Just because I haven’t heard an argument on this in a while

1) Women in the military … should a woman be allowed in combat if she has passed all the same standards and tests to be assigned to that duty that a man has.
2) Draft … do you find it fair that men are drafted and women aren’t

(For 2 keep in mind I know the argument is going to go towards the “they are generally less capable” just because some are not incapable that does not mean all of them are (same with men just because some are not fit for combat does not mean they all aren’t))

The poll will be on women allowed into combat I think

Actualy my argument re: number 2 is that a draft is a hideous violation of a persons rights and should not be applyed to anyone.

War=/= society. War is a narrow set of circumstances that can break/annihilate a civilization. War is 100% about survival, if it isn't, you can probably avoid it.

Most of the "Yes" people are looking at this from an idealistic standpoint, and actually seem to be viewing war as some kind of Glorious Adventure, that girls are being unfairly excluded from...
It is not.

The real line of Civilization is held by the womenfolk. This is why they speak "English" in Great Britain, instead of Norman French, it's why Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are Nations today, instead of being provinces of Russia.

Sacrificing the long-term survival of your society for a short-term manpower advantage by including Females in Infantry, Armour, and other offense MOS groups is risking the future of your democracy for a momentary cosmetic display of 'equality'.

And don't fool yourself, it's purely cosmetic. Military service may be service to that democratic society, but Military life is anything but democratic.

We're talking about different types of war... most war isn't make-or-break your civilization type of war. The war you're talking about is when a foriegn power invades your country with the idea of changing everything about your society or enslaving its people. Most war that you see around the world is more to the effect of one greedy politician trying to push around another one for the sake of resources of some type.

Look at Vietnam... regardless of your feelings about Vietnam I don't think you'd say that losing the Vietnam War destroyed US civilization as we know it. Yet we had a draft and SOME, not all, not most, but I'm sure a few, of those killed over there were undoubtedly men who had nothing to gain or lose in the war and didn't believe in the reasoning behind it.

I thought Latvia, etc.. were no longer provinces of Russia because Russia could no longer afford to maintain strong military presences there, not because of something the women in those places did.

Maybe I just have a different view on the roles of women and men... I think that no-one has inherent superiority and that everyone is worthy of honor and respect, both women and men, unless they behave in a way that is unworthy of it. I'm fine with women not being forced into the kitchen or to pop out kids... but I'm also fine with women being made to share the gruesome burden of war with the men.

If we're an equal society then by all means, let's be equal. If, on the other hand, you want us to hold the door open for you and throw underhanded to you then get back in the kitchen... all I'm saying is that it's unfair to expect the best of both worlds.

Someone brought up baby boomers earlier... were baby boomers caused by masses of women having kids out of wedlock, or by the women who did have kids having more of them, and better medical technology keeping the kids who were born alive into adulthood? If there are fewer men and the same amount of women in the country and the number of women was the only factor behind the boom, then why would there be MORE kids? Wouldn't there be the same amount?

1) Women in the military … should a woman be allowed in combat if she has passed all the same standards and tests to be assigned to that duty that a man has.
2) Draft … do you find it fair that men are drafted and women aren’t

1. I've served in the military with women. I found them just as capable and competent as the men. However, from a cultural standpoint I do not want to see women serve in combat.

2. Men are not drafted either. If however the government decides to re-institute the draft I think women should be drafted for non-combat positions.

I wasn't rich growing up... I was in the military, too (though thankfully I was not in combat). And even when I joined at 18 I was not naive enough to believe that the GI Bill came without a price or risk on my part, or that the recruiter was 100% straight with me. Recruiters are like used car salesmen - they have a quota to meet and they will bend the rules at much as possible to meet that quota.

I read before that she was hurt in Basic Training. In basic training you perform intense physical activity which is designed to somewhat acclaimate you to the military environment and potential combat. When you perform physical strenous activity, sometimes you get hurt. Look how often athletes are injured. Marine boot camp in particular busts your ass and is well-known for doing so.

I respect anyone who was hurt in the line of duty... and I consider someone who gets hurt in basic training as hurt in the line of duty just as if they were hurt in another area of service. You're still serving your country, and you still got hurt. But getting hurt at basic training then claiming that this is unfair because the recruiter said it was 100% safe just seems a bit naive.

Now, I agree that it is foolish to think that Basic Training is "safe" it's obvious that there is the posibility of injury. However who would thing that there is the posibility of CRIPLING injury? As I recall the lady in question was mentioned as "never able to walk right again".

Once the killing and the bleeding and the screaming starts, issues about whether or not someone is more expendable become a lot more pressing. In small-scale, it's called "Triage". You don't risk more valuable assets if you don't have to. Strategicallly, women are inherently more valuable than men-they're a finite resource.

Bold mine.

So men are an infinite resourse? I guess that explains over population . . .

I really do think you're missing the point. In the 1980's there were complaints about something called "The mommy track". Nine months out of action to produce the baby. Six plus weeks of physical recovery after birth-so it's a year minimum she can't serve in the field. In military terms, that's a fuckload of a long time for an injury resulting from consensual behaviour.
In economic terms, Pregnancy lowers your earning potential, as does parenthood. In some occupations, it doesn't matter (note: those occupations tend to have a more-equal balance of male-female participants.) BUT. In dangerous physical work requireing a skilled labourer (construction, some industrial occupations) the difference-in-parity is much wider, because of who takes more days off.

There's a lot more to that inequality than you're looking at.

As for the Army-it's not a "Benefit" for the people who serve, it's an "Obligation". NOT being drafted is a 'benefit'.

Serving is a gift to the nation. Not being drafted is a human right. No forced servitude rember?

Now, I agree that it is foolish to think that Basic Training is "safe" it's obvious that there is the posibility of injury. However who would thing that there is the posibility of CRIPLING injury? As I recall the lady in question was mentioned as "never able to walk right again".

A couple of years ago I worked in nuclear power plants. The people who hired me told me it was safe. The administrators of the plant said it was safe. But if something happened there and I got severely irradiated it would certainly suck... but you know what? It was a nuclear power plant! It's a risk that I knew was there because regardless of what people tell me, I'm not a moron and I know nuclear power plants have radiation and it is potentially very dangerous. I knew the risk, and if I didn't want to take it I could have opted not to work there.

We take acceptable risks all the time. Sometimes the dice roll the wrong way and we get hurt. I'm about to head home from work now... I could get into an accident and get seriously hurt.... I accept that small risk. I don't know what specific activity injured this girl, but obviously when she did it, she knew there was some kind of risk of injury when she did it and accepted that risk. Lots of good people get unlucky and end up with a crippling injury that they don't deserve... I don't see how the fact that this one person happened to be a female marine does anything to prove your point.

My dad lost his leg in a truck accident in the late 1970's. Is is valid then for me to say that there shouldn't be any male truck drivers?

A couple of years ago I worked in nuclear power plants. The people who hired me told me it was safe. The administrators of the plant said it was safe. But if something happened there and I got severely irradiated it would certainly suck... but you know what? It was a nuclear power plant! It's a risk that I knew was there because regardless of what people tell me, I'm not a moron and I know nuclear power plants have radiation and it is potentially very dangerous. I knew the risk, and if I didn't want to take it I could have opted not to work there.

Basic should not be dangerous to the point of crippling injury, a broken arm, broken ribs, etc. I can understand IF someone makes a compleatly imbicilic mistake. Someone not being able to walk correctly goes beyond the pale except in a real life combat situation.

We take acceptable risks all the time. Sometimes the dice roll the wrong way and we get hurt. I'm about to head home from work now... I could get into an accident and get seriously hurt.... I accept that small risk. I don't know what specific activity injured this girl, but obviously when she did it, she knew there was some kind of risk of injury when she did it and accepted that risk. Lots of good people get unlucky and end up with a crippling injury that they don't deserve... I don't see how the fact that this one person happened to be a female marine does anything to prove your point.

My dad lost his leg in a truck accident in the late 1970's. Is is valid then for me to say that there shouldn't be any male truck drivers?

I don't see how the fact that she is female has anything to do with my point at all seeing as my point is that crippling injury is not something one can reasonably expect as a result of basic training and I replyed to the poll in favor of women serving.

Now, I agree that it is foolish to think that Basic Training is "safe" it's obvious that there is the posibility of injury. However who would thing that there is the posibility of CRIPLING injury? As I recall the lady in question was mentioned as "never able to walk right again".
Actually, I believe I said that she may not be able to walk correctly again. As she's still recovering and in physical therapy, I wouldn't know. Aside from the short half-hour call I actually got from her when she got back home, I haven't had the chance to see or talk to her in-depth about it. However, I do know what she told me -- that her hip was "smashed" and that she was possibly going to have a partial joint replacement, probably to be completed by 30.

Besides, as I originally said, I'm mostly for women serving in combat situations, if they're well-informed and willing; however I can't discount the possibility that, as several of my friends have been fed false information, it's happening on a wider scale.

Or...get rid of the draft for men too....that would also be equal rights....

Agreed, but that's a whole 'nother thread...lol.

I guess the only social benefit of communism is the realization of gender equalties quicker. The first countries to give women equal rights for military careers (including combat duties) were the communist ones (the Amazons are only legend, they therefore do not count). Please note that a great majority of military personnel would always be men (military careers are always more appealing to men).

In today's North Korea and China, women generals are not uncommon. Being a man from China, I have actually heard of women war heroes (not in nursing, but actual combat roles).

Overall, women are people and they can be just as capable as men in many careers, including the military. The country I currently reside in only began allowing women in combat roles last year.

My grandfather (after a bit of scotch to make him nice and anachronistic) quite often, and loudly, proclaimed that "Skirts shouldn't be admitted into the military." This makes perfect since as skirts lack both arms and legs. Further, to the best of my knowledge anyway, skirts are made of fabrics and possess little inherent movement or combat capacity.

Women, on the other hand, can and should be drafted/enlisted in the interests of equal rights before the government.

My grandfather (after a bit of scotch to make him nice and anachronistic) quite often, and loudly, proclaimed that "Skirts shouldn't be admitted into the military." This makes perfect since as skirts lack both arms and legs. Further, to the best of my knowledge anyway, skirts are made of fabrics and possess little inherent movement or combat capacity.

Women, on the other hand, can and should be drafted/enlisted in the interests of equal rights before the government.



What!?!?! They will NOT draft me!....not because I will refuse the draft, but because I'm not military material :D

What!?!?! They will NOT draft me!....not because I will refuse the draft, but because I'm not military material :D
Yeah I have had enough injuries in the past that I am also not “military material” in the conventional sense

Though as a government institution we do get to work with some of the military networking guys and they have us test and model some stuff ... its a lot of fun

Women should be allowed, if they can meet the standards and such standards are set to reflect what is going on, not for exclusion. The gear the military caries is much lighter than it was in years past (not light, but lighter before I get jumped on) so weight doesn't have anything to do with it.

Women have proven to be tough and willing to fight, and more vicious then many men I know when provoked.

I am REALLY puzzled by the pregnancy reason you guys have been tossing around.

1. Not all women get, or want to get, pregnant, that's why we have birthcontrol. While I have heard of women in the military delibrately getting pregnant to avoid service, many do not, and many male military personel have also been creative thoughout the years in coming up with a way to avoid service. As it's been pointed out, we cannot turn girls into baby making factories, jokes about 4 women to every man (ala Dr Strangelove) aside.

2. If we ever were in a war where the population needs to be replenished, as it as been suggested, don't you think that means we are really screwed anyway? Even with women working at that task as hard as they good, there's still a 50% chance that its another girl and it still takes 14 years before said child is able to function in a military with anything approaching adult skills, strength, and readiness.

The motherhood thing is nothing more than the cult of motherhood once more rearing its ugly head in an attempt to explain why women should be cloistered and not worry their pretty baby making heads about the mean ol' war, or anything else.

Any adult who is willing and able should be allowed into combat. Others have pointed out that the primary problem with allowing women to fight on the front lines is that the men in their units are incapable of dealing with them sensibly. Personally, I'm a fan of attempting to solve problems by targeting the problems themselves - rather than using this as an excuse to bar women from positions for which they are qualified, it would seem to make more sense for a commanding officer to give the men a lecture saying, essentially, "See this person here? This is not a delicate blossom. This is not a piece of nookie. This is a FELLOW SOLDIER, and you will treat her as such, and if you do not, you'll be on latrine-cleaning duty for the next year. Got it? Good."

As for the draft, I'm violently opposed to its existence, but if it were to exist, men and women should both be drafted. The idea of that horrifies me, seeing as I'm female, still of draftable age, and extremely non-violent by nature. I cannot imagine how I'd deal with being drafted; I have no doubt I'd be incapable of fighting a war. But I still feel that it is ridiculous and sexist to declare that men are somehow more "expendable" or that women can't fight beause they should be making babies. :rolleyes:

Any adult who is willing and able should be allowed into combat. Others have pointed out that the primary problem with allowing women to fight on the front lines is that the men in their units are incapable of dealing with them sensibly. Personally, I'm a fan of attempting to solve problems by targeting the problems themselves - rather than using this as an excuse to bar women from positions for which they are qualified, it would seem to make more sense for a commanding officer to give the men a lecture saying, essentially, "See this person here? This is not a delicate blossom. This is not a piece of nookie. This is a FELLOW SOLDIER, and you will treat her as such, and if you do not, you'll be on latrine-cleaning duty for the next year. Got it? Good."

I'm not certain you understand the difficulty of erasing 18+ years of societal "training," so to speak, in the short time a new soldier spends in basic training or AIT. It's not something that you can just tell a soldier to "get over." You're talking about deeply ingrained norms and very basic instincts men have in regards to protecting women from harm.

Obviously the whole thing in regards to sexual relation can be circumvented. It has been, generally successfully, for quite some time. But asking a man to ignore what he's been taught for his entire life isn't going to be effective.

Until you're willing to address the issue on a societal level, and remove the emphasis we place on men being protectors of women, the "weaker sex," you're not going to be able to field women in combat without serious issues that will affect both morale and mission.

Now I'm no sociologist or psychologist or military strategist, but I do know the importance of the military. It's one of the few necessities any and all nations must have to survive. If a country doesn't have an effective military that country isn't going to exist for very long.
All those arguing in the name of fairness on this issue don't have a case in my eyes. It's not the role of the military to be "equal". The military's job is to destroy the enemy as efficiently as possible. To do any less puts that nations population at terrible risk. It would be utterly irresponsible to lesson any military's effectiveness in order to make it more fair and inclusive.
That said, if, and only if, allowing women into combat roles didn't impair the military's capability should it be allowed.

The military is far too vital to a society to be needlessly monkeyed with.

Quoting Laerod
The only country I know of that drafts women is Israel, but they serve less time. The arguement behind women not getting drafted comes from the idea that since they are usually the ones that bear the pains of birth, there is no reason for them to provide further mandatory service to society.

I guess lesbians have no excuse now, eh? ;)

Bold mine.

So men are an infinite resourse? I guess that explains over population . . .

Not infinite, but you can lose a much larger proportion of your men and still have a viable gene pool when it's over. further, using modern technology available since the 1970's, (Sperm Banks) you can even rebuild your population in the highly unlikely event of 99.9% male casualties...provided you have women willing to carry the babies. An effective artificial womb for humans is still science-fiction technology.

OTOH, you can't do the reverse, the technology simply is not available to replace a significant portion of your female populace.


The two biggest wars in the 20th Century started off as little brushfire conflicts in unimportant places. If your doctrine is based on the ridiculous assumption that every war will be minor, you're going to get shafted the hard way when that little minor peacekeeping mission turns into world-war-three.

Armies have to operate on Averages. this is why the U.S. Army will DX an enlistment by a guy whose body weight exceeds a set proportional maximum, and why you can be refused if you're too tall, or too short. on Average women are not acculturated to the mindset to make them good infantrymen, likewise, on average males who are likely to enlist are unlikely to be the sort that won't toss the mission to save female private-whatsername under conditions where they'd buck up and let Male Private Whatsisname bleed out because he took one for the team.


The kind of guys that would, aren't the sort you want to share a trench with.

Simple answer - women can't fight, and especially not part of a team. It's not a question of their ability, it's culture. The Isralis had women in combat roles and pretty soon the 'stini snipers knew to brass up the girlies first cause then the men would get all heroic and try to save her. The fact is, you've got soldiers on the ground to blow shit up and win fights, and anything which may tamper with the morale of soldiers doing that isn't going to be effective, now is it? Even if you are making feminists sleep better at night. God knows why they're whinging about not being allowed to be shot at. Americans, right?

For those of you on the forum who are suggesting society could be restocked with just one man to every thousand women, do you have ANY idea what this would to to the gene pool?

If I remember my biology lessons from school correctly, on average every is carrying six or seven deadly recessive alleles, this is one reason why incest is illegal: the odds of having children with someone with similar alleles is tiny as long as they aren't in your immediate family. For these reasons a large number of men are neccessary as well as a large number of women.

Still, wouldn't it be even better if we put less effort into the millitary and more effort into world peace?

Still, wouldn't it be even better if we put less effort into the millitary and more effort into world peace?
<chuckle>
Until us humans evolve to be more rational and less aggresive the only way to promote peace is through military strength.

I think a more appropriate question should be "should women be allowed in direct ground combat?" since they are allowed in other types. I think they should. As for the pains of birth thing, aren't there enough painkillers nowadays to completely erase that part? I mean, my aunt was laughing when she had my little cousin. As for the draft, that bothers me a lot. It is just so irritating that our elected officials are basically reinforcing the egotistical male view that women are not as capable as men. I intend to register for the draft on my 18th birthday. But as someone pointed out, why do we have to? The government has a database with the gpa's, hieghts, weights, social security numbers and other personal information of every person age 16 to 25, i believe.

I think a more appropriate question should be "should women be allowed in direct ground combat?" since they are allowed in other types. I think they should. As for the pains of birth thing, aren't there enough painkillers nowadays to completely erase that part? I mean, my aunt was laughing when she had my little cousin. As for the draft, that bothers me a lot. It is just so irritating that our elected officials are basically reinforcing the egotistical male view that women are not as capable as men. I intend to register for the draft on my 18th birthday. But as someone pointed out, why do we have to? The government has a database with the gpa's, hieghts, weights, social security numbers and other personal information of every person age 16 to 25, i believe.
Well when you “register” for the draft including singing the form not only does it submit your data (as you say they may or may not have already) but Im fairly sure that you are signing a “I understand and agree to the terms … “ sort of form saying that you understand and acknowledge your requirements if you ever get called up

In my opoion woman are qualified for combat but they will perform less then men and thats a fact that you can't deny.

women want too be treated equally, so they should have the same rights, and thus same combat training as men and everything, nothing special for women.

Once women will generally understand they are physically AND mentally different from men, things can change.

Cause men don't know what it's like to give birth (and I don't think we'll ever find out).
What does one have to do with the other?

In my opoion woman are qualified for combat but they will perform less then men and thats a fact that you can't deny.


I absolutly can deny that ... prove it ... (statisticaly there are less woman that are qualified that does NOT mean that thoes that ARE qualified are any worse at their job then a man)

It is just so irritating that our elected officials are basically reinforcing the egotistical male view that women are not as capable as men.

Men, as a sex, are larger, stronger, faster, and have psychology better attuned to the stresses of a battlefield.

And, as evidenced by PT scores required of both sexes...women as a whole have lower physical expectations than men.

Are you proposing we fill some of the most stressful and physically challenging positions in the military from a pool of a people who are typically not suited for that role?

In a sports analogy, (American Football) direct-combat troops would be offensive linemen. While maybe a few receivers or quarterbacks could fill the role of a lineman, they are typically ill-equipped for the position. On a team, all positions need capable people. Not playing a certain position makes you no less important, you are just needed in another way.

I heard this issue on the radio the other day (Talk show). The issue was that a female paratrooper group in Iraq was not allowed to jump into combat to assist ground forces, because they were women and they should not be fighting blah blah. Well, it was such a big problem because these women were trained very well, and know how to fight. I would be furious if I found out I couldn't send a group of paratroopers to help forces in need of assistance, with the excuse of 'They're women, they shouldn't be fighting'. That is also a direct slap in the face to those women too. They went through all the training and flight jumps for nothing. That's just my two cents.

I heard this issue on the radio the other day (Talk show). The issue was that a female paratrooper group in Iraq was not allowed to jump into combat to assist ground forces, because they were women and they should not be fighting blah blah. Well, it was such a big problem because these women were trained very well, and know how to fight. I would be furious if I found out I couldn't send a group of paratroopers to help forces in need of assistance, with the excuse of 'They're women, they shouldn't be fighting'. That is also a direct slap in the face to those women too. They went through all the training and flight jumps for nothing. That's just my two cents.
Completely understand … undermining their abilities and training they put themselves through just because they are female
And if I was on the ground and was waiting for support and found out that my support was not allowed to assist me because some asshole thought women are not suited for combat I would be ABSOLUITLY furious


That sort of thing is unacceptable … denying the needed support … risking peoples lives on the ground because some idiot though already trained women should not be in that zone.

I served in an MP unit in the 80s that had women in it. I had no problem with them, and some were certainly class A soldiers. Some guys had a problem with it, but that was their problem.

My only beefs are two fold:
1. Women going into the military must meet the same physical requirements as men (no more of this gender norming BS). If you ain't strong enough to drag members of your squad out of a firefight, you don't belong in the military.
2. Women should be subject to the draft. You can't have it both ways, if you want to serve in combat fine, but if men are getting dragged off to get maimed and killed by their court-appointed president then women ought to have an equal opportunity to get murdered by their ignorant government.

What does one have to do with the other?
Bearing children is a painful thing (or so I've been told). Men don't suffer through that, so it's only fair that women don't have to risk their lives in combat. It's the most prominent reason.

I served in an MP unit in the 80s that had women in it. I had no problem with them, and some were certainly class A soldiers. Some guys had a problem with it, but that was their problem.

My only beefs are two fold:
1. Women going into the military must meet the same physical requirements as men (no more of this gender norming BS). If you ain't strong enough to drag members of your squad out of a firefight, you don't belong in the military.
2. Women should be subject to the draft. You can't have it both ways, if you want to serve in combat fine, but if men are getting dragged off to get maimed and killed by their court-appointed president then women ought to have an equal opportunity to get murdered by their ignorant government.
I agree with you on most points, but I don't think draftees should be used in combat situations unless they agree. That's what volonteers are there for. If that were the case, draftees wouldn't be dragged off to get maimed or killed. Would you mind only having the draft for men in that case?

women should be able to go into combat, as long as they have passed the same qualifacations as men.

if they have passed the same test at the same difficulty the there is no reason why they shouldnt be able to fight, as they are at equal strengths

Women perform just as good as men, or at least that's my experience. The only thing that might keep women back if the formal gender difference that seems to affect most people from birth to death. As long as women are mentally and physically capable of warfare I have no problem with it.
Draft on the other hand is kinda discriminating to only pick men or pick both but women for less time. Either it should affect everybody or nobody.

Bearing children is a painful thing (or so I've been told). Men don't suffer through that, so it's only fair that women don't have to risk their lives in combat. It's the most prominent reason.
But sure as hell not worse than getting killed.

But sure as hell not worse than getting killed.
German draftees don't get killed unless they volonteer for going to conflict zones, which they usually don't since it takes too long to prepare troops for such deployments; draftees aren't in long enough for it to be worthwhile. I oppose sending draftees into combat unless there's a home front, but most western powers don't have that condition. That's why I say women shouldn't be subjected to the draft, because in my opinion, the draft shouldn't get you killed.

I agree with you on most points, but I don't think draftees should be used in combat situations unless they agree. That's what volonteers are there for. If that were the case, draftees wouldn't be dragged off to get maimed or killed. Would you mind only having the draft for men in that case?
No … even as such requiring a deviation from your planed life should be shared equally

With equal rights come equal responsibility … (and I personally think the draft should ONLY be used in a defensive war …)

No … even as such requiring a deviation from your planed life should be shared equally I'm going to assume that you meant events with even and planned with planed. I'm not trying to belittle you for spelling, but it makes responding difficult...
In that case, having to carry a child around for nine months before giving birth cannot be shared equally, and it certainly is a deviation from your planned life. If you argue that this is not the case, I'd say that you can plan for getting drafted just as well as for raising children. In my opinion, they are both similar. Men can easily escape the responsibility of parenthood, but women are not so lucky.

With equal rights come equal responsibility … (and I personally think the draft should ONLY be used in a defensive war …)The draft is quite different in Germany and in Europe in general than how it was in the US. In Germany, its actually the basis of the social system. It forces young men to go to the military or do service for the community. Draftees cannot be sent to combat zones. I used to disagree with having to do something like that, but I changed my mind, considering how important the draft is for German society. (and because they found me physically unfit for any form of service :D)

German draftees don't get killed unless they volonteer for going to conflict zones, which they usually don't since it takes too long to prepare troops for such deployments; draftees aren't in long enough for it to be worthwhile. I oppose sending draftees into combat unless there's a home front, but most western powers don't have that condition. That's why I say women shouldn't be subjected to the draft, because in my opinion, the draft shouldn't get you killed.So it's simply a punishment for not having to maybe get pregnant? How about wartime then?

I'm probably the only female against women being in the military. I only have two reasons, hehe.

The first has already been covered. All of the men I know (granted, they are all adults, over 25) tell me that it is male instinct to protect a woman no matter the situation - particularly with the type of guy who would join the military in the first place. Whether or not she can defend herself is not an issue so much as it is just an involuntary reaction for them. If this is true, having women around them in combat would logically do more harm than good, being too much of a distraction.

Secondly, I think it's a matter of military money.
Story: My female cousin joined the Navy after high school. She ACCIDENTALLY got pregnant by another soldier. She was of course sent home, but they kept the baby's father and sent him into Desert Storm.
The fact is, whether or not the women choose to get pregnant, with that large of a group, sex will be had and accidents happen. Condoms break, pills get forgotten, he forgets to pull out, etc. They can't MAKE the woman have an abortion so if she chooses to keep the little "accident" then they have no choice but to send her home and LOSE all of the money and time they spent training her. Male soldiers... he gets a girl pregnant and it's "Sucks to be you, hope you make it home to see the birth - but you probably won't." They don't lose anything over a guy's accident.

It's frustrating that so many of you think a woman has no choice in these matters. Abortions are legal in most states the last time I checked. And adoption is a GREAT alternative if you don't want your baby. Women can run away from the responsibility almost as easily as a man can.

I think things need to go further then just allowing women in combat duty. I think they should all have to register with selective services & be part of the draft pool. Equal is Equal. Men forced to serve where women have a choice. Not right & not equal.

I'm going to assume that you meant events with even and planned with planed. I'm not trying to belittle you for spelling, but it makes responding difficult...
In that case, having to carry a child around for nine months before giving birth cannot be shared equally, and it certainly is a deviation from your planned life. If you argue that this is not the case, I'd say that you can plan for getting drafted just as well as for raising children. In my opinion, they are both similar. Men can easily escape the responsibility of parenthood, but women are not so lucky.
The draft is quite different in Germany and in Europe in general than how it was in the US. In Germany, its actually the basis of the social system. It forces young men to go to the military or do service for the community. Draftees cannot be sent to combat zones. I used to disagree with having to do something like that, but I changed my mind, considering how important the draft is for German society. (and because they found me physically unfit for any form of service :D)
I apologize … was early and auto correct got the best of me

Botswombata']I think things need to go further then just allowing women in combat duty. I think they should all have to register with selective services & be part of the draft pool. Equal is Equal. Men forced to serve where women have a choice. Not right & not equal.
Um that was the second part of the original post … did you read it?

(sorry you just came off as wanting to rant without having read it)

Simonist']Actually, I believe I said that she may not be able to walk correctly again.

Well, while my quote wasn't in those words the difference sounds like it's splitting hairs.

I'm coming into this debate a little late, but here goes:

Previous posters have used the word 'combat' a lot. There are some differences between being assigned to a combat zone (cooks, clerks, and truckdrivers - think Jessica Lynch), having a combat MOS (a range of combat specialties), and an MOS that will have women in direct ground combat.

The most discussed, I think, is the direct ground combat role. I have no problem with women serving a combat zone.

But why debate whether women have the right to sacrifice and die? They already have that privilege. Combat arms assignments would give them the mission to kill - so lets be clear on what the issue is. Personally I have no problem with that, but want to point out something I haven't see discussed (though maybe I missed it).

I take issue with the way the miltary conducts fitness evaluation. The APFT does not require equal performance, only equal effort:

"Under the new standards, the average 32-year-old female soldier and the average 32-year-old male soldier will put forth the same amount of effort to earn the same number of points.

"All we ask is that both genders receive the same points for the same efforts," said Col. Stephen Cellucci, commandant of the U.S. Army Physical Fitness School at Fort Benning."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:CJdcGuL6tNQJ:www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/archives/oct31/str_d103197.html+apft+scores+men+women&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

I will not support any female training in combat MOS unless the physical standards are equal - trying hard as you can in training is not good enough. There's nothing sexist about that - just set standards for physical performance and qualify individuals who can meet them.

Don't dumb down the standards, either. It should not be a 'right' to be in a combat MOS. It should not be an affirmative action program.

I don't trust the military or it's masters to accept the low numbers of women who would 1) volunteer for direct combat, 2) complete the training to a standard required for them to be effective.

I don't want to see women eventually forced into direct combat roles, either blatantly or tacitly, and have standards lowered to reach a politically-acceptable, artificially-inflated graduation rate - and would eventually translate into needless loss of life and reduced combat effectiveness.

The first has already been covered. All of the men I know (granted, they are all adults, over 25) tell me that it is male instinct to protect a woman no matter the situation - particularly with the type of guy who would join the military in the first place. Whether or not she can defend herself is not an issue so much as it is just an involuntary reaction for them. If this is true, having women around them in combat would logically do more harm than good, being too much of a distraction.

I have spoken to men who have served in the military with women - and none have listed this as a problem. In fact, they generally had quite a bit of respect for the capabilities of their female counterparts.

Secondly, I think it's a matter of military money.
Story: My female cousin joined the Navy after high school. She ACCIDENTALLY got pregnant by another soldier. She was of course sent home, but they kept the baby's father and sent him into Desert Storm.
The fact is, whether or not the women choose to get pregnant, with that large of a group, sex will be had and accidents happen. Condoms break, pills get forgotten, he forgets to pull out, etc. They can't MAKE the woman have an abortion so if she chooses to keep the little "accident" then they have no choice but to send her home and LOSE all of the money and time they spent training her. Male soldiers... he gets a girl pregnant and it's "Sucks to be you, hope you make it home to see the birth - but you probably won't." They don't lose anything over a guy's accident.

Actually, they do. First off, the military has to start keeping more track of a guy who gets a girl pregnant. Often, child support is taken out automatically by the military, rather than leaving it up to the soldier to do.

Meanwhile, men get in accidents as well. Men injure themselves and have to be sent home - and the military loses the money spent training them. Pregnancy is not the only medical condition that takes you off of active duty.

In that case, having to carry a child around for nine months before giving birth cannot be shared equally, and it certainly is a deviation from your planned life.

You've got a pretty cynical view of parenthood :)

In my experience most of the women who have children want them... and in that case it isn't a deviation, but in fact a part of your planned life. In fact, it's the plan itself.

As Storm said earlier, having a child is a choice... now if we start having 'child drafts' where if a politician decides that we need more kids for some reason, and women then have to bear kids or go to jail, then I won't object so much to the idea that said politician can make me go kill people and be killed on his whim. If you think about it the two concepts are equally as offensive - it's just that we're used to the latter one.

Although mostly we have the same view of what the draft should be anyway.. just a bit of a difference on who should be included.

Um that was the second part of the original post … did you read it?

(sorry you just came off as wanting to rant without having read it)

Just making a comment in agreement. Thanks for being so superior to the rest uf us :eek:

I work with a firefighter who's a woman. She looks like she would bounce off a fly if she stepped on it, but she's actually one of the best firefighter/Parametics we have. If they can do the job, then there's no reason not to let them do it. However, there are PLENTY of women there, and she's the only one I can think of that isn't a liability. Just because you are a woman doesn't mean you should get rubber stamped when you're not qualified.

I work with a firefighter who's a woman. She looks like she would bounce off a fly if she stepped on it, but she's actually one of the best firefighter/Parametics we have. If they can do the job, then there's no reason not to let them do it. However, there are PLENTY of women there, and she's the only one I can think of that isn't a liability. Just because you are a woman doesn't mean you should get rubber stamped when you're not qualified.
Who was proposing a rubber stamp approval for all women?

I work with a firefighter who's a woman. She looks like she would bounce off a fly if she stepped on it, but she's actually one of the best firefighter/Parametics we have. If they can do the job, then there's no reason not to let them do it. However, there are PLENTY of women there, and she's the only one I can think of that isn't a liability. Just because you are a woman doesn't mean you should get rubber stamped when you're not qualified.

I don't recall anyone in this thread saying otherwise . . .

Who was proposing a rubber stamp approval for all women?

Based on what I've read, the current APFT (Army physical fitness test) acknowledges gender differences and hence has a lower standard for women.

So current policy may have to change to ensure that women meet the same physical strenght/fitness standards as men when going into a combat MOS.

Based on what I've read, the current APFT (Army physical fitness test) acknowledges gender differences and hence has a lower standard for women.

So current policy may have to change to ensure that women meet the same physical strenght/fitness standards as men when going into a combat MOS.
Absolutely … though I had not heard of differing requirements for females before do you have a link?

Based on what I've read, the current APFT (Army physical fitness test) acknowledges gender differences and hence has a lower standard for women.

So current policy may have to change to ensure that women meet the same physical strenght/fitness standards as men when going into a combat MOS.

It depends. The general fitness test - simply to be in the armed services - has separate requirements (I believe).

However, many individual areas have the exact same requirements. My friend's mother was the first woman allowed into a dog-training position in her branch of the military. The reason that women were not allowed in before is that they felt women could not work with the dogs and could not handle them. She was expected to pass the exact same tests that a man would. In fact, she went above and beyond. One of the requirements was to carry one of the dogs (large dogs, but not nearly the weight of an adult human being) across a field. On the day that she was to test, the dog had been injured and couldn't be used. She carried her commanding officer across the field instead.

Here's a few, you'll find more of the same if you look around, plus anecdotal accounts (both pro and con from vets):

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/archives/oct31/str_d103197.html

https://www.benning.army.mil/usapfs/documents/APFTPSTR.DOC

In the latter, you'll see that there is a point system. And that women can score higher than men in points (i.e. 2-mile run), but in actuality they don't need to run it as fast a time. They refer to 'best effort' as being acceptable.