NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw the other post about the normal draft and I wondered about people's opinion on the possible women's draft. The government has thought of making a draft for women, after all women are already in the army and want equality. I think the draft in general is not a good thing but making a women version would make more sense. Both genders can fight and both are basically the same so why not? Curious as to the opinions of others. Obviously it could be neatly avoided by getting pregnant but then again I'm not sure how many women would do that (though I'm sure some would.) to get out of going into the military if there was a draft... Anyways I have jabbered I'm done for now. : ) (Play nice...;) )

If men have to be drafted, then so should women, unless they have a valid reason not to (such as pregnancy). With training (especially martial arts type) they can be excellent combatants. So essentially, I am for it.

There are many good reasons for it, women can be very nasty and tough fighters. I happen to fall into that category :D I'm one of the girls at my school that people make sure to stay on the good side of, which is easy considering I have a very good temper.

It would only be fair for women to be drafted since men can be.

Well considering that we don't do battle charges and fight in hand to hand combat, strength is obviously not an issue. So yes, women should be drafted.

I don't see why not, they can do the same job as men can plus there are also other jobs that do not required for them to be shooting at anyone.:gundge:

There are many good reasons for it, women can be very nasty and tough fighters. I happen to fall into that category :D I'm one of the girls at my school that people make sure to stay on the good side of, which is easy considering I have a very good temper.

It would only be fair for women to be drafted since men can be.
Very true. Some women can make lethal fighters. I see no reason why only men should be drafted anyway. We don't live in the Dark Ages anymore, so I think it's time this came to be.

If there were to be a draft then it should be one for both men/women. Ture equality in all things, yes?

If there were to be a draft then it should be one for both men/women. Ture equality in all things, yes?
Exactly. :) I am all for female egalitarianism, so it should extend to all facets of life.

Well considering that we don't do battle charges and fight in hand to hand combat, strength is obviously not an issue. So yes, women should be drafted.
There are fighting styles and martial arts with which strength is not a significant issue anyway, like the Krav Maga (which many militaries now use), Wing Chun Kung Fu or Aikido. So even if there was hand-to-hand combat, a well trained woman could excel in it.

Could use them for certain things but really when you enact a draft you want to replace the soldiers that are dying on the front lines. Woman don't fill this role so it really wouldn't be as effective as you might think. Wouldn't you rather have soldiers that can fill any role including the front lines and keep the others at home making weapons and such? THus men are more desirable in a draft.

Could use them for certain things but really when you enact a draft you want to replace the soldiers that are dying on the front lines. Woman don't fill this role so it really wouldn't be as effective as you might think. Wouldn't you rather have soldiers that can fill any role including the front lines and keep the others at home making weapons and such? THus men are more desirable in a draft.
If a woman is trained how to fight, she can fill the role. Considering that more and more women are joining the military and related organisations and engaging in combat, I don't see why they should be excluded.

There are fighting styles and martial arts with which strength is not a significant issue anyway, like the Krav Maga (which many militaries now use), Wing Chun Kung Fu or Aikido. So even if there was hand-to-hand combat, a well trained woman could excel in it.

The point of a draft is to quickly fill grunt positions and that is negated if you have to teach advance tactics like martial arts that can be very difficult to master. Also strength is not the only reason women are kept from the front lines. Research shows it destroys the brotherhood of a unit because men tend to want to protect woman. Not to mention infighting and harassment. If you seperate them then you get all women grunt units and then the physical stregth comes in when they meet an enemy all male unit. It just doesn't make much sense to have women on the front lines strategically.

Could use them for certain things but really when you enact a draft you want to replace the soldiers that are dying on the front lines. Woman don't fill this role so it really wouldn't be as effective as you might think. Wouldn't you rather have soldiers that can fill any role including the front lines and keep the others at home making weapons and such? THus men are more desirable in a draft.

Who says women can't go to the front lines? A woman can fight as well as men and can be on the front lines. Not trying to go all feminist here but honestly a properly trained woman is about as good as a man. Strength after all is not the only issue, guns don't work any less well no matter what gender. Also as someone else pointed out, say there was hand to hand combat not all fighting is based on strength, heck if doesn't matter how strong you are as long as you have skill. I have taken down men much stronger than me who could fight very well because I am a good fighter.

The point of a draft is to quickly fill grunt positions and that is negated if you have to teach advance tactics like martial arts that can be very difficult to master. Also strength is not the only reason women are kept from the front lines. Research shows it destroys the brotherhood of a unit because men tend to want to protect woman. Not to mention infighting and harassment. If you seperate them then you get all women grunt units and then the physical stregth comes in when they meet an enemy all male unit. It just doesn't make much sense to have women on the front lines strategically.
True. Martial arts do have that disadvantage; they take time to learn. So whilst a military woman could excel in it, it would be harder for a draftee. Either way, male units in the infantry are also likely to be physically weaker than their opponents. They haven't had the opportunity of much training either.

The government has thought of making a draft for womenwhich government? nut the us government, the proposal came from (democrat) lawmakers. in fact it was Rumsfeld, who suspended the (male) draft under nixon, the government is as far away from instituting a female draft as it can be.

in combat would you really want a woman watching your back? dont you remember jessica lynch? i wouldnt want somebody, who is forced to serve to watch my back in the first place. if in doubt i was forced to serve i would shoot my officer in the back on the first occasion and head for switzerland.

which government? nut the us government, the proposal came from (democrat) lawmakers. in fact it was Rumsfeld, who suspended the (male) draft under nixon, the government is as far away from instituting a female draft as it can be.

in combat would you really want a woman watching your back? dont you remember jessica lynch? i wouldnt want somebody, who is forced to serve to watch my back in the first place. if in doubt i was forced to serve i would shoot my officer in the back on the first occasion and head for switzerland.
She is a woman. :rolleyes:

The issue of training does come into question here. A well trained professional military woman can be an outstanding combatant. A mere draftee? Depends.

Who says women can't go to the front lines? A woman can fight as well as men and can be on the front lines. Not trying to go all feminist here but honestly a properly trained woman is about as good as a man. Strength after all is not the only issue, guns don't work any less well no matter what gender. Also as someone else pointed out, say there was hand to hand combat not all fighting is based on strength, heck if doesn't matter how strong you are as long as you have skill. I have taken down men much stronger than me who could fight very well because I am a good fighter.

You ignored my points. Destroys the "brotherhood" that keeps male units together. Also ground soldiers carry a shitload of weight we're talking 80 pounds and up in a lot of cases. That is a lot for the genetic strength of a woman over 12 hour days. I'm not saying no woman can do it, it just doesn't make sense to enact it. There are other jobs woman can do just fine they don't need to be on the front lines, you don't take risks like that when lives are on the line.

True. Martial arts do have that disadvantage; they take time to learn. So whilst a military woman could excel in it, it would be harder for a draftee. Either way, male units in the infantry are also likely to be physically weaker than their opponents. They haven't had the opportunity of much training either.

That is true, thus our loss in Vietnam. But you see my point.

Who says women can't go to the front lines? A woman can fight as well as men and can be on the front lines. Not trying to go all feminist here but honestly a properly trained woman is about as good as a man. Strength after all is not the only issue, guns don't work any less well no matter what gender. Also as someone else pointed out, say there was hand to hand combat not all fighting is based on strength, heck if doesn't matter how strong you are as long as you have skill. I have taken down men much stronger than me who could fight very well because I am a good fighter.
Indeed. Many martial arts depend on a lot more than just strength alone. However, the fact that these take long to learn is the problem. If martial arts were taught as part of school PE lessons, the draft could work. If not, it would be time consuming. So perhaps a draft should be open to able women, as opposed to all women.

You ignored my points. Destroys the "brotherhood" that keeps male units together. Also ground soldiers carry a shitload of weight we're talking 80 pounds and up in a lot of cases. That is a lot for the genetic strength of a woman over 12 hour days. I'm not saying no woman can do it, it just doesn't make sense to enact it. There are other jobs woman can do just fine they don't need to be on the front lines, you don't take risks like that when lives are on the line.

Plenty of guys couldn't carry that kind of weight either. There'd have to be plenty of jobs that don't require that kind of strenuous physical acts anyway.

That is true, thus our loss in Vietnam. But you see my point.
I do. A professional military woman? Sure. A draftee? Depends very much on her ability.

Plenty of guys couldn't carry that kind of weight either.
Indeed. Young men aren't exactly as athletic as they were in the past.

which government? nut the us government, the proposal came from (democrat) lawmakers. in fact it was Rumsfeld, who suspended the (male) draft under nixon, the government is as far away from instituting a female draft as it can be.

in combat would you really want a woman watching your back? dont you remember jessica lynch? i wouldnt want somebody, who is forced to serve to watch my back in the first place. if in doubt i was forced to serve i would shoot my officer in the back on the first occasion and head for switzerland.
Actually I have read articles over the last 2 years that say it is in the background but not likely to happen, atleast not soon.

I am a woman so maybe I am a bit biased but a woman watching my back wouldn't be a bad thing. Yeah there are definitely women who would be bad in the army but there is the same problem with men. And sorry but I don't know who Jessica Lynch is. I agree with you on one thing, I wouldn't want someone who was forced to serve watching my back either.

Indeed. Many martial arts depend on a lot more than just strength alone. However, the fact that these take long to learn is the problem. If martial arts were taught as part of school PE lessons, the draft could work. If not, it would be time consuming. So perhaps a draft should be open to able women, as opposed to all women.

That isn't what a draft is. Women can join the military as it is.

Plenty of guys couldn't carry that kind of weight either. There'd have to be plenty of jobs that don't require that kind of strenuous physical acts anyway.

Thats a bit foolish. In training camp you work your ass off and you learn to carry it. This is genetically possible even for weak men. This is not so (at least not nearly as rapidly) for women.

Indeed. Many martial arts depend on a lot more than just strength alone. However, the fact that these take long to learn is the problem. If martial arts were taught as part of school PE lessons, the draft could work. If not, it would be time consuming. So perhaps a draft should be open to able women, as opposed to all women.

That would be better and would make sense. After all the male draft isn't for all men, two of my brothers would not be drafted most likely because one has asthma and the other is somewhat autistic and doesn't have very good health either. Some people (meaning BOTH genders) aren't meant for battle.

That isn't what a draft is. Women can join the military as it is.
I know. I was just saying it would at least provide that the women would be already trained. Yet it's a longshot, since compulsory martial arts training at schools is unlikely.

That would be better and would make sense. After all the male draft isn't for all men, two of my brothers would not be drafted most likely because one has asthma and the other is somewhat autistic and doesn't have very good health either. Some people (meaning BOTH genders) aren't meant for battle.
True. Better to exclude these people altogether, rather than doing so based on gender.

It all sounds good but lets look at the physical facts.

I'm a woman, of medium build, strong and able bodied. You could train me and teach me all kinds of defense tactics and true, I'd be one badass bitch. But put me up against a 6'3 250 pound man who has been equally trained in said defense tactics, and well, I will most likely be going home in a body bag. Women dont have the same muscle composition as men. Our physical strength wouldnt be much of a match for a mans. I've seen the women bodybuilders and although they have huge muscles, they have trained for years and years to develope those muscles and they still cannot achieve strength that compares with a man who receives the same training. Drafting women, then sending them to boot camp for 6-8 weeks will not enable them to match the physical strength of the average soldier.

Actually I have read articles over the last 2 years that say it is in the background but not likely to happen, atleast not soon.

I am a woman so maybe I am a bit biased but a woman watching my back wouldn't be a bad thing. Yeah there are definitely women who would be bad in the army but there is the same problem with men. And sorry but I don't know who Jessica Lynch is. I agree with you on one thing, I wouldn't want someone who was forced to serve watching my back either.

Don't get confused. Women already "watch peoples back". They can do lots of stuff just not the front line groundwork and they should not do the front line ground work. It isn't the end of the world to realize that some things make more sense the way the are. No one is stopping women from devistating villages in apaches and such.

That isn't what a draft is. Women can join the military as it is.
http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=Bundeswehr&lang=en&num=79999888C19980285&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET
It would be illegal if they couldn't.

And sorry but I don't know who Jessica Lynch is.during the invasion of iraq her convoy got lost and ambushed, everybody except her was killed, she was taken as a POW to a hospital from where she was rescued. there was a huge media hype and she was praised as a "hero". i believe they made a movie about this; must be one of the shittiest movies ever.

Although in theory, a women's draft seems fair, and the egalitarian thing to do, I have a hard time imagining any nation enforcing such a thing. It raises the issue of who's watching the kids while Mom and Dad are off to war. Or are we going to draft them too? Fun for the whole family!

After all, Grandma and Grandpa are going to be far too busy working in the munitions plants to look after kids.

Do we send an equal number of male drafts as female drafts? Would there be a public outcry because we are sending women off to die on the frontline while able-bodied men are still at home? Although there should be equality of opportunity, the draft, a dubious issue to begin with, becomes even more dubious when both men and women are being drafted.

Thats a bit foolish. In training camp you work your ass off and you learn to carry it. This is genetically possible even for weak men. This is not so (at least not nearly as rapidly) for women.

You are right. Though not completely. It depends on the person. One of my female cousins was a whimp but she did excersise and became very strong, similar thing with a male cousin, her brother, he couldn't let his sister be tougher than him so he did the same stuff she did plus a little more and it took him longer to build as much strength. Just one case of a woman being able to get stronger quicker, obviously not the case all the time.

Basically what you said is true with most cases I would guess.

It all sounds good but lets look at the physical facts.

I'm a woman, of medium build, strong and able bodied. You could train me and teach me all kinds of defense tactics and true, I'd be one badass bitch. But put me up against a 6'3 250 pound man who has been equally trained in said defense tactics, and well, I will most likely be going home in a body bag. Women dont have the same muscle composition as men. Our physical strength wouldnt be much of a match for a mans. I've seen the women bodybuilders and although they have huge muscles, they have trained for years and years to develope those muscles and they still cannot achieve strength that compares with a man who receives the same training. Drafting women, then sending them to boot camp for 6-8 weeks will not enable them to match the physical strength of the average soldier.

Well put. There are many other places women can help not to mention someone needs to make the ammo and flak jackets at home. We can't draft everyone.

It all sounds good but lets look at the physical facts.

I'm a woman, of medium build, strong and able bodied. You could train me and teach me all kinds of defense tactics and true, I'd be one badass bitch. But put me up against a 6'3 250 pound man who has been equally trained in said defense tactics, and well, I will most likely be going home in a body bag. Women dont have the same muscle composition as men. Our physical strength wouldnt be much of a match for a mans. I've seen the women bodybuilders and although they have huge muscles, they have trained for years and years to develope those muscles and they still cannot achieve strength that compares with a man who receives the same training. Drafting women, then sending them to boot camp for 6-8 weeks will not enable them to match the physical strength of the average soldier.
It depends on the martial art you train in. Some focus entirely on deflecting attacks and making the best of opportunities, so that strength is entirely negated, and can even act as a disadvantage for the opponent. So a woman combining both offensive and defensive/deflective martial arts could be as good as a man. She would still have to be physically fit, and this would require enormous devotion, yet if she did so she would be highly capable.

Although in theory, a women's draft seems fair, and the egalitarian thing to do, I have a hard time imagining any nation enforcing such a thing. It raises the issue of who's watching the kids while Mom and Dad are off to war. Or are we going to draft them too? Fun for the whole family!

After all, Grandma and Grandpa are going to be far too busy working in the munitions plants to look after kids.

Do we send an equal number of male drafts as female drafts? Would there be a public outcry because we are sending women off to die on the frontline while able-bodied men are still at home? Although there should be equality of opportunity, the draft, a dubious issue to begin with, becomes even more dubious when both men and women are being drafted.

Well obviously the government would have to make sure that if one parent was in the army and fighting etc. they could not send the other parent. That just wouldn't make sense.

You are right. Though not completely. It depends on the person. One of my female cousins was a whimp but she did excersise and became very strong, similar thing with a male cousin, her brother, he couldn't let his sister be tougher than him so he did the same stuff she did plus a little more and it took him longer to build as much strength. Just one case of a woman being able to get stronger quicker, obviously not the case all the time.

Basically what you said is true with most cases I would guess.

And as I've said I don't believe women are not capable of doing these things on the front lines. It just makes no sense to try to enact it for all the reasons we've all talked about.

And as I've said I don't believe women are not capable of doing these things on the front lines. It just makes no sense to try to enact it for all the reasons we've all talked about.
The German army thought the same thing. They would allow women to serve in medical services, technical things and so on, but not in actual combat.

So one woman sued the army, and the European court ruled in her favour, and now German women can serve anywhere. In modern warfare, I'm not sure how much actual strength matters anyways. It's endurance and the ability to endure pain that matters, and if memory serves, those are actually things women are quite good at.

It depends on the martial art you train in. Some focus entirely on deflecting attacks and making the best of opportunities, so that strength is entirely negated, and can even act as a disadvantage for the opponent. So a woman combining both offensive and defensive/deflective martial arts could be as good as a man.

I think the point was that the enemy could easily know the same exact moves and martial arts. In that case when the skills match the strength comes heavily into play. Don't forget strength also deals with fortitude and most men have more bone mass than women. It isn't only being overpowered you could get your arm broken when you hit with the same blow and it dind't break bone and then you are fucked.

we are not fighting with bare hands anymore, Peechland, the only strength you need is the one to pull the trigger.

Well obviously the government would have to make sure that if one parent was in the army and fighting etc. they could not send the other parent. That just wouldn't make sense.

So who do you draft? Mom or Dad?

You ignored my points. Destroys the "brotherhood" that keeps male units together. Also ground soldiers carry a shitload of weight we're talking 80 pounds and up in a lot of cases. That is a lot for the genetic strength of a woman over 12 hour days. I'm not saying no woman can do it, it just doesn't make sense to enact it. There are other jobs woman can do just fine they don't need to be on the front lines, you don't take risks like that when lives are on the line.

Didn't mean to ignore your points sorry. You are right but women can not all obviously but there are also men who just aren't right for war I know some men who hard as they try can't build all that much muscle. The brotherhood thing, sadly true. Maybe there is some way to get men to NOT do that? I don't know. I kill any many in my unit who tried to waste his time and energy 'protecting' me instead of fighting someone else and treating me like any other guy.

It depends on the martial art you train in. Some focus entirely on deflecting attacks and making the best of opportunities, so that strength is entirely negated, and can even act as a disadvantage for the opponent. So a woman combining both offensive and defensive/deflective martial arts could be as good as a man. She would still have to be physically fit, and this would require enormous devotion, yet if she did so she would be highly capable.

Is this assuming that all soldiers have alot of martial arts training?

The German army thought the same thing. They would allow women to serve in medical services, technical things and so on, but not in actual combat.

So one woman sued the army, and the European court ruled in her favour, and now German women can serve anywhere. In modern warfare, I'm not sure how much actual strength matters anyways. It's endurance and the ability to endure pain that matters, and if memory serves, those are actually things women are quite good at.

IF you read back through all the posts you'll see that I have stated many reasons and some have nothing to do with strength. The Germans have made mistakes before and if that is true I consider that one of them. Luckily they don't fight anymore anyways.

It depends on the martial art you train in. Some focus entirely on deflecting attacks and making the best of opportunities, so that strength is entirely negated, and can even act as a disadvantage for the opponent. So a woman combining both offensive and defensive/deflective martial arts could be as good as a man.

But not in the length of time basic training allows. Plus testosterone and androstenedione play a significant role in the body's ability to increase strength. Women have 10% the amount of testosterone as men. I agree that some martial arts can help deflect attacks. I just dont think you could teach someone to the degree that would be necessary in such a short period of time.

God-I bet feminists will come and get me any minute and burn me at the stake.

For non combat positions, yes.

There's a reason the armed forces don't let women into combat positions.

I saw the other post about the normal draft and I wondered about people's opinion on the possible women's draft. The government has thought of making a draft for women, after all women are already in the army and want equality. I think the draft in general is not a good thing but making a women version would make more sense. Both genders can fight and both are basically the same so why not? Curious as to the opinions of others. Obviously it could be neatly avoided by getting pregnant but then again I'm not sure how many women would do that (though I'm sure some would.) to get out of going into the military if there was a draft... Anyways I have jabbered I'm done for now. : ) (Play nice...;) )

if I were drafted; I'd rape my drill sergent.

I think the point was that the enemy could easily know the same exact moves and martial arts. In that case when the skills match the strength comes heavily into play. Don't forget strength also deals with fortitude and most men have more bone mass than women. It isn't only being overpowered you could get your arm broken when you hit with the same blow and it dind't break bone and then you are fucked.
Not with deflective martial arts. Aikido being a prime example. If you strike, techniques will be used against you to redirect your energy. Even if you are versed in the art at an equal level, they are extremely difficult to reverse. Trying to hit a powerful blow could well get you thrown off balance. In addition, if you mix up 2-3 martial arts you could well become highly unpredictable, making it difficult even for a person with similar skill in those martial arts to keep up with you. Some of the offensive martial arts, such as Koshijutsu and Koppojutsu Ryu (the Bone martial arts) also focus far more on technique than strength. The one is pressure points and nerve strikes, and the other is bone-breaking. They are devastating, and are not strength based. Martial arts which focus on breaking joints are also more about technique than anything else, and are lethal.

It all sounds good but lets look at the physical facts.

I'm a woman, of medium build, strong and able bodied. You could train me and teach me all kinds of defense tactics and true, I'd be one badass bitch. But put me up against a 6'3 250 pound man who has been equally trained in said defense tactics, and well, I will most likely be going home in a body bag. Women dont have the same muscle composition as men. Our physical strength wouldnt be much of a match for a mans. I've seen the women bodybuilders and although they have huge muscles, they have trained for years and years to develope those muscles and they still cannot achieve strength that compares with a man who receives the same training. Drafting women, then sending them to boot camp for 6-8 weeks will not enable them to match the physical strength of the average soldier.
There is WAY more to the millitary then good ol grunt

If I remember right there is a 3 to 1 ratio of support personell to solders

Everything from computer techs to aircraft pilot

Some girls will be made for grunt work some wont just like guys

There is plenty of space that cant cut grunt work

we are not fighting with bare hands anymore, Peechland, the only strength you need is the one to pull the trigger.

Really? What if my weapon was taken from me and I had to rely on my bare hands?

But not in the length of time basic training allows. Plus testosterone and androstenedione play a significant role in the body's ability to increase strength. Women have 10% the amount of testosterone as men. I agree that some martial arts can help deflect attacks. I just dont think you could teach someone to the degree that would be necessary in such a short period of time.

God-I bet feminists will come and get me any minute and burn me at the stake.
Indeed, it would take long to master the arts. I have conceded to this already. Martial arts can help both deflect and land powerful attacks (especially pressure points and bone-breaking techniques). Yet it's the time factor.

So who do you draft? Mom or Dad?

It would be difficult to decide. Many things would have to be considered, if the mother is the main moneymaker and or is pregnant or something, draft the father, If the man is the one who does most of the caretaking and makes the most money and/or isn't all that physically fit or something draft the mother. If fathers have had to leave their families behind to go fight why shouldn't a mother?

Obviously many things would have to be considered but it's not like every couple would have someone taken in many cases probably neither would be very eligible.

Is this assuming that all soldiers have alot of martial arts training?
Yes. Which ones exactly, and what combinations, would be their prerogative.

For non combat positions, yes.

There's a reason the armed forces don't let women into combat positions.
Yeah its called chauvinism

There is WAY more to the millitary then good ol grunt

If I remember right there is a 3 to 1 ratio of support personell to solders

Everything from computer techs to aircraft pilot

Some girls will be made for grunt work some wont just like guys

There is plenty of space that cant cut grunt work

True true. But in times of war, those computer techs are in the bush along with the rest of the infantry, and they are expected to kick ass just as well as the grunts.

IF you read back through all the posts you'll see that I have stated many reasons and some have nothing to do with strength. The Germans have made mistakes before and if that is true I consider that one of them. Luckily they don't fight anymore anyways.
It is true. Here's the link again.
http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?where=Bundeswehr&lang=en&num=79999888C19980285&doc=T&ouvert=T&seance=ARRET

Research shows it destroys the brotherhood of a unit because men tend to want to protect woman. Not to mention infighting and harassment.
That's a matter of the males though. Women can prove themselves very capable, and many have. Men can learn to deal with that.

If you seperate them then you get all women grunt units and then the physical stregth comes in when they meet an enemy all male unit. It just doesn't make much sense to have women on the front lines strategically.
The USSR used some all women regiments quite effectively. Indeed, there are even reports of German soldiers refusing to open fire on them.

Really? What if my weapon was taken from me and I had to rely on my bare hands?
Then you're dead anyways.

True true. But in times of war, those computer techs are in the bush along with the rest of the infantry, and they are expected to kick ass just as well as the grunts.
And how often do you think that support personell like that need hand to hand?

I mean for the most part even front line work is done compleatly by wepon

The need for brute force out of the computer tech that got caught in a crossfire is neglagable

we are not fighting with bare hands anymore, Peechland, the only strength you need is the one to pull the trigger.

If you read through the posts you would realize it has already been said that the weight a ground soldier carries alone is extremely strenuous. Thinking modern warfare is just walking around and shooting without extreme physical demand is a fairytale. Not to mention we do actually go inside buildings, not just blow them up. You do meet people that must be detained and such.

during the invasion of iraq her convoy got lost and ambushed, everybody except her was killed, she was taken as a POW to a hospital from where she was rescued. there was a huge media hype and she was praised as a "hero". i believe they made a movie about this; must be one of the shittiest movies ever.

Oh that's right! I just didn't know her name. Oh yeah real hero...if the same thing had happened to a man I don't think he'd get the same recognition. Stupid.

Oh that's right! I just didn't know her name. Oh yeah real hero...if the same thing had happened to a man I don't think he'd get the same recognition. Stupid.
She gives women a bad name. I wish they had not given her any attention at all. Of all the women out there, they pick that idiot. :rolleyes:

That's a matter of the males though. Women can prove themselves very capable, and many have. Men can learn to deal with that.

Great and as I said it isn't as capable as an all male-enemy unit in almost all cases. This is pretty much always true for women who are just randomly picked out and trained quickly in a draft situation. Why would you have a less capable unit?


The USSR used some all women regiments quite effectively. Indeed, there are even reports of German soldiers refusing to open fire on them.
when the russians fought the germans Stalin was sending troops in without guns and orders to pick one up once someone dies. Those "reports" don't matter too much.

She gives women a bad name. I wish they had not given her any attention at all. Of all the women out there, they pick that idiot. :rolleyes:
She never wanted all the attention either. It was just the army and the media who really needed one of those tear-jerking, flag-waving stories.

Apparently she just hid during the fighting, was then taken without a fight and treated very well by the Iraqis.

And then she was "liberated" (after the Iraqis had long left the hospital) and then she was suddenly declared a hero. I think she did a good job telling people that it wasn't so, and so I don't think you can blame her.

Then you're dead anyways.

Maybe. Maybe not. My point is that if you draft a woman and give her 6 weeks of basic and send her off to war, chances are she might run into that
6'3 250 pound soldier I spoke of earlier. Now I'm faced with "shit, just 6 weeks ago I was folding laundry, changing diapers, and getting winded from picking up my 5 year old.....what the hell am I doing here?"

Then the big guy on the other side proceeds to overpower me and turn me into his bitch. and he's thinking "sweeeet....they let this 120lb woman into combat and now I;m going to have my way with her and then toss her up in a tree."

I'm not saying it cannot be done. I'm saying I dont believe it would be the most effective military idea.

It would be difficult to decide. Many things would have to be considered, if the mother is the main moneymaker and or is pregnant or something, draft the father, If the man is the one who does most of the caretaking and makes the most money and/or isn't all that physically fit or something draft the mother. If fathers have had to leave their families behind to go fight why shouldn't a mother?

Obviously many things would have to be considered but it's not like every couple would have someone taken in many cases probably neither would be very eligible.

If Dad brings home more money than Mom, Mommy goes off to war so that the family can afford to pay the mortgage? Or does the family lose the house because Daddy went to war, and Mom's job doesn't pay as well. Does the family get a choice, or the government? Or will the army only draft singles? Wouldn't that be unfair as well? Would you have to have exactly a 50/50 split between male and female draftees?

All I'm saying, is that it opens an ugly can of worms that most nations probably aren't going to want to deal with.

She never wanted all the attention either. It was just the army and the media who really needed one of those tear-jerking, flag-waving stories.

Apparently she just hid during the fighting, was then taken without a fight and treated very well by the Iraqis.

And then she was "liberated" (after the Iraqis had long left the hospital) and then she was suddenly declared a hero. I think she did a good job telling people that it wasn't so, and so I don't think you can blame her.
Maybe. I can't believe the press made such a fuss over it though. Did they deliberately want to give her a bad reputation?

Great and as I said it isn't as capable as an all male-enemy unit in almost all cases. This is pretty much always true for women who are just randomly picked out and trained quickly in a draft situation. Why would you have a less capable unit?


In a draft situation you are taking men that are also randomly picked and trained quickly? do you have any evidence that it is the WOMEN part of the equasion rather then then hurried training and randomness that causes the lower quality?

Anyone, be they gay or straight, male or female, should be able to enlist, and therefore, should be considered for a draft.

It's not fair if 20-year-old guys get sent to war while the women don't have to do anything.

Maybe. Maybe not. My point is that if you draft a woman and give her 6 weeks of basic and send her off to war, chances are she might run into that
6'3 250 pound soldier I spoke of earlier. Now I'm faced with "shit, just 6 weeks ago I was folding laundry, changing diapers, and getting winded from picking up my 5 year old.....what the hell am I doing here?"

Then the big guy on the other side proceeds to overpower me and turn me into his bitch. and he's thinking "sweeeet....they let this 120lb woman into combat and now I;m going to have my way with her and then toss her up in a tree."

I'm not saying it cannot be done. I'm saying I dont believe it would be the most effective military idea.

In the example you gave here you have a good point in that it would be unwise. So much has been conceded already though.

What if a woman was physically powerful though ab initio? Say a woman of 5ft11 and 155 lbs, which is rather well built.

If there was a Draft? Yes. But you really wouldn’t want a flood of women in the combat arms. For that matter you really wouldn’t want a flood of just any guy into the combat arms either.

I think that a lot of people are under the illusion that being an infantry soldier with modern tech means that everything is lighter and you don’t have to march as far. Forget about it. You start piling on the gear just for you and then you add to that gear for the section and then some platoon gear. Your pack is not your own. Having lighter weapons means you carry more ammunition. Full battle loads are damn heavy for a fit guy to run around with. You have to fill a lot of sandbags to make a bunker. You have to carry an obscene amount of weight when you’re tasked with defensive stores.

I’ve known a few women with the strength to be good soldiers, but not many. Of course I’ve also known guys who didn’t have the strength to be any good either. Weakness is weakness and I had little tolerance of it no matter the gender. I’ve walked up to guys who were 130lbs soaking wet, after an exercise, and told them that if they want to stick around they need to get a lot stronger, quick. There are some jobs you can’t tolerate the people alongside you being weak and the combat arms are that kind of place.

Watching Xena has made women more likely to enter the military than ever before. I’ve really noticed the difference. My experience with women in the Infantry was that you were lucky if one in ten were adequate and that was people who actually joined combat arms. The women who did well were kickboxers, prison guards, and endurance athletes. Being smaller than men was just one of the problems. Trust me, if I was 5’2” and 110lbs there would have been no way you could have gotten me wanting to march with a heavy pack either. You can’t have weak links that can’t carry the load. If buddy is down and needs to be fireman carried for a couple of klicks, then guess what you don’t want to be around people who can’t do the job. Most of them used the rifle company as a dating service, but the better ones didn’t.

It’s been my experience that once in, women got special treatment to ensure that the program of women in the combat arms was successful. That’s more the fault of the idiot officers and politicians backing the program than the women themselves. They’re also giving away token officer positions to bribe women into the military. Getting your period is used by women in the military to excuse themselves from duty way too often. I think if your period is that bad you can’t cut in the military and you leave. The enemy aren’t going to stop firing because you have your period. If they miss essential training because of it, they can just write off their course as complete. A buddy of mine was even told he couldn’t fail three women on the course he taught because it would look bad, despite their failure to meet the standard and being disasters. There are even cases of women getting pregnant to get out of being deployed (ships have had to turn around on the way to missions).

Having dealt with women in the military in the rifle company, it rarely works out. The biggest problem is that the women who could cut it in the infantry don’t join. If on the other hand people were judged purely on ability, without differing fitness standards or gender preferences, then I don’t care if they’re purple, furry aliens. All I care is that we don’t dilute the standards to make it more inclusive. If you can shoulder the heavy pack, carry the load, and aren’t too stupid to be tasked with any thing more complex than handing out crayons in stores, then no problem. Otherwise stay out or you’ll get someone killed on your own side before the enemy can.

The Bruce

Great and as I said it isn't as capable as an all male-enemy unit in almost all cases.
But you haven't actually shown that to be the case. You just said it.

This is pretty much always true for women who are just randomly picked out and trained quickly in a draft situation. Why would you have a less capable unit?
I'm not so much talking about a draft (it works for Israel though, doesn't it?) as generally about women fighting on the ground in the thick of it.

when the russians fought the germans Stalin was sending troops in without guns and orders to pick one up once someone dies. Those "reports" don't matter too much.
That was early on. Some of these all-women units survived those harsh times, and when the Soviets started to advance, they were still in there, doing a good job.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_058400_womeninwar.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002.html

Maybe. Maybe not. My point is that if you draft a woman and give her 6 weeks of basic and send her off to war, chances are she might run into that
6'3 250 pound soldier I spoke of earlier. Now I'm faced with "shit, just 6 weeks ago I was folding laundry, changing diapers, and getting winded from picking up my 5 year old.....what the hell am I doing here?"

Then the big guy on the other side proceeds to overpower me and turn me into his bitch. and he's thinking "sweeeet....they let this 120lb woman into combat and now I;m going to have my way with her and then toss her up in a tree."

I'm not saying it cannot be done. I'm saying I dont believe it would be the most effective military idea.

Well before becoming his bitch I'd kill myself. Also I am pretty sure the give at least one knife, cut of his little pal or stab in the general area, most likely he'll back off a wee bit and then maybe you could kick his ass. What you are talking about can happen to men too, basically war can be like jail guys surrounded by guys no chicks...you do the math. Much less likely but still. I guess you'd just need to have learned how to fight well. I personally think that if I was given the proper training I most likely could get out of the situation but that's me. The woman you described in your posy with the child and such on the other hand may get fucked literally and metaphorically. Sad but hey women in other situations in the army besides a fighter might have the same problem, guess they better be lucky.

Yet some women do join the military, excel at combat and are excellent soldiers. Do not assume all martial arts factor in strength.

You are most certainly correct. Most dont become proficient during basic training though. Although strength isnt the only factor that makes one a lean mean fighting machine, it can be important. If I have on a 75 pound backpack, weapons and ammo, it's going to be hard for me to perform any martial arts. Might not have time to take it off.

If Dad brings home more money than Mom, Mommy goes off to war so that the family can afford to pay the mortgage? Or does the family lose the house because Daddy went to war, and Mom's job doesn't pay as well. Does the family get a choice, or the government? Or will the army only draft singles? Wouldn't that be unfair as well? Would you have to have exactly a 50/50 split between male and female draftees?

All I'm saying, is that it opens an ugly can of worms that most nations probably aren't going to want to deal with.

You're right, they would have many things to think about but if you aren't getting enough people in the army and are desperate having men and women would be good. It simply isn't fair that men have to worry about being drafted and women don't. In my mind anyways.

I’ve known a few women with the strength to be good soldiers, but not many. Of course I’ve also known guys who didn’t have the strength to be any good either. Weakness is weakness and I had little tolerance of it no matter the gender. I’ve walked up to guys who were 130lbs soaking wet, after an exercise, and told them that if they want to stick around they need to get a lot stronger, quick. There are some jobs you can’t tolerate the people alongside you being weak and the combat arms are that kind of place.

Watching Xena has made women more likely to enter the military than ever before. I’ve really noticed the difference. My experience with women in the Infantry was that you were lucky if one in ten were adequate and that was people who actually joined combat arms. The women who did well were kickboxers, prison guards, and endurance athletes.
That would make sense though. Trained women who are used to roughing it up would obviously be better suited to fighting than a random draftee.


Having dealt with women in the military in the rifle company, it rarely works out. The biggest problem is that the women who could cut it in the infantry don’t join. If on the other hand people were judged purely on ability, without differing fitness standards or gender preferences, then I don’t care if they’re purple, furry aliens. All I care is that we don’t dilute the standards to make it more inclusive. If you can shoulder the heavy pack, carry the load, and aren’t too stupid to be tasked with any thing more complex than handing out crayons in stores, then no problem. Otherwise stay out or you’ll get someone killed on your own side before the enemy can.

The Bruce
Agreed on all points.

You are most certainly correct. Most dont become proficient during basic training though. Although strength isnt the only factor that makes one a lean mean fighting machine, it can be important. If I have on a 75 pound backpack, weapons and ammo, it's going to be hard for me to perform any martial arts. Might not have time to take it off.
Indeed. I edited my post because I had not seen the first line you put. It would take hard work and dedication to reach an appropriate standard.

Anyone, be they gay or straight, male or female, should be able to enlist, and therefore, should be considered for a draft.

It's not fair if 20-year-old guys get sent to war while the women don't have to do anything.

I am in complete agreement.

Well before becoming his bitch I'd kill myself. Also I am pretty sure the give at least one knife, cut of his little pal or stab in the general area, most likely he'll back off a wee bit and then maybe you could kick his ass. What you are talking about can happen to men too, basically war can be like jail guys surrounded by guys no chicks...you do the math. Much less likely but still. I guess you'd just need to have learned how to fight well. I personally think that if I was given the proper training I most likely could get out of the situation but that's me. The woman you described in your posy with the child and such on the other hand may get fucked literally and metaphorically. Sad but hey women in other situations in the army besides a fighter might have the same problem, guess they better be lucky.

Unfortunately in a draft, its possible to select many women like the one I described. Its just a bunch of numbers in a hat basically.

Most dont become proficient during basic training though. Although strength isnt the only factor that makes one a lean mean fighting machine, it can be important. If I have on a 75 pound backpack, weapons and ammo, it's going to be hard for me to perform any martial arts. Might not have time to take it off.
As far as I know, women go through exactly the same training in the German army as men do. And that training is very heavily based on long marches with full kit (moreso than the US Army, I've been told).
It's perfectly possible for them if they set their minds to it.

I also wouldn’t want that 6’3”, 250lbs soldier of theory. When’s the last time you saw someone weighing 250lbs climb a wall or rope? Maybe a 6’3” 220lbs at the most, but I’ve rarely seen someone weighing 250lbs who could carry their own weight in the infantry let alone a bunch of kit and their own weight. I’ve had to fireman carry a couple guys like that in my early training and just about had my knees blow out backwards! I told one guy the next time I was going to saw him in two and take two trips…They tend to leave the infantry because the endurance element kills them. They’re already packing a bunch of weight around before you issue them anything.

The Bruce

As far as I know, women go through exactly the same training in the German army as men do. And that training is very heavily based on long marches with full kit (moreso than the US Army, I've been told).
It's perfectly possible for them if they set their minds to it.
Indeed. Not to mention that some women are actually physically larger (or almost as large) as men in the army, so they should be able to handle the initial training. Even more so in Germany where women tend to be taller and well-built.

I also wouldn’t want that 6’3”, 250lbs soldier of theory. When’s the last time you saw someone weighing 250lbs climb a wall or rope? Maybe a 6’3” 220lbs at the most, but I’ve rarely seen someone weighing 250lbs who could carry their own weight in the infantry let alone a bunch of kit and their own weight. I’ve had to fireman carry a couple guys like that in my early training and just about had my knees blow out backwards! I told one guy the next time I was going to saw him in two and take two trips…They tend to leave the infantry because the endurance element kills them. They’re already packing a bunch of weight around before you issue them anything.

The Bruce
Being too tall can lead to problems, especially related to back strain.

I don't see why not, they can do the same job as men can plus there are also other jobs that do not required for them to be shooting at anyone.:gundge:

i know girls/women that are better shots then most men i know..but those men are pussies if they get outshot by a female..lol

problem is..and i know we are all high tech and shit..but if women get captured,they are way more vulnerable then men to torture,and on top of that..you still need boots on the ground..so women stay back and guys go fight on the ground?that aint equality..thats women getting plum jobs without the threat of death and dismemberment..and the guys get the shit end of the stick.
if women want to go military...then be a nurse or be a trooper in the mud with the other soldiers...and take what goes along with the contract..death/mutiation and torture...

i would be pissed if some women comes and orders me into a fight on the ground,while she is safe behind the lines cvause she is female..when she has no clue about real combat...no sexism here..just pointing out a reality.

alot of west point grads (men )got fragged in nam cause they knew nothing of real combat,but had no compunction sending men who did to there death.

and we all no women are capable of great compassion and of great evil....but in combat..i'll take a man next to me thanks,and i dont want orders from a benchdriver either..man or women..and it is not fair to give women the higher ranking and higher paying jobs without putting their asses on the line..same with guys..but chicks wont due combat..so how can they really know?
honest question here.

i guess if you cant fill the ranks..then you will need women to fill in,and yes,there are alot of jobs women could probably do more efficiently then men,so i guess...
women in the mil..ok...women in charge of fighting units...no

with the exception of air controllers.

I'd like to take a group of average men and average women.....same heights, weights, build, atheletic ability, and give them 6 -8 weeks of training and then test them in the end. Test them in the beginning too actually. I'd like to see the outcomes. Especially since my emphasis on the debate is body strength and up close hand to hand combat. I wonder if a man and a woman both 5'8 160 lbs could bench press, curl and squat the same amount of weight? No steroids.


I'd also make them arm wrestle.

Unfortunately in a draft, its possible to select many women like the one I described. Its just a bunch of numbers in a hat basically.


Very sadly true. But it's similar with men. You could very easily get a bunch of stay at home dads in your unit. I know a few guys who stay home one has a part time job only two of them are actually in shape and they wouldn't be the best for the military. Not because they are whimps but they just are the stay home types, lovers not fighters basically.

The Israelis actually stopped deploying women as front line infantry. The reason that they gave was Arab machismo didn’t allow them to be beaten by women. They would fight like lions rather than be beaten by women. Israelis didn’t like the results.

I also wouldn’t want that 6’3”, 250lbs soldier of theory. When’s the last time you saw someone weighing 250lbs climb a wall or rope? Maybe a 6’3” 220lbs at the most, but I’ve rarely seen someone weighing 250lbs who could carry their own weight in the infantry let alone a bunch of kit and their own weight. I’ve had to fireman carry a couple guys like that in my early training and just about had my knees blow out backwards! I told one guy the next time I was going to saw him in two and take two trips…They tend to leave the infantry because the endurance element kills them. They’re already packing a bunch of weight around before you issue them anything.

The Bruce

The point I was making was a substantial difference in size between the female soldier and the male.

You're right, they would have many things to think about but if you aren't getting enough people in the army and are desperate having men and women would be good. It simply isn't fair that men have to worry about being drafted and women don't. In my mind anyways.

That's my problem with the draft in general. If you can't get enough volunteers to protect your country, odds are the people can't care about it enough. And if we're at the point where all able-bodied men have been drafted, and we need to fill the role with women, odds are the war is just about over anyway.

And life's not fair. Especially in War.

I'd like to take a group of average men and average women.....same heights, weights, build, atheletic ability, and give them 6 -8 weeks of training and then test them in the end. Test them in the beginning too actually. I'd like to see the outcomes. Especially since my emphasis on the debate is body strength and up close hand to hand combat. I wonder if a man and a woman both 5'8 160 lbs could bench press, curl and squat the same amount of weight? No steroids.


I'd also make them arm wrestle.
Women have the same capacity to build muscle as men actually. Their muscle isn't inherently weaker. They simply tend to be smaller built. Women do have one physical difference though; their legs tend to be proportionately longer and almost as large as a male's. Women tend to have higher body fat than men, but assuming she works out enough she could develop similar muscle.

This is assuming close hand-to-hand combat will not involve martial arts training of course, in which case strength (or physical factors, more generally) would matter.

Even more so in Germany where women tend to be taller and well-built.
That's silly. German women are just like British or American women.

The Israelis actually stopped deploying women as front line infantry. The reason that they gave was Arab machismo didn’t allow them to be beaten by women. They would fight like lions rather than be beaten by women. Israelis didn’t like the results.
Which would have been interesting if the women actually did overwhelm them and their idiotic machismo.

i know girls/women that are better shots then most men i know..but those men are pussies if they get outshot by a female..lol

problem is..and i know we are all high tech and shit..but if women get captured,they are way more vulnerable then men to torture,and on top of that..you still need boots on the ground..so women stay back and guys go fight on the ground?that aint equality..thats women getting plum jobs without the threat of death and dismemberment..and the guys get the shit end of the stick.
if women want to go military...then be a nurse or be a trooper in the mud with the other soldiers...and take what goes along with the contract..death/mutiation and torture...

i would be pissed if some women comes and orders me into a fight on the ground,while she is safe behind the lines cvause she is female..when she has no clue about real combat...no sexism here..just pointing out a reality.

alot of west point grads (men )got fragged in nam cause they knew nothing of real combat,but had no compunction sending men who did to there death.

and we all no women are capable of great compassion and of great evil....but in combat..i'll take a man next to me thanks,and i dont want orders from a benchdriver either..man or women..and it is not fair to give women the higher ranking and higher paying jobs without putting their asses on the line..same with guys..but chicks wont due combat..so how can they really know?
honest question here.

i guess if you cant fill the ranks..then you will need women to fill in,and yes,there are alot of jobs women could probably do more efficiently then men,so i guess...
women in the mil..ok...women in charge of fighting units...no

with the exception of air controllers.

Over all I agree with you I just want to point out one thing to you. It has been proven that women can take severe pain better than men, men take less severe pain better than women. Not the same with all cases but overall true. It is guessed that that is why women give birth. (I don't care what anyone says that must hurt, the hole down there isn't very big and even newborns aren't all that small...)

That's silly. German women are just like British or American women.
I think they are taller on average. So are British women. Around 5ft7 I think? American women are closer to 5ft5.

Very sadly true. But it's similar with men. You could very easily get a bunch of stay at home dads in your unit. I know a few guys who stay home one has a part time job only two of them are actually in shape and they wouldn't be the best for the military. Not because they are whimps but they just are the stay home types, lovers not fighters basically.


Good point. Just as many out of shape men out there.

I guess I'm thinking about the post I made earlier about the body's ability to increase muscle strength and endurance. Muscle compostion and hormones play a large factor in the developement. Take a wimpy guy and a wimpy girl and put them through the exact same strength training for 6 weeks, he will end up measuring "Stronger" than she will on tests such as bench press, squat, curling, etc.

Men should be drafted, and so should women.

Maybe intentionally getting pregnant to avoid the draft should be a crime, too. It might be hard to prove in some cases, but they could go after women who have been taking birth control regularly... right up until they come up for the draft...

:eek:

Over all I agree with you I just want to point out one thing to you. It has been proven that women can take severe pain better than men, men take less severe pain better than women. Not the same with all cases but overall true. It is guessed that that is why women give birth. (I don't care what anyone says that must hurt, the hole down there isn't very big and even newborns aren't all that small...)
They also have better balance and flexibility. In any case, a fully trained woman can make an excellent combatant. I would rather have a powerful woman by my side than a man who can't fight as well as she can.

That's silly. German women are just like British or American women.

I dunno....I think the US has a few more....um-how do I say this? Inactive, couch potato types?

That's my problem with the draft in general. If you can't get enough volunteers to protect your country, odds are the people can't care about it enough. And if we're at the point where all able-bodied men have been drafted, and we need to fill the role with women, odds are the war is just about over anyway.

And life's not fair. Especially in War.

I am totally agreeing with you here. That is one of the reasons I don't like the draft in the first place.

Which would have been interesting if the women actually did overwhelm them and their idiotic machismo.
Which they could do quite easily, considering that they would be trained and equipped to Israeli standard, and with an army behind them.

Put a squad of men and a squad of women into some urban combat scenario (Iraq for example), and I am convinced that the results would be the same: Superior technology and training pwns physical strength.

There is a reason why women aren't on the front lines. Its becasue that If a man saw another dying man out on the field and then saw a dead women out there, he would go for the women and not the wounded man, men have been ingrained with this idea to protect women at all cost. That is why. Now if women are drafted to some non-combat areas, that is fine with me.

Good point. Just as many out of shape men out there.

I guess I'm thinking about the post I made earlier about the body's ability to increase muscle strength and endurance. Muscle compostion and hormones play a large factor in the developement. Take a wimpy guy and a wimpy girl and put them through the exact same strength training for 6 weeks, he will end up measuring "Stronger" than she will on tests such as bench press, squat, curling, etc.
In the given time period, yes. In an infinite time period, allowing them both to reach their full capacity, maybe not.

They also have better balance and flexibility. In any case, a fully trained woman can make an excellent combatant. I would rather have a powerful woman by my side than a man who can't fight as well as she can.

*nod*

me too.

Which they could do quite easily, considering that they would be trained and equipped to Israeli standard, and with an army behind them.

Put a squad of men and a squad of women into some urban combat scenario (Iraq for example), and I am convinced that the results would be the same: Superior technology and training pwns physical strength.
Agreed. Lots of training, yes, but this is war we are talking about, so dedication is important.

In the given time period, yes. In an infinite time period, allowing them both to reach their full capacity, maybe not.


I agree. Would be interesting to see that progression if they had no time constraints on them.

I dunno....I think the US has a few more....um-how do I say this? Inactive, couch potato types?
Well, maybe. I just wanted to say that German women are not all East German Olympic swimmers.

And if a fat guy goes into the army, they make him fit. He doesn't have much choice about that. Same goes for a woman, except she'll probably feel even stronger that she has something to prove and might work even harder to make up for any differences in genetic predisposition.

Originally Posted by Europa Maxima
They also have better balance and flexibility. In any case, a fully trained woman can make an excellent combatant. I would rather have a powerful woman by my side than a man who can't fight as well as she can.


*nod*

me too.


of course i would like to have a better and stonger fighter by my side than a pussyy, i think everyone would

Good point. Just as many out of shape men out there.

I guess I'm thinking about the post I made earlier about the body's ability to increase muscle strength and endurance. Muscle compostion and hormones play a large factor in the developement. Take a wimpy guy and a wimpy girl and put them through the exact same strength training for 6 weeks, he will end up measuring "Stronger" than she will on tests such as bench press, squat, curling, etc.

True in almost all cases but there are men who just aren't made to be strong and women who were born to kick ass and be tough bitches. Though you are most definitely probably 99% correct.

I agree. Would be interesting to see that progression if they had no time constraints on them.
Considering that muscle in women is the exact same as that in men, it would be indeed. The ratios may differ originally, but since this is an infinite time scenario, that isn't an issue.

There is a reason why women aren't on the front lines. Its becasue that If a man saw another dying man out on the field and then saw a dead women out there, he would go for the women and not the wounded man, men have been ingrained with this idea to protect women at all cost. That is why. Now if women are drafted to some non-combat areas, that is fine with me.

You are right. Men need to NOT PROTECT WOMEN SO MUCH! Treat a woman soldier like a male soldier. I a man did that and I was the wounded man especially if I figured I was worse of than the other guy I'd stab him for being a complete dumb ass.

I’m not a fan of the draft either. It dilutes the professionalism of the military. You have to provide dumbed down training to accommodate all the fresh bodies in a timely fashion. People who join the military for a career or experience then get stuck serving with whiners who really don’t want to be there. It diminishes their experience and effectiveness, and as a result people who wanted a challenging experience or career in the military leave, because the draft made it into a joke. There are always going to be whiners, but you don’t want them to be the norm.

The Bruce

You are right. Men need to NOT PROTECT WOMEN SO MUCH! Treat a woman soldier like a male soldier. I a man did that and I was the wounded man especially if I figured I was worse of than the other guy I'd stab him for being a complete dumb ass.
How else would a women toughen up anyway? There was this movie in which this drill sergeant was equally tough on the women as the men. He put up with no nonsense from either gender. I think that is how it should be done.

I’m not a fan of the draft either. It dilutes the professionalism of the military. You have to provide dumbed down training to accommodate all the fresh bodies in a timely fashion. People who join the military for a career or experience then get stuck serving with whiners who really don’t want to be there. It diminishes their experience and effectiveness, and as a result people who wanted a challenging experience or career in the military leave, because the draft made it into a joke. There are always going to be whiners, but you don’t want them to be the norm.

The Bruce
Neither am I in favour of drafting. I would much prefer a professional army opposed to a drafted one.

How else would a women toughen up anyway? There was this movie in which this drill sergeant was equally tough on the women as the men. He put up with no nonsense from either gender. I think that is how it should be done.

That is exactly how it should be. I guess in the army you should forget about gender and pretend you are all basically exactly the same. Because when you get down to it, to me anyways, there aren't many thing that make men and women very different.

What is really sort of sad is that men kept women from fighting for so long and so much that generally speaking women have been made weaker. Thanks a lot you assholes of the past! :P ;)

That is exactly how it should be. I guess in the army you should forget about gender and pretend you are all basically exactly the same. Because when you get down to it, to me anyways, there aren't many thing that make men and women very different.
Indeed. There are differences, but they aren't enough to justify not treating women the same as men in armies. What makes me laugh is when a drill sergeant treats a weaker man rough, yet when it comes to a weaker woman in this scenario he is nicer. Stupid.

What is really sort of sad is that men kept women from fighting for so long and so much that generally speaking women have been made weaker. Thanks a lot you assholes of the past! :P ;)
It annoys me too. Especially in the case of professional (or royal back then, I suppose) armies.

I found a few more links regarding women in the German army, and how they perform. Interesting issue, that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/598765.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/994676.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1097492.stm

And if you speak German:
http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd4w39bQESUGYpvqRaGKGbn4IsSB9b31fj_zcVP0A_YLc0IhyR0dFALNCMzY!/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfQV8xUUo!?yw_contentURL=/C1256EF4002AED30/N264HLF7470MMISDE/content.jsp
http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd4w39bQESUGYpvqRaGKGbn4IsSB9b31fj_zcVP0A_YLc0IhyR0dFALNCMzY!/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfQV8xUUs!?yw_contentURL=/C1256EF4002AED30/N264HLFG245MMISDE/content.jsp
http://www.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/bwde/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd4w39bQESUGYpvqRaGKGbn4IsSB9b31fj_zcVP0A_YLc0IhyR0dFALNCMzY!/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfQV8xUUk!?yw_contentURL=/C1256EF4002AED30/N264HLFC871MMISDE/content.jsp

Something about conscription in Germany - just regarding the whole "whiners who don't want to be there"-issue:
http://www.bmvg.de/portal/a/bmvg/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLt4w3DvUHSYGYRqbm-pEwsaDUPH1fj_zcVH1v_QD9gtyIckdHRUUAaswbIw!!/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfOV8zVU8!?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256F1200608B1B%2FW268SF2G013INFOEN%2Fcontent.jsp

http://www.militarywoman.org/

And this is a great list that debunks some of the myths (some of which we have even heard in this thread...) about women in the military:
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/myths.html

From what I have observed from hiking and outdoors stuff, I see no reason why women shouldn't be drafted.

Granted, they may in general be at a disadvantage in terms of upper body strength, and raw speed, but my experience has been that over longer distances, women are often more able than men. It just isn't usually noticable the first 3-4 days.

Given that the millitary seems to involve long hours of wandering aimlessly around the countryside with packs, I can't see a problem. Give them a rifle, and they'll be able to tab with the rest of them. There is the unarmed combat issue, but if it's down to that, you're pretty much fucked anyway.

From what I have observed from hiking and outdoors stuff, I see no reason why women shouldn't be drafted.

Granted, they may in general be at a disadvantage in terms of upper body strength, and raw speed, but my experience has been that over longer distances, women are often more able than men. It just isn't usually noticable the first 3-4 days.
It's said that by 2100, I think, that female athletes will actually outrun male ones. So raw speed will also no longer be an issue. Women also tend to have good balance and flexibility, and a high pain threshold, all of which are good to have.

Personally, I am dead against any draft, both because it weakens the army and is a gross violation of rights. But if there is, I say why should women be exculded? You have the same rights, you gatta have the same responcibilities (not that I think a draft is a reasonible responcibility for a government to demand of it's people)

*snip*
Thanks for all the links. :) I had no idea Germany did not allow women to enter the army. I actually read it today when studying EC law.

Not with deflective martial arts. Aikido being a prime example. If you strike, techniques will be used against you to redirect your energy. Even if you are versed in the art at an equal level, they are extremely difficult to reverse. Trying to hit a powerful blow could well get you thrown off balance. In addition, if you mix up 2-3 martial arts you could well become highly unpredictable, making it difficult even for a person with similar skill in those martial arts to keep up with you. Some of the offensive martial arts, such as Koshijutsu and Koppojutsu Ryu (the Bone martial arts) also focus far more on technique than strength. The one is pressure points and nerve strikes, and the other is bone-breaking. They are devastating, and are not strength based. Martial arts which focus on breaking joints are also more about technique than anything else, and are lethal.

A drafted soldier learning complicated martial arts and mastering them sufficiently to be able mix several martial arts while still doing everything else you have to do in basic training??!

A drafted soldier learning how to learn complicated martial arts and master them sufficiently to be able mix several martial arts while still doing everything else you have to do in basic training??!
How is this relevant to drafting though? I already said that this would apply to professional military personnel. I was referring specifically to martial arts there.

It's said that by 2100, I think, that female athletes will actually outrun male ones. So raw speed will also no longer be an issue. Women also tend to have good balance and flexibility, and a high pain threshold, all of which are good to have.

It's been my experience that they tend to be better at extreme endurance; (there is a bit of a hare and tortoise thing). Quite often, after struggling the first day or so, women tend to hit a better groove and have their shit more together, while a lot of men who are not properly prepared, end up in a right shit shape. (And I am talking about folks with roughly similar experience, i.e. people making the transistion from day hiking to long distance through hiking)

Of course, I realize that this is very different from basic training, which doesn't emphasize this type of skill that much. But I could see how in certain actual combat situations, women would be at an advantage.

I think it's just mostly a societal bias.

(Oh yeah, women bitch less about stupid shit, but that could be a self-selecting thing with through hiking).

Of course the site of a military that uses conscription is going to tell how much better an army it is because of it, but that’s what the office workers are paid to type. You’re not going to see any balanced views on a propaganda site, like the military’s own web page. Those pages are to tell everyone that everything is great, everything we have is great, and it would be great if you were a part of it. It's like going to a corporation's website to investigate how effective their policies are.

I noted in the BBC article that they still ruled that women would not be allowed in combat units were they could be expectations of hand to hand combat:

“Last October, the court ruled that the UK did not have to let women into the Royal Marines, where all members have to be ready for hand-to-hand combat.”

It has been proven that women can take severe pain better than men, men take less severe pain better than women

I am going to call you on that, ok? Men take pain better. They are, however, far more likely to complain about it, and there are biological reasons for this.

Women on average miss more days of work than women, are more likely to seek treatment for injury, and generally live longer.

Why do men whine about getting hurt? Because our instincts tell us to. Little girls scream, as do some women(thats an alarm instinct, and shows the social physiology of females). Men dont do this. There is a lot of nurture tied up in this nature, but most men grow out of crying about smacking their head, or bashing their shins.

A female scream is an alarm to the group that danger is near, at least perceived. I hate it when little girls scream, I always think they are dying, when they are really just jumping around in a sprinkler. Thats instinct rearing its head too.

A man complains about his injuries because its an alarm too. Its saying, "i may be badly hurt". With our soft modern lives, we tend to over do it though.

But the real test of pain resistance is this: Can you get up and carry on after recieving an injury or illness?

In a hunter/gatherer society, it makes sense for the women to quiet down about their injuries and seek immediate from the social group. Many animals also try to hide the existance of injury to avoid the attention of predators.

For the traditional hunter, the man, it makes sense to draw attention to the injury, get back on your feet, and get back to the hunt. Your fellow hunters are relying on you. They need to know the situation, and they still need your help.

Men's lives are more filled with the types of injuries that are serious, we are exposed to body damage that causes shock, are more accostomed to pain, and tend to ignore it in favour of the activity that caused it.

Think of two people, a man and a woman, both are hammering nails, and both wack their thumbs equally hard. Which one goes back to hammering first? Who complains more? The man in both counts. Who shows better pain resistance, as measured by shrugging off the injury? The man.

That being said, it proves that women might be a lot smarter. "if it hurts, dont do it!"

It's been my experience that they tend to be better at extreme endurance; (there is a bit of a hare and tortoise thing). Quite often, after struggling the first day or so, women tend to hit a better groove and have their shit more together, while a lot of men who are not properly prepared, end up in a right shit shape. (And I am talking about folks with roughly similar experience, i.e. people making the transistion from day hiking to long distance through hiking)

Of course, I realize that this is very different from basic training, which doesn't emphasize this type of skill that much. But I could see how in certain actual combat situations, women would be at an advantage.
If a woman is properly trained and can actually make use of these advantages, yes. Technique is the most important factor, especially in deflective martial arts, yet with other arts she could well put these advantages to use.

I think it's just mostly a societal bias.
Definitely. As well as social conditioning.

*snip*
Assuming the man and woman differ in size. Women have a better pain threshold, ceteris paribus, mainly due to both build and their higher flexibility. They are also more able of handling extreme weather conditions. So essentially a woman of the same size will have better endurance.

I noted in the BBC article that they still ruled that women would not be allowed in combat units were they could be expectations of hand to hand combat:

“Last October, the court ruled that the UK did not have to let women into the Royal Marines, where all members have to be ready for hand-to-hand combat.”
He was referring to Germany though. Either way, I find that idiotic that women cannot join the Royal Marines in Britain. Times have changed. Many women are in top condition and able of high level training. It's time the Army adapted.

Of course the site of a military that uses conscription is going to tell how much better an army it is because of it, but that’s what the office workers are paid to type.
I'll give you that. My point was merely that at least in Germany, it's not simply a draft. If you don't want to be there, you don't have to - there are alternatives to military service.

I noted in the BBC article that they still ruled that women would not be allowed in combat units were they could be expectations of hand to hand combat:
“Last October, the court ruled that the UK did not have to let women into the Royal Marines, where all members have to be ready for hand-to-hand combat.”
In the UK, that is. In Germany, women can now join Kampfschwimmer, KSK or any other special force.
But then, special forces have a lot of extensive training. When it comes to hand-to-hand combate, units like the Royal Marines would receive a lot of training anyways, and then you can easily fit the necessary martial arts in that are needed to cancel out any advantage in body mass or physical strength.

In the UK, that is. In Germany, women can now join Kampfschwimmer, KSK or any other special force.
But then, special forces have a lot of extensive training. When it comes to hand-to-hand combate, units like the Royal Marines would receive a lot of training anyways, and then you can easily fit the necessary martial arts in that are needed to cancel out any advantage in body mass or physical strength.
Exactly. It's a matter of dedication and hard work, as well as actual fighting spirit. I find it odd that the RM are actually closed to women.

Women have a better pain threshold, ceteris paribus, mainly due to both build and their higher flexibility.


ARe you comparing Decibels to body mass? ;) I dont see how build and flexibility have anything to do with pain resistance.

[QUOTE=Europa Maxima
They are also more able of handling extreme weather conditions.[/QUOTE]

Quite agreed. Shorter limbs and higher body fat allow for a broader enviromental tolerance.

Ther was quite a debate about that in regards to the mormons heading to Utah. They traveled over winter, and many of the men died due to exposure. It was suggested that this lead the leaders to allow men to take several wives.

Arguements against this included the fact that victorian men would have fed the women before themselves, the women traveled in the carts and wagons, and the men walked and were exposed to the elements, as well as fatigue(a great killer).

I'm for it based on equality and all that, but I bet my opinion would change rapidly if someone I knew was drafted. Very rapidly. Call me sexist, but I'd rather take their place than let them have their fair chance to die.

If a woman is properly trained and can actually make use of these advantages, yes. Technique is the most important factor, especially in deflective martial arts, yet with other arts she could well put these advantages to use.

I was actually thinking more of situations like the falklands, where the infantry had to pick up and walk 70-80 miles with all their shit in a few days.

If you can move infantry around without lots of vehicle support, that would seem to me to be a huge advantage in many theaters. All female companies would have the edge there I believe.

ARe you comparing Decibels to body mass? ;) I dont see how build and flexibility have anything to do with pain resistance.
Flexibility means elasticity really. Elastic bodies absorb energy better than rigid ones. They aren't as prone to damage.

For what other reason than a size difference, and perhaps a differing body fat level, would a woman be less able to absorb pain anyway?

Quite agreed. Shorter limbs and higher body fat allow for a broader enviromental tolerance.

Ther was quite a debate about that in regards to the mormons heading to Utah. They traveled over winter, and many of the men died due to exposure. It was suggested that this lead the leaders to allow men to take several wives.

Arguements against this included the fact that victorian men would have fed the women before themselves, the women traveled in the carts and wagons, and the men walked and were exposed to the elements, as well as fatigue(a great killer).
Even so, research so far has shown that their environmental tolerance is higher, despite what may be seen as alternative explanations.

Even so, research so far has shown that their environmental tolerance is higher, despite what may be seen as alternative explanations.

My experience tends to confirm this.

I was actually thinking more of situations like the falklands, where the infantry had to pick up and walk 70-80 miles with all their shit in a few days.

If you can move infantry around without lots of vehicle support, that would seem to me to be a huge advantage in many theaters. All female companies would have the edge there I believe.
Indeed.

Flexibility means elasticity really. Elastic bodies absorb energy better than rigid ones. They aren't as prone to damage.


Ah! Less prone to serious injury. I can agree with you there, Thats not pain resistance, thats injury resistance.

Again, I totally agree they can handle enviromental factors better.

Its not that a smaller torso mass is better; larger ones retain heat better, but its proven that shorter limbs lose less heat, and of course, a smaller body needs less energy.

Did you know that a appropriately sized woman has 80 000+ calories of fat around her hips, and this is what she needs to take a baby to term in times of famine?

My platoon in battle school started with some women but they all failed to make it. They just weren’t strong enough for the training and smaller people got worn down faster. Some lasted a few weeks. You got pushed well past your physical limits all the time. No sleep, training all the time, and no let up on the stress was too much for a lot of people. Some of the cried because they didn’t like getting yelled at when they were tired. One of them even had a crush on the evil platoon commander, before she completely fell apart under the strain of training after two weeks. Mind you, after the first two days, a bunch of guys from my course wanted to go home to mommy too when they realized what they were in for and a lot of them were guys. All the guys we lost after that were course ending injuries (broken arms, dislocated shoulders, impalements requiring hospitalization, and that sort of thing). We were all pretty banged up by the end of the course. I don’t think anyone graduating didn’t have some minor injury or another.

I have met a couple good female soldiers, soldiers I was glad to have in my section, but the ones in my battle school course were terrible. The one in my platoon I remember was a marathon runner who had a good head on her shoulders and didn’t flinch easily. She didn’t sleep around and you didn’t need to tell her anything twice. Of course even she had a bit of a problem with the carrying of heavy loads, but she never complained.

Most of the hand to hand training I got was all using the rifle and bayonet. They did bring in a civilian martial artist to teach classes once, but it was voluntary training. Realistically, mostly the hand to hand training is just to build confidence more than anything else. I’ve heard that it’s also so that you get used to getting banged around a bit to prepare you better.

Ah! Less prone to serious injury. I can agree with you there, and as I said, I totally agree they can handle enviromental factors better.
Yes. Generally a flexible body is better off in that regard.

Its not that a smaller torso mass is better; larger ones retain heat better, but its proven that shorter limbs lose less head, and of course, a smaller body needs less energy.

Did you know that a appropriately sized woman has 80 000+ calories of fat around her hips, and this is what she needs to take a baby to term in times of famine?
Yes. It's quite impressive really how their bodies adapt around child birth.

Most of the hand to hand training I got was all using the rifle and bayonet. They did bring in a civilian martial artist to teach classes once, but it was voluntary training. Realistically, mostly the hand to hand training is just to build confidence more than anything else. I’ve heard that it’s also so that you get used to getting banged around a bit to prepare you better.
I think in special force units and elite military units it's actually compulsory. As for getting used to getting banged around, it'd depend on the art. Some of them actually involve training with little harm, since actually using the techniques can cause severe damage when you don't know how to use them, to both you and your partner. Krav Maga involves a heavy physical training component from what I know.

My platoon in battle school started with some women but they all failed to make it. They just weren’t strong enough for the training and smaller people got worn down faster. Some lasted a few weeks. You got pushed well past your physical limits all the time. No sleep, training all the time, and no let up on the stress was too much for a lot of people. Some of the cried because they didn’t like getting yelled at when they were tired. One of them even had a crush on the evil platoon commander, before she completely fell apart under the strain of training after two weeks. Mind you, after the first two days, a bunch of guys from my course wanted to go home to mommy too when they realized what they were in for and a lot of them were guys. All the guys we lost after that were course ending injuries (broken arms, dislocated shoulders, impalements requiring hospitalization, and that sort of thing). We were all pretty banged up by the end of the course. I don’t think anyone graduating didn’t have some minor injury or another.

That sounds more like a problem with whom, and how, they recruit into battle school, rather than the fact that they allow women on the course. I mean, women have climbed everest. I can't imagine that millitary training is harder than that. (No offence ;) ). Probably they should be more selective about who they allow on the course in the first place.

That sounds more like a problem with whom, and how, they recruit into battle school, rather than the fact that they allow women on the course. I mean, women have climbed everest. I can't imagine that millitary training is harder than that. (No offence ;) ). Probably they should be more selective about who they allow on the course in the first place.
Yep, it's largely a matter of who was recruited rather than woman in general. As he said though, he has met some good female soldiers.

I think the only other case of actual hand to hand training was a class in taking out sentries without your rifle. There were courses available in unarmed combat and they were popular and painful. Not a lot of light contact.

Everyone should be drafted, technically, then actually serving should be voluntary (though highly reccomended).


Dude, no one would mess with us if we had 200 million+ people in our military. Sorta.

I think the only other case of actual hand to hand training was a class in taking out sentries without your rifle. There were courses available in unarmed combat and they were popular and painful. Not a lot of light contact.
I can imagine this being the case in a military installation though. I think there is less fear of taking a blow than with civilian training centres (although, there are always exceptions).

i don't know if we'd need to draft them in a realistic scenario.

I did find it very frustrating that when I joined there was a policy of trying to get women to join the military and none of it seemed to be handled right. For instance, they spent millions trying to make the perfect combat bra and realized that one bra doesn’t fit all and that it was best just to let the women buy their own bras. I heard about one course where a sergeant went so far to treat everyone equally that he made the women shave their faces!

I even followed the coaching examples of the guy who coached the US National Soccer team to victory, who said that women don’t react well to yelling and you can get more out of them through positive reinforcement. There were still times when yelling was necessary to get bodies moving, if they hesitated. I really did my best to support women in the military but I have to say that in most cases they sure didn’t make it easy to have that view and after a while I began to have my doubts.

My experience has been that extreme and endurance sports attract the kind of women who would be great in the military, but they don’t seem to be the type of women who join the military. It was a bit hard to take, seeing a long line of weak, chain smoking, short women, with arms as thick as a rifle barrel, who weren’t very smart, and lacked any confidence, decide to join up. They certainly didn’t do a lot for the cause of women in the military. There was a big flurry of them in my last couple of years and I blame Xena.

That sounds more like a problem with whom, and how, they recruit into battle school, rather than the fact that they allow women on the course. I mean, women have climbed everest. I can't imagine that millitary training is harder than that. (No offence ;) ). Probably they should be more selective about who they allow on the course in the first place.

well said.

i wish people would stop always presenting men and women as polar opposites. while the term 'gender' is something that has to have opposites (meaning the word transgender is a contradiction in terms) it is a socially constructed term with no actually verifiable traits applicable to either gender, the reality, ie biological sex, is one of individuals having certain traits being located on different points on a sliding scale between male and female with hermaphrodites occupying the very narrow middle ground between them and transexuals being just a trifle confused (some people may be 'all man' or all woman' but they are probaly as rare as hermaphrodites, most people have varying degrees of male and female 'characteristics' in them). according to one of those bbc test thingies they have occasionally on their website i have a 100% female mind although i can confirm i have an entirely male physiology, makes me wonder what is actually going on in the minds of transexuals - are they confusing gender with sex or what?... sorry, tangent, too much beer. anyway back to my point - it shouldnt actually matter what gender or even observable biological sex a person has because that has little actual bearing on their abilities.

i don't know if we'd need to draft them in a realistic scenario.

Honestly, if it came to a draft for emergency reasons - in the US at least - I rather imagine that the shit would have already hit the fan so very, very, big time by that point all bets about who should go where, and who should do what, would be off. And we'd probably beyond caring about political niceties to boot.

Apart from that, look out the window at the US population in general. Considering the proportion of pathetic man-boobed men out there, the pickings for basic training in a general mobilization of the population would be rather slim. It could well be that we'd have to draft women to make up the numbers. (I am assuming the situation is not one where the Army has the leisure to run "fat camps" to prepare people for basic).

Could use them for certain things but really when you enact a draft you want to replace the soldiers that are dying on the front lines. Woman don't fill this role so it really wouldn't be as effective as you might think. Wouldn't you rather have soldiers that can fill any role including the front lines and keep the others at home making weapons and such? THus men are more desirable in a draft.


My brother in law is a Naval Officer, and he taught me something valuable to know about the Military: Only 1 in every 8 soldiers, sailors, Airmen, and Marines are actually front line combattants. That means for every Grunt aggitating gravel, you've got 7 people in the rear to support him. THIS is where drafting women becomes important. It would be alot like the women going to work in the factories during WWII. the Women do the work in the rear, so the men can do the fighting up front. I do, however, see a gradual shift starting towards women in combat. According to a law passed by the Congress, women are not permitted in armed GROUND combat. This does not, however, exempt women from serving as pilots and or crewmembers aboard Combat Aircraft, and does not exempt women from serving aboard Combattant Naval Vessels. (Actually, the Navy, Marines and Air Force all have female combat pilots, and almost all Navy combattants except Subs carry female crewmembers. During April 2003, a female A-10 Warthog pilot flew into combat over Baghdad, and her plane was heavily damaged, but she managed to fly it home.)

A very real problem in the military is rape by their own side. In Iraq today, in the US army, there are numerous cases of women dying of dehydration because they refuse to drink water after 3-4 in the afternoon for fear of being raped on the way to the latrine at night.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013006J.shtml

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/31584/

http://info.detnews.com/weblog/index.cfm?blogid=6419

"Three out of every 100 military women say that they were sexually assaulted. That compares to – the equivalent civilian rate for women that age – it’s about 3 in a thousand," says Berkowitz. "So if the defense department numbers are right, the problem in the military could be as much as 10 times the civilian problem."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/17/60minutes/main674791.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/30/aberdeen/


I realize that this is not so much a case for women not being in the military but a case for some people getting hit upside the head with a shovel.

Men and women are different. Equality is not forcing one gender to conform to the expectations and paradigms of the other. The armed forces were not designed for or by women; they were designed by men, for men. Untill women have been sufficiently integrated into the army on a voluntary basis, (so that this has an on flow effect for the overtly masculine culture of the armed forces), drafting women is a greater hardship as they are being forced not only to partake in armed service, but to do so on the terms of the opposite gender.

In fact men and women are different. Putting temperment aside, women give birth. Their reproductive health is more fragile and their reproductive life span is much shorter. For a man to serve 5 years in the military (drafted into combat) is to take a tenth or less of their reproductive span from them. For a women at best, it takes about a third off their reproductive life span, and in at worst jeopardises their fertility entirely, (note that men who exercise and diet excessively still are able to produce sperm, where as women very quickly cease to menstruate under such conditions).

How are we to enforce a draft without either making pregnant women serve and then ripping their children from their breast at birth, or simply taking over control of their reproductivity entirely? Men are not forced to cease reproduction, and they neither give birth nor breast feed. The fact is it would be a greater deprivation for women (simply because their reproductive span is much shorter and their fertility more vulnerable), and further it would be more disruptive to society. In most Anglo-Western societies women still remain the primary care givers.

In short I dont either the armed forces or society is ready for female drafting, and certainly drafting women is (objectively) a much greater hardship in terms of the long term effects on their ability to have a family once the war or their tour of duty is over. Further the cost of drafting women includes either draconian control over their reproductivity such as is not exercised over men, or having pregnant women serving before ripping their new-borns away from them.

I saw the other post about the normal draft and I wondered about people's opinion on the possible women's draft. The government has thought of making a draft for women, after all women are already in the army and want equality. I think the draft in general is not a good thing but making a women version would make more sense. Both genders can fight and both are basically the same so why not? Curious as to the opinions of others. Obviously it could be neatly avoided by getting pregnant but then again I'm not sure how many women would do that (though I'm sure some would.) to get out of going into the military if there was a draft... Anyways I have jabbered I'm done for now. : ) (Play nice...;) )
I believe all military drafts are wrong, and would oppose them all equally.

Here in the UK,the MOD tested womens capabilities as front line soldiers a few years ago and made female recruits do the same physical training men do and found that the women were getting injured at a rate of 4 or 5 out of every 10 recruits on average compared to 1 out 10 for male recruits and these were tough,phisically fit women and not 'soft' on any account.

Also one of the reasons women are not front line fighters is hygiene,as women have periods and have to use tampons or sanitary towels it causes a bit of a headache for commanders as the women on their period wont be able to wade rivers etc so this would have to be taken into account when planning combat operations, whereas men's main hygiene concern in to just keep the 'wee man' clean.

Also there is the cost of training, as said before men are,in a lot of cases,are stronger than women and the military doesn't want to pay to train people and then lose that money when they cant do it and quit.It costs 000's to train a soldier and the military will want to keep waste to a minimum.

Oh and women are allowed in the Royal Marines,although out of the many who tried only(as far as i know)1 has been able to complete the training.

Also one of the reasons women are not front line fighters is hygiene,as women have periods and have to use tampons or sanitary towels it causes a bit of a headache for commanders as the women on their period wont be able to wade rivers etc so this would have to be taken into account when planning combat operations, whereas men's main hygiene concern in to just keep the 'wee man' clean.


Wait, "women on their period wont be able to wade rivers etc"? Since when does having a period make it impossible for a woman to wade? I know the military is often a bit dense when it comes to females, but they might try, you know, talking to an actual woman about what it takes to use a tampon. The "hygene" issues with an average woman's period are no more significant than the "issues" a man would have after going number two.

In fact men and women are different. Putting temperment aside, women give birth. Their reproductive health is more fragile and their reproductive life span is much shorter. For a man to serve 5 years in the military (drafted into combat) is to take a tenth or less of their reproductive span from them. For a women at best, it takes about a third off their reproductive life span, and in at worst jeopardises their fertility entirely, (note that men who exercise and diet excessively still are able to produce sperm, where as women very quickly cease to menstruate under such conditions).

How are we to enforce a draft without either making pregnant women serve and then ripping their children from their breast at birth, or simply taking over control of their reproductivity entirely? Men are not forced to cease reproduction, and they neither give birth nor breast feed. The fact is it would be a greater deprivation for women (simply because their reproductive span is much shorter and their fertility more vulnerable), and further it would be more disruptive to society. In most Anglo-Western societies women still remain the primary care givers.

In short I dont either the armed forces or society is ready for female drafting, and certainly drafting women is (objectively) a much greater hardship in terms of the long term effects on their ability to have a family once the war or their tour of duty is over. Further the cost of drafting women includes either draconian control over their reproductivity such as is not exercised over men, or having pregnant women serving before ripping their new-borns away from them.
I'd say all of this is an excellent argument for changing the way the military treats ALL parents. Men SHOULD be relieved of duty if they become fathers, and they should be expected to go be with their families and their children. It is a disgrace that the military shows such low regard for the importance of male parents.

All parents in the military should be given leave in the event that they, or their partner, become pregnant. All parents should be given time to be with their children and their families. Using "biology" as some kind of justification for enforcing traditional gender roles is cowardly, and I would like to hope our military is not a den of cowards.

A very real problem in the military is rape by their own side. In Iraq today, in the US army, there are numerous cases of women dying of dehydration because they refuse to drink water after 3-4 in the afternoon for fear of being raped on the way to the latrine at night.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013006J.shtml

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/31584/

http://info.detnews.com/weblog/index.cfm?blogid=6419

"Three out of every 100 military women say that they were sexually assaulted. That compares to – the equivalent civilian rate for women that age – it’s about 3 in a thousand," says Berkowitz. "So if the defense department numbers are right, the problem in the military could be as much as 10 times the civilian problem."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/17/60minutes/main674791.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/US/9704/30/aberdeen/


I realize that this is not so much a case for women not being in the military but a case for some people getting hit upside the head with a shovel.
The fact that the American military is actively expelling gay soldiers, while lowering recruitment standards to admit criminals and individuals with a history of violence and mental disturbances, does not help this situation either.

Never going to happen. If they're ever going to do a draft, they're going to be pretty desperate to start drafting Women.

I'm not being sexist or anything, but the guys have more raw strength than women (not saying women are deficient. They can stand higher Gs than men).

I believe all military drafts are wrong, and would oppose them all equally.
Agreed :fluffle:

Women should be treated the same as men *hem, Susan B. Anthony*, however, the concet of having a separate draft does not conform to this idea. There can be only one lottery in order to ensure fairness. If it's separate, well, we saw what happened with 'separate but equal' (see Plessy v. Ferguson and/or Brown v. BOE).
But ultimatly, there really shouldn't be a draft. It seems unconstitutional to force people to fight wars, especially ones they were against from square one. The government should be caring for its people, not trying to control others.

If women want true equality then we should have to accept the bad with the good. That means fighting on the front lines and being drafted along with the men.
I'm a woman and I think this should be the way it is. I think we should get equal pay when we get the same job and do the same work. And I think fathers should get paternity leave along with the mothers.

Wait, "women on their period wont be able to wade rivers etc"? Since when does having a period make it impossible for a woman to wade? I know the military is often a bit dense when it comes to females, but they might try, you know, talking to an actual woman about what it takes to use a tampon. The "hygene" issues with an average woman's period are no more significant than the "issues" a man would have after going number two.

What i was trying to say is that if a women goes into water while using a sanitary towel/tampon and it gets wet and absorbs a lot of water it isnt very useful to the women(i might be wrong,im a man) and she has to stop and change it,not good if you have to remain on the move. And i dont think many women would like blood running down their legs due to a waterlogged sanitary towel or tampon.

You mention about a man going for "a number two", they only do that when they are resting.

Never going to happen. If they're ever going to do a draft, they're going to be pretty desperate to start drafting Women.

I'm not being sexist or anything, but the guys have more raw strength than women (not saying women are deficient. They can stand higher Gs than men).
But it's been proven scientifically by the Navy that women are better survivers and have a higher tollerence for pain. We survive longer in the cold, heat, and without water and food.
Just becuase we are physically weaker doens't mean we would be a weakness on the battle field.
In fact the only reason I'm not in the Air Force right now is that I have mild scoliosis. I've only picked up a gun once in my life and fired it and I'm a naturally great shot. Bull's eye first try...It was AWESOME!!!
Anyways...
Men and women may not have the same strengths but we're equals. Each gender has something to bring to the fight.
And preventing one gender from doing something based soaly on gender is wrong. Same with the whole sexuality debate. They are firing perfectly good solders because they're gay...AFTER they spent millions of dollars on their education and training. We are losing to many to this STUPID act...But that is for another thread.
...I think I might start one if I can't already find one...

What i was trying to say is that if a women goes into water while using a sanitary towel/tampon and it gets wet and absorbs a lot of water it isnt very useful to the women(i might be wrong,im a man) and she has to stop and change it,not good if you have to remain on the move. And i dont think many women would like blood running down their legs due to a waterlogged sanitary towel or tampon.

You mention about a man going for "a number two", they only do that when they are resting.
Honestly, that's what's great about tampons. When the woman is in water they don't suck up the water. Water doesn't just flow into a woman like that. That wouldn't be a problem.

I don't see anything that speaks against it.
It's quite unfair actually that only men are drafted and women are not, so in the name of equality this should be changed.

I'm a female vet. I know what I'm capable of. So does every other adult female, veteran or no. Convincing certain men of this is, and always has been, the real challenge.

You'll notice it's almost always men who make blanket statements along the lines of "women shouldn't" do thus and such. Just as it's almost always men who get fired up about abortion and want to universally do one thing or another, irrespective of the individual situation. They tend to call it "protecting". It isn't.

Yes, the armed services place an additional burden upon women in many ways. That burden is not a disability, or a reason not to serve. Women have a stake in their own freedom, their own government, their own nation. They have a right to participate; that's what freedom is: accepting the rights of the individual and granting him or her the liberty to act in concert with those rights even if we do not personally agree with the actions they take. That is the freedom that I and every other veteran have served to protect.

If a woman chooses to take up her cross, knowing what it will cost her and accepting that cost, who are any of us to stop her?

Honestly, that's what's great about tampons. When the woman is in water they don't suck up the water. Water doesn't just flow into a woman like that. That wouldn't be a problem.

This is one of many reasons why women should be making their own decisions about what they can and cannot do with their bodies (and their lives). There are too many men who are ignorant about a woman's body, its functions, and its capabilities.

My brother in law is a Naval Officer, and he taught me something valuable to know about the Military: Only 1 in every 8 soldiers, sailors, Airmen, and Marines are actually front line combattants. That means for every Grunt aggitating gravel, you've got 7 people in the rear to support him. THIS is where drafting women becomes important. It would be alot like the women going to work in the factories during WWII. the Women do the work in the rear, so the men can do the fighting up front. I do, however, see a gradual shift starting towards women in combat. According to a law passed by the Congress, women are not permitted in armed GROUND combat. This does not, however, exempt women from serving as pilots and or crewmembers aboard Combat Aircraft, and does not exempt women from serving aboard Combattant Naval Vessels. (Actually, the Navy, Marines and Air Force all have female combat pilots, and almost all Navy combattants except Subs carry female crewmembers. During April 2003, a female A-10 Warthog pilot flew into combat over Baghdad, and her plane was heavily damaged, but she managed to fly it home.)
How sad...to think that the USA would not allow woman to participate in ground combat. The world disgusts me more by the day. :rolleyes:

I'll post this because I have a feeling almost no one bothered to read the link when I first posted it.
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/myths.html

14 Myths regarding women in the Military

1. The Israeli Army claim:
The legend goes that Israel removed women from combat because a group of them were captured and horribly mistreated - or that Arabs would "fight to the death" to avoid being captured by women.
The reality is that those few Jewish women who happened to have fallen into Arab hands before the Six Day War were treated with respect and returned in a few days.
The "fight to the death" theory is also not so - when Israeli women went out on patrol their opponents surrendered or retreated rather than engage in battle - for religious reasons - a man killed by a woman cannot have a desirable after-life.
Also in 1995 the Israeli Supreme Court ruled against the ban on combat training that had been enacted for religious reasons - not capture stories - in 1949.

2. The "women were not in combat in the Gulf War" claim:
The media and some parts of the Pentagon decided that women were not in combat in the Gulf. The phrase "in combat" has more definitons than a dictionary, including separate definitions by each branch of the military and the by U.S. Congress. In advocating for women in combat it is not advocacy for women to engage in hand-to-hand gut slitting direct ground combat - women are still excluded from that and many have no desire to even think about qualifying. Perhaps combat roles would be a better term.
The reality is that women certainly performed combat roles in the Gulf - they flew refueling planes, flew troop transport aircraft and helicopters, fired Patriots that destroyed Scud missiles, supplied mechanized brigades with fuel and ammunition, loaded bombs, operated radios, radar, and military vehicles. They marched through mine fields, maintained aircraft, guarded perimeters, accepted the surrender of Iraqi soldiers and subsequently pulled guard duty. Women were taken prisoner and some lost their lives in the Gulf - is that not being in combat?

Speaking of direct ground combat one has to wonder about all these male military "experts" who say they have been there. For according to two studies cited in "Ground Zero" - "only 15 percent of Infantryman in World War Two ever fired their weapons in combat and fewer than 15 percent of the hundreds of thousand of military personnel who served in Vietnam are estimated to have been in a firefight." Although 3,403,100 troops served in the Southeast Asia Theatre, the number of troops within the borders of Vietnam was 2,594,000 -at any given time roughly 400,000 to 500,000 were there - peak strength was 543,482 at one time.

3. The Desert Storm "nondeployable for pregnancy" claim:
Columnists and commentators had a field day with this one - distorted statistics hit the press like pot bellies on beer guzzlers. They threw numbers around that practically had the whole military pregnant and undeployable.
The reality is that yes some women were undeployable for reasons due to pregnancy -as were many more men undeployable for substance abuse, alcoholism, court martials, sports related injuries, off-duty fight related injuries and pending charges of domestic violence.
According to Linda Bird Francke in "Ground Zero" - "No official records were kept on the impact of pregnancy on women's deployabilty rate to the Gulf war or their evacuation from the Gulf."
According to General Holm in "Women in the Military" - "after the war DOD reported to Congress that the deployment of women was "highly successful".

4. The "extra time going to the bathroom" claim:
Critics and opponents of women in the military often state that "women will delay troops in the field by having to undress to go to the bathroom" - or "women pilots take more time on relief breaks".
The reality is that intelligent miltary women have discovered female products like "The Lady J" and "Freshette" - female portable urinals used by female campers, aviators, and mountain climbers. As for the other necessary function - both genders have to bottom strip for that. So face it guyz - the day has come when women can stand up to - well you know the rest.

5. The "women can't shoot and haven't had any weapons training" claim:
Simply not true.
The Army began individual weapons training for women in 1975 and the Marines caught up in 1985. The Army also trained combat support women in light anti-tank weapons, M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, claymore mines, and M-60 machine guns. Many military women learned to shoot long before it became "official" - Carol T. Kirk, MAJ, USA (Ret), was the first woman to be awarded the German Army Marksmanship medal. She qualified for the bronze medal in 1972 while an Army Nurse at the 30th Field Hospital in Germany.

6. The "women pilots and astronauts can't take the G-forces" claim:
Opponents of women finally getting to fly combat aircraft, and some male pilots, bandied this about in trying to prevent women from flying the newer, faster, aircraft - most of which were designated as combat planes.
The reality is that women can counteract G-forces because their physiology makes them more tolerant of G-forces than men.
(G-forces push down on a body, they overcome the ability of the heart to pump oxygenated blood upward into the brain. Blood begins to pool in the lower extremities, while blood circulation to the head is reduced. When blood circulation to the head is sufficiently reduced, the oxygen supply to the brain becomes insufficient.)
Height, not strength or gender, is the most negative factor in a pilot's ability to tolerate G stress. Because women have a smaller body mass the shorter distance between their heart and brain makes it easier for them to counteract the G-forces. Advances in centrifuge technology and training , special exercises, and newer G-suits are making marked improvement in aircrew G-tolerance.

7. The really rampant "dual physical standards" claim:
The media is always harping on this and so are the men in the military - in part they are right to complain - but this issue has more sides than the pentagon. Not only are there dual standards, there are probably octuple standards.
Each branch has different standards - not only for women, but for men, for older men, and "invisible" standards for the higher ranking officers and NCOs.
Nothing is standard between the services with respect to physical fitness requirements and they have been admonished to change them and catch up to fair and equitable standards based on gender, age and varied physiological abilities.
The GAO recently looked into this issue in depth - here is a brief from their report -
"There is a widespread perception that the existence of lower physical fitness standards for women amounts to a "double standard." However, the physical fitness program is actually intended only to maintain the general fitness and health of military members and fitness testing is not aimed at assessing the ability to perform specific missions or military jobs. Consequently, DOD officials and experts agree that it is appropriate to adjust the standards for physiological differences among service members by age and gender."

One hopes that these changes will address the fact that the ability to do 30 pushups does not constitute being a better soldier - especially when measured against the ability to do aerobic exercises - given that women can sustain aerobic exercises longer than men. Or that pitting upper body strength against lower body strength has anything to do with the ability to operate complicated equipment, fly jet aircraft, or fire sophisticated weapons. Brains, not brawn should be the watchword.
Hasn't anyone noticed that separate standards are a way of life in the rest of the world? Professional golf has the PGA and the LPGA - different strokes for different folks. Basketball has the NBA and the WNBA - neither sex is expected to play the other's game. The Olympics has men's events and women's events - so what's the big deal about the military creating different sets of standards for age, sex, and as qualifiers for particular jobs?

The rules are totally different with respect to physical standards for combat arms. According to Lt General Claudia Kennedy the following is the reality:
"These are the facts: Soldiers enlisting in the combat arms, who are by regulatory definition all men , undergo both Basic and Advanced Individual Training in gender-segregated (all male) units in what is known as One Station Unit Training. Therefore there are no women trainees to "weaken" the combat arms as political critics persist in implying. Their argument is without merit."

8. The "women can't throw grenades because they're biologically different" claim:
A few hack writers and some television pundits have repeatedly claimed that women can't throw grenades - and glibly show video clips of the young women's futile attempts. Conveniently leaving out clips of the women who could throw grenades the required distance. Conveniently leaving out the voices of the women who said "they never told me to use the opposite foot", or the woman who said "they made me move back so I wouldn't embarass the men who couldn't throw".
The reality is - yes, many women can't throw grenades or even baseballs - but throwing style is not determined by biology--anyone can learn to throw. Critics say that there is a structural difference between male and female arms or shoulders-in the rotator cuff- that dictates different throwing motions. If you ask any orthopedic surgeon, anatomy professor or women coaches - they'll tell you that there is no structural or biological reason why men and women should throw in different ways. Muscle size, yes - but the way the "hinges" work - no.
The fundamental mistake that many women make is in trying to throw with their body facing the target, rather than rotating their shoulders and hips ninety degrees away from the target, and then swinging them around in order to accelerate the ball. For some inexplicable reason the military doesn't deem it necessary to work at training women in these things and in strength and conditioning early in boot camp.

What really appears even more ludicrous to me is that with the new light weight grenade launchers, and the launcher adaptors for the M-16, why we would still train anyone, male or female, to stand up, extend their left arm, lean back and lob a grenade and make them a perfect target for enemy fire. That five seconds of full body exposure is four and a half seconds too long!

9. The "women have an advese efffect on unit cohesion and male bonding" claim:
Well this one has been so overworked, especially by people who have never served in a mixed unit, that it is getting tiresome.
The reality is that "during Desert Storm the combat support units, ships, and aircrews with women performed their missions well even under direct fire. When the action started the mixed units and crews bonded into cohesive effective teams. According to Captain Cynthia Mosley, commander of an Army combat support company that was in the thick of the action during the ground attack into Iraq: "When the action starts every soldier does what they've been trained to do - nobody cares whether you're male or female. It's just - can you do the job?"
According to studies conducted by the Military Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences "Trust, respect for tactical skill and a metaphor of familiaism - the good unit speaks and acts as if they were members of a family - the better the unit performs." (In this respect since when does the family exclude mothers, sisters, daughters and wives - are they not all women?)
There is also a lot of evidence that mixed-gender units in foreign militaries performed more effectively than single-gender ones - in North Vietnam and El Salvador for example. American commanders of experienced mixed-gender units noticed a similar pattern of positive dynamics - the women worked harder to gain approval and the men worked harder not to be outdone. This was quite evident in the Gulf.
And what about the astronauts? You don't hear of any problems in space relative to unit cohesion. The men and women of NASA, military and civilian, have been performing as a "cohesive unit" on space flights for years.
Sources: "Ground Zero" by Linda Bird Francke; U.S. House Committe on Gender Discrimination in the Armed Services and NASA.
Source: Major General Jeanne Holm in "Women in the Military - an Unfinished Revolution".

10. The "women can't endure the rough living conditions in a combat zone" claim:
Get a grip - do you think they stayed at a luxury hotel in the Gulf?
According to General Holm: "Many U.S. military women lived like grunts in the field. They slept in coed tents so cramped that if anyone turned over you knew it and under lean-tos set up beside the trucks they drove. They endured blistering heat and the lack of privacy. They ate MREs, guzzled bottled water, went days without showers and put powder in their hair instead of washing it."
Source: Major General Jeanne Holm in "Women in the Military - an Unfinished Revolution".

11. The "men only want to protect women" claim:
Fatherly generals stand up and preach that women don't belong in the military because the goal of all men is to protect women - and that the men will be so busy protecting the women they won't do their job.
Well then if that's the case why do we have figures like this?

"On average each fiscal year from 1990 to 1996, 23.2 per 1000 spouses of military personnel experienced a violent victimization."
-FY90-96 Spouse and Child Maltreatment, Department of Defense.

"The rate of violent victimization of spouses in the U.S. military has steadily increased from 18.6 to 25.6 per 1000 during the same time period."
FY90-96 Spouse and Child Maltreatment, Department of Defense.

"More than 8,000 active duty women were abused by their spouses from 1990 to 1995. Half of the cases involved abusers who were also in the military."
Department of Defense, December 1996.

"Eighteen percent of the victims in a sample of incidents were active-duty members."
Department of Defense, October 1996.

"One in four female service members under age 50 has been physically abused."
Women Veterans' Experiences with Domestic Violence and Sexual Harassment, Drs. Murdoch and Nichol, 1993.

In 1997, the Defense Department reported a substantiated rate of abuse of 22 cases per 1,000 spouses. The Navy rate for that same year is 12 per 1,000. The Bureau of Justice Statistics places the average national rate of victimization for women from 1992 to 1996 at about eight per 1000.

One answer to the "men only want to protect women" spiel is in a great quote by Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, Civil War Medal of Honor recipient - "You men are not our protectors... If you were, who would there be to protect us from?"

12. The "time lost for pregnancy claim":
This vacuous old saw has been grinding for twenty years and is dragged out every time another hack writer is looking for an argument against military women. Yet as far back as 1975 the Navy discovered that men lost 190,000 days to drug rehabilitation and another 196,000 days to alcohol rehabilitation - almost twice the "time lost" by women to pregnancy. Pregnancy reports and surveys have been generated over and over and by 1990 speculation was rampant that pregnant women were costing the military a proverbial fortune in early returns from overseas bases. Well surprise, surprise - another study showed that the average cost of the early returns for men was $7,174. while the average cost for women due to pregnancy was $2,046. Among medical evacuations, AIDS and substance abuse accounted for up to 8 percent, pregnancy for barely one percent.
Source: Linda Bird Francke in "Ground Zero"

Sadly the "out of control media" is no help - it continues to foster these myths on both cable and network televison - pandering to the righteous ranters that for some reason don't see the military as the place for women to seek the opportunites offered by the nation's largest equal opportunity employer - the Department of Defense.

13. The "Feminization of the Military" lament:
This babbling treatise belongs in the 8-track graveyard along with the rest of the "Archie Bunker" philosophies. It's usually prattled by a short-timer with about two years served, over thirty years ago, who has gone on to other things. To advocate denying the equal opportunity education, training and benefits of military service to women, and to hawk the feminization lament as a reason is condemnation without reason.

The armed forces draw their members from our modern society - it follows that the make up of the services must reflect that society from which they are drawn. Feminism is not the catalyst behind women volunteering to serve nor is it the motivator. Ask the women who served long before feminism was a pop-culture term. Do those who espouse a womanless military also want it to be a plebian corps with philistine standards or a skilled modern force trained and equipped to maintain peace worldwide?

14. The hue and cry that women will be sexually assaulted if they are taken prisoner.
None of the military women taken prisoner in the Pacific in WWII were sexually assaulted.
But the real answer is a question.
Do you really think that male prisoners are NOT sexually tortured, raped, and sodomized?

The only ones I have issues w/ were the PT ones. When I was in the Navy, the women on the ship could do there MOS's just as well as any male. When it came to an emergency, however, the very differences in male/female physiology became apparent. The majority (not all) of the women were unable to perform extremely physical emergency tasks that the males were expected to as a matter of course. In a situation like that, they become a severe liability. I feel the standards should be toughened for both women and the older groups but that someone who passes those requirements should be able to do any job regardless of age or sex.

As for the pregnancy issue, I did meet a few females that got pregnant just to get out of a deployment. They were generally pretty useless in the first place though.

The only ones I have issues w/ were the PT ones. When I was in the Navy, the women on the ship could do there MOS's just as well as any male. When it came to an emergency, however, the very differences in male/female physiology became apparent. The majority (not all) of the women were unable to perform extremely physical emergency tasks that the males were expected to as a matter of course. In a situation like that, they become a severe liability. I feel the standards should be toughened for both women and the older groups but that someone who passes those requirements should be able to do any job regardless of age or sex.
Agreed on this. Women who don't receive adequate training cannot be expected to excel in physical situations. A toughening of standards is therefore in need.

Men and women are different. Equality is not forcing one gender to conform to the expectations and paradigms of the other. The armed forces were not designed for or by women; they were designed by men, for men. Untill women have been sufficiently integrated into the army on a voluntary basis, (so that this has an on flow effect for the overtly masculine culture of the armed forces), drafting women is a greater hardship as they are being forced not only to partake in armed service, but to do so on the terms of the opposite gender.

In fact men and women are different. Putting temperment aside, women give birth. Their reproductive health is more fragile and their reproductive life span is much shorter. For a man to serve 5 years in the military (drafted into combat) is to take a tenth or less of their reproductive span from them. For a women at best, it takes about a third off their reproductive life span, and in at worst jeopardises their fertility entirely, (note that men who exercise and diet excessively still are able to produce sperm, where as women very quickly cease to menstruate under such conditions).

How are we to enforce a draft without either making pregnant women serve and then ripping their children from their breast at birth, or simply taking over control of their reproductivity entirely? Men are not forced to cease reproduction, and they neither give birth nor breast feed. The fact is it would be a greater deprivation for women (simply because their reproductive span is much shorter and their fertility more vulnerable), and further it would be more disruptive to society. In most Anglo-Western societies women still remain the primary care givers.

In short I dont either the armed forces or society is ready for female drafting, and certainly drafting women is (objectively) a much greater hardship in terms of the long term effects on their ability to have a family once the war or their tour of duty is over. Further the cost of drafting women includes either draconian control over their reproductivity such as is not exercised over men, or having pregnant women serving before ripping their new-borns away from them.

Understandable point there but there are 6.5 billion people on the planet reproduction is not a problem. No one would be ripping new borns from their mothers, a pregnant woman would not serve and would most likely be given a month or two after giving birth to fully recover and have a little bonding time with the child. No one would be controlling their reproductivity. Obviously they would have to exclude pregnant women from the draft. A father can very easily take care of children just as well as a mother can, my father and my uncles have had times when their wives weren't around or something and they had to take care of their families. It may be disruptive at first but people will get on with life.

I believe all military drafts are wrong, and would oppose them all equally.

I oppose the draft as well. I hope I haven't really sounded like I am pro draft.

Here in the UK,the MOD tested womens capabilities as front line soldiers a few years ago and made female recruits do the same physical training men do and found that the women were getting injured at a rate of 4 or 5 out of every 10 recruits on average compared to 1 out 10 for male recruits and these were tough,phisically fit women and not 'soft' on any account.

Also one of the reasons women are not front line fighters is hygiene,as women have periods and have to use tampons or sanitary towels it causes a bit of a headache for commanders as the women on their period wont be able to wade rivers etc so this would have to be taken into account when planning combat operations, whereas men's main hygiene concern in to just keep the 'wee man' clean.

Also there is the cost of training, as said before men are,in a lot of cases,are stronger than women and the military doesn't want to pay to train people and then lose that money when they cant do it and quit.It costs 000's to train a soldier and the military will want to keep waste to a minimum.

Oh and women are allowed in the Royal Marines,although out of the many who tried only(as far as i know)1 has been able to complete the training.


Women can suck it up when they need to. I personally don't understand why women would not be able to wade into water at any time, and I am a woman.

Understandable point there but there are 6.5 billion people on the planet reproduction is not a problem. No one would be ripping new borns from their mothers, a pregnant woman would not serve and would most likely be given a month or two after giving birth to fully recover and have a little bonding time with the child. No one would be controlling their reproductivity. Obviously they would have to exclude pregnant women from the draft. A father can very easily take care of children just as well as a mother can, my father and my uncles have had times when their wives weren't around or something and they had to take care of their families. It may be disruptive at first but people will get on with life.
Indeed. A woman could have children when she is done with her studies, assuming she undertakes them, spend some time raising them, and then enter the military as a professional. Many women do this in the corporate world nowadays to avoid being infertile at later ages. Furthermore, modern technology such as freezing ovaries and sperms can avoid the problem altogether. Up to the woman (or man) of course. With drafting though this is not the case, so women in the military should be restricted to a voluntary basis for the time being. They should, however, be allowed to join any corps they wish, provided they meet the standards.

But it's been proven scientifically by the Navy that women are better survivers and have a higher tollerence for pain. We survive longer in the cold, heat, and without water and food.
Just becuase we are physically weaker doens't mean we would be a weakness on the battle field.
In fact the only reason I'm not in the Air Force right now is that I have mild scoliosis. I've only picked up a gun once in my life and fired it and I'm a naturally great shot. Bull's eye first try...It was AWESOME!!!
Anyways...
Men and women may not have the same strengths but we're equals. Each gender has something to bring to the fight.
And preventing one gender from doing something based soaly on gender is wrong. Same with the whole sexuality debate. They are firing perfectly good solders because they're gay...AFTER they spent millions of dollars on their education and training. We are losing to many to this STUPID act...But that is for another thread.
...I think I might start one if I can't already find one...
Another thing is women believe it or not people have a better eyesight, in some way anyways I can't remember. I also am a good shot naturally and so are my friends except for one.

I'd say all of this is an excellent argument for changing the way the military treats ALL parents. Men SHOULD be relieved of duty if they become fathers, and they should be expected to go be with their families and their children. It is a disgrace that the military shows such low regard for the importance of male parents.

All parents in the military should be given leave in the event that they, or their partner, become pregnant. All parents should be given time to be with their children and their families. Using "biology" as some kind of justification for enforcing traditional gender roles is cowardly, and I would like to hope our military is not a den of cowards.

Very well put you are 100% correct.

Here in the UK,the MOD tested womens capabilities as front line soldiers a few years ago and made female recruits do the same physical training men do and found that the women were getting injured at a rate of 4 or 5 out of every 10 recruits on average compared to 1 out 10 for male recruits and these were tough,phisically fit women and not 'soft' on any account.
She who perseveres shall succeed.

Women should be treated the same as men *hem, Susan B. Anthony*, however, the concet of having a separate draft does not conform to this idea. There can be only one lottery in order to ensure fairness. If it's separate, well, we saw what happened with 'separate but equal' (see Plessy v. Ferguson and/or Brown v. BOE).
But ultimatly, there really shouldn't be a draft. It seems unconstitutional to force people to fight wars, especially ones they were against from square one. The government should be caring for its people, not trying to control others.

I praise you for your awesome post. So, so true.

If women want true equality then we should have to accept the bad with the good. That means fighting on the front lines and being drafted along with the men.
I'm a woman and I think this should be the way it is. I think we should get equal pay when we get the same job and do the same work. And I think fathers should get paternity leave along with the mothers.

I agree with all the things you said. It sucks for guys that they can't get a sort of paternity leave, I mean the very least people could do is give a shorter one.

I saw the other post about the normal draft and I wondered about people's opinion on the possible women's draft. The government has thought of making a draft for women, after all women are already in the army and want equality. I think the draft in general is not a good thing but making a women version would make more sense. Both genders can fight and both are basically the same so why not? Curious as to the opinions of others. Obviously it could be neatly avoided by getting pregnant but then again I'm not sure how many women would do that (though I'm sure some would.) to get out of going into the military if there was a draft... Anyways I have jabbered I'm done for now. : ) (Play nice...;) )

Draft 'em. This is the price of equality.

Lesson learned: be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

I agree with all the things you said. It sucks for guys that they can't get a sort of paternity leave, I mean the very least people could do is give a shorter one.
They do in the German army. They essentially are eligible to all labour protections that other employees of the state get, including parental leave.

They do in the German army. They essentially are eligible to all labour protections that other employees of the state get, including parental leave.

Well atleast that's how it is somewhere. : )

Well atleast that's how it is somewhere. : )
It's like an army with all the militarism taken out of it. It used to be pretty hardcore when the Soviets were still around, but since then they've mellowed out a little.

Which is okay, because the only thing they really do is peacekeeping, and you don't want aggressive types for that anyway.

It's like an army with all the militarism taken out of it. It used to be pretty hardcore when the Soviets were still around, but since then they've mellowed out a little.

Which is okay, because the only thing they really do is peacekeeping, and you don't want aggressive types for that anyway.
Something one would never expect to hear of the German military. :p

I'd say all of this is an excellent argument for changing the way the military treats ALL parents. Men SHOULD be relieved of duty if they become fathers, and they should be expected to go be with their families and their children. It is a disgrace that the military shows such low regard for the importance of male parents.

All parents in the military should be given leave in the event that they, or their partner, become pregnant. All parents should be given time to be with their children and their families.
The problem of course is that then anyone who doesnt want to be drafted simply becomes a parent which defeats the purpose of a draft, so I dont see that your suggestion is a likely outcome however desirable it might be.

Using "biology" as some kind of justification for enforcing traditional gender roles is cowardly, and I would like to hope our military is not a den of cowards.
Nice rhetoric but it doesnt address the fact that if women are drafted they loose more in terms of their reproductive lifespan. Men can serve whilst becoming parents, but there are some physical limitations that apply to women, so either we control women's reproduction in order to draft them (something we dont do to men) or we ignore the physical needs of pregnant women and infants, or the draft can be dogded by women becoming pregnant (and it isnt necessarily in anyones interests to have children brought into the world just so people can draft dodge). The window of a women's reproductive life-span is a great deal shorter than mens, so at the end of the day drafts including women would not be equal unless they were much shorter and/or didnt allow the government to take control over women's reproduction. I dont see how that can be done.

Honestly, that's what's great about tampons. When the woman is in water they don't suck up the water. Water doesn't just flow into a woman like that. That wouldn't be a problem.
Great so now we take control over what feminine hygiene women can use? Some women dont want to insert things inside their bodies and frankly I'm not in support of government forced vaginal insertions.

Understandable point there but there are 6.5 billion people on the planet reproduction is not a problem.
I wasnt commenting on the need to reproduce, but rather the right to do so. Men can reproduce for many decades, women have a much shorter window and since in our modern society it is desirable to put this off until post teen years, and we know that complications greatly increase in the mid thirties, women's reproductive life span is greatly reduced. The impact of a draft on a women's ability to form a family would be greater than it would be on males. Further it is entirely possible that the rigours of military life (for instance the training) would negatively impact on the long term fertility of at least some women.

No one would be ripping new borns from their mothers, a pregnant woman would not serve and would most likely be given a month or two after giving birth to fully recover and have a little bonding time with the child.
A month or two is not necessarily sufficient time for weening, or is the government now going to tell women how long they can breast feed their own child?

No one would be controlling their reproductivity.
Breast feeding is part of a women's reproductive activities, so disconnection from their child after a month or two would indeed place a restriction on their reproductive choices.

Obviously they would have to exclude pregnant women from the draft. A father can very easily take care of children just as well as a mother can, my father and my uncles have had times when their wives weren't around or something and they had to take care of their families. It may be disruptive at first but people will get on with life.
It is a simple fact that more males abandon their family (and children) than do females. Whether or not this is social or inherent is a difficult question but either way it simply isnt true that males as a group are as devoted to child care and nuturing as females are as a group.

Indeed. A woman could have children when she is done with her studies, assuming she undertakes them, spend some time raising them, and then enter the military as a professional.
I dont know anyone male or female who plans their life and reproductive choices around the off-chance that they will be drafted, nor do I think that it is reasonable to expect people to do so.


If women want true equality then we should have to accept the bad with the good. That means fighting on the front lines and being drafted along with the men.
I'm a woman and I think this should be the way it is. I think we should get equal pay when we get the same job and do the same work. And I think fathers should get paternity leave along with the mothers.
And giving birth is so much fun?
Equality doesnt mean becoming clones of a dominant group. Your argument makes no more sense than ethnocentric arguments that insist an oppressed cultural group must 'assimulate' (ie accept the world entirely on our terms) to have what is theirs by right - their dignity, autonomy and respect as individuals and a group.

Draft 'em. This is the price of equality.

Lesson learned: be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Assimulation is not equality, merely a different form of subversion. As for being careful what one asks for, being autonomous and valued according to one's merits isnt something anyone should had to have asked for in the first place.