NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, that's right, there's a lot of it still going on blatantly in the western world, and I am not talking about different pay or unequal employment percentages.

I am referring to two particular situations in fact.

First of all, the only two nations in the whole world that have mandatory military service and sexual equality (in this mandatory military service) are...

Israel and Syria.

That's because both men and women have to serve. It's not a man only thing.

So why on earth are there so many western world, pro-equality countries that either 1) still have mandatory military service or 2) don't have mandatory military service for Everyone? Oh yes, Sure, women Can join if they want to, but us men are Forced to join. Either do away with it or force women to join too. It's short anyway, and when they do join, they are held up to the same standards, so that's not an issue. (for specifics: I am talking about Denmark, but any other western country with mandatory military service probably has this problem too).


The other problem: scouts.

Any western country which still seperates scouts into boy and girl scouts without having a general scouts option is horribly outdated in their idea of what scouting is about. Scouting is about learning to become a responsible and productive member of your society, while remaining a free and capable individual. To this end, it doesn't matter if you're a boy or a girl, you should learn the same damn things.

Okay, rant over, ignore or comment as you please.

Yes, that's right, there's a lot of it still going on blatantly in the western world, and I am not talking about different pay or unequal employment percentages.

I am referring to two particular situations in fact.

First of all, the only two nations in the whole world that have mandatory military service and sexual equality (in this mandatory military service) are...

Israel and Syria.

That's because both men and women have to serve. It's not a man only thing.

So why on earth are there so many western world, pro-equality countries that either 1) still have mandatory military service or 2) don't have mandatory military service for Everyone? Oh yes, Sure, women Can join if they want to, but us men are Forced to join. Either do away with it or force women to join too. It's short anyway, and when they do join, they are held up to the same standards, so that's not an issue. (for specifics: I am talking about Denmark, but any other western country with mandatory military service probably has this problem too).
Actually forced military service for females is a greater imposition than it is for males. For a start 'the military' as a social-cultural institution was not designed with 'females' or with 'people' in mind but specifically with 'males' in mind. It is 'male-centric'. Until the military is far less 'male-centric' it is not equitable to expect females to 'assimulate' into it.
Assimulation is not equality.

The other problem: scouts.

Any western country which still seperates scouts into boy and girl scouts without having a general scouts option is horribly outdated in their idea of what scouting is about. Scouting is about learning to become a responsible and productive member of your society, while remaining a free and capable individual. To this end, it doesn't matter if you're a boy or a girl, you should learn the same damn things.

Okay, rant over, ignore or comment as you please.
I wasnt aware of any problems with scouts being inaccessable to either gender. :confused:

I wasnt aware of any problems with scouts being inaccessable to either gender. :confused:
The complaint wasn't about it being inaccessible to either gender, it was about the splitting up of the scout system into gender-specific sections: Boy scouts, and girl guides. At least, I think that's what was meant.

http://www.scouts.ie/
What was oringinally the Catholic Boy Scouts of Ireland, then became the Catholic Scouts of Ireland and is now the Scouting Association of Ireland. Even when it was the CBSI girls were allowed to join.

The complaint wasn't about it being inaccessible to either gender, it was about the splitting up of the scout system into gender-specific sections: Boy scouts, and girl guides. At least, I think that's what was meant.
ok...if that's the case then so long as both can access the same activities etc then I dont see it as necessarily a problem.

The fundamental element of Boy Scouts is basically the guy equivalent of "sleep overs." You get a bunch of boys, send them out into the woods with minimial supervision and a tent and they spend the night out there.

Having a mixed scout force would require a whole lot more supervison. It might even give "be prepared" a whole new meaning, if you know what I mean.

Yes, that's right, there's a lot of it still going on blatantly in the western world, and I am not talking about different pay or unequal employment percentages.

I am referring to two particular situations in fact.

First of all, the only two nations in the whole world that have mandatory military service and sexual equality (in this mandatory military service) are...

Israel and Syria.

That's because both men and women have to serve. It's not a man only thing.

So why on earth are there so many western world, pro-equality countries that either 1) still have mandatory military service or 2) don't have mandatory military service for Everyone? Oh yes, Sure, women Can join if they want to, but us men are Forced to join. Either do away with it or force women to join too. It's short anyway, and when they do join, they are held up to the same standards, so that's not an issue. (for specifics: I am talking about Denmark, but any other western country with mandatory military service probably has this problem too).


The other problem: scouts.

Any western country which still seperates scouts into boy and girl scouts without having a general scouts option is horribly outdated in their idea of what scouting is about. Scouting is about learning to become a responsible and productive member of your society, while remaining a free and capable individual. To this end, it doesn't matter if you're a boy or a girl, you should learn the same damn things.

Okay, rant over, ignore or comment as you please.

I see..
I do believe that Finnland has manditory service in it's Armed forces.
As for Isreal doing what it does, it boils down to.
They'll send everything at us, so we'll do the same.

The fundamental element of Boy Scouts is basically the guy equivalent of "sleep overs." You get a bunch of boys, send them out into the woods with minimial supervision and a tent and they spend the night out there.

Having a mixed scout force would require a whole lot more supervison. It might even give "be prepared" a whole new meaning, if you know what I mean.

Having mixed scouts doesn't require more supervision, it requires female supervision, as well as male. When there are sleep overs there has to be a male and a female leader.

The complaint wasn't about it being inaccessible to either gender, it was about the splitting up of the scout system into gender-specific sections: Boy scouts, and girl guides. At least, I think that's what was meant.

Yep.

The fundamental element of Boy Scouts is basically the guy equivalent of "sleep overs." You get a bunch of boys, send them out into the woods with minimial supervision and a tent and they spend the night out there.

Having a mixed scout force would require a whole lot more supervison. It might even give "be prepared" a whole new meaning, if you know what I mean.

I have never encountered a single problem in mixed scout camps, lasting up to ten days at the very longest.

At best, some people get romantically involved. Usually, these same people are old enough to get romantically involved and so, no issue is taken.

Besides, it's not just sleep overs, so why seperate it into boy and girl scouts? It just seems silly, since our society shouldn't be seperated in such a way in the first place. I don't mind that there are boy and girl scouts. I mind that, an example that comes to mind, the american scouts only have boy and girl scouts and nothing in between. If they also had a more general "scouts" as well as the "boy" and "girl" scouts, then I wouldn't mind.

Actually forced military service for females is a greater imposition than it is for males. For a start 'the military' as a social-cultural institution was not designed with 'females' or with 'people' in mind but specifically with 'males' in mind. It is 'male-centric'. Until the military is far less 'male-centric' it is not equitable to expect females to 'assimulate' into it.
Assimulation is not equality.

Personally, I would prefer no mandatory military service and I agree with you, it is quite male-centric. However, if there is going to be a mandatory military service, then i'd be nice if the women had to serve to. At the very least, they could send them to do the alternative civil service that us men can choose to do if we refuse the military.

Personally, I would prefer no mandatory military service and I agree with you, it is quite male-centric. However, if there is going to be a mandatory military service, then i'd be nice if the women had to serve to. At the very least, they could send them to do the alternative civil service that us men can choose to do if we refuse the military.
Since you would prefer no mandatory military service you obviously dont think it's good.

You would rather an evil visited on more people than less - more people being badly effected is to you 'nice'...add to this that the additional sufferers are actually faced with a worse imposition, this to you is 'nice'.

Women would be more imposed on than males
Twice the number of people would be imposed on
You consider this 'nice'...sorry but to me it's just more of the same old, same old 'anti-equality' backlash. It's about as 'nice' as suggesting that men be forced to endure mock pregnancy and child-birth.

I have never encountered a single problem in mixed scout camps, lasting up to ten days at the very longest.

At best, some people get romantically involved. Usually, these same people are old enough to get romantically involved and so, no issue is taken.
Scouts generally are of the age that they'd start going out anyway. Maybe not some of the younger ones.

Since you would prefer no mandatory military service you obviously dont think it's good.

You would rather an evil visited on more people than less - more people being badly effected is to you 'nice'...add to this that the additional sufferers are actually faced with a worse imposition, this to you is 'nice'.

Women would be more imposed on than males
Twice the number of people would be imposed on
You consider this 'nice'...sorry but to me it's just more of the same old, same old 'anti-equality' backlash. It's about as 'nice' as suggesting that men be forced to endure mock pregnancy and child-birth.

On the other hand, we don't need mandatory military service anymore.

What we could do, which would be useful nowadays, would be to make a mandatory civil service program. It would be a good way to provide jobs to young adults and it could include both men and women.

And if women were factored into the mandatory military service, the same amount would still be inconvienienced: The amount that are called in depends on the number of volunteers they already have. They only call in a set amount.

And it's four months. Don't tell me women can't endure four months if I can.

i dont find either of these things to be big problems with discrimination. they are more of a "yeah we gotta get to that one of these days" kinda problem

and i think there is a place for single sex organizations for teens.

There are many things split by sexes, whether it be activities or sports. The point is, that not everyone is equal. There are activites where women will be better at certain thing and there are certain things men will be better at. It has nothing to do with discrimination but the fact that both sexes are physiologically different.

As far as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, in my experience, they have been that way because of many reasons. Little boys and little girls don't have the same interests and generally don't want to do the same things. Also, while they are little the sleep overs and camp outs might not be a problem, they can become a problem when you are planning camp outs for mixed groups of teenagers. But is has nothing to do with being discriminatory, it just has to do with being easier. And I've yet to see a Boy Scouts turn down a girl who wanted to join, even if there was a girl scouts.

On the other hand, we don't need mandatory military service anymore.

What we could do, which would be useful nowadays, would be to make a mandatory civil service program. It would be a good way to provide jobs to young adults and it could include both men and women.

And if women were factored into the mandatory military service, the same amount would still be inconvienienced: The amount that are called in depends on the number of volunteers they already have. They only call in a set amount.

And it's four months. Don't tell me women can't endure four months if I can.
Hang on, faced with 'no mandatory service' or 'making females do mandatory service alongside males' you pick a 'lets start some other kind of service'
As I said just more anti-equality backlash.
Mandatory is not a good way to provide jobs in the modern economy and trade market.
Females are more imposed on by mandatory service (even if it isnt in a male centric environment, designed by males for males) if it occurs during their fertile years because their reproductive life-span is significantly shorter than males.
I see no reason to institute novel mandatory service.

To me it honestly seems you are more concerned with conscripting females (for daring to be less unequal) into some form of work (due apparently to the fact that in a very few nations males face some kind of conscription), than you are with the rightness or wrongness of impressed labour or with fair and pragmatic ways of working toward gender equality and fairness.

Hang on, faced with 'no mandatory service' or 'making females do mandatory service alongside males' you pick a 'lets start some other kind of service'
As I said just more anti-equality backlash.
Mandatory is not a good way to provide jobs in the modern economy and trade market.
Females are more imposed on by mandatory service (even if it isnt in a male centric environment, designed by males for males) if it occurs during their fertile years because their reproductive life-span is significantly shorter than males.
I see no reason to institute novel mandatory service.

To me it honestly seems you are more concerned with conscripting females (for daring to be less unequal) into some form of work (due apparently to the fact that in a very few nations males face some kind of conscription), than you are with the rightness or wrongness of impressed labour or with fair and pragmatic ways of working toward gender equality and fairness.

I am sore about facing the possibility that I will be forced to do something I don't want to do and not understanding how come half of the population is automatically exempt merely based on their gender. Women are perfectly capable of performing the four months of military service.

I presented the third option, in the event of the two first options being rejected.

Okay, I'm all for equality of the sexes, but having seperations between girl scouts and boy scouts is a valid move. especially as children, boys and girls are completely different and develop differently. Putting them together and forcing them to grow in the same way, its a disadvantage for both, but more so for boys. A lot of actions that are natural for boys are not looked upon kindly so it stunts their mental gorwth and personal development. And it may be steriotypical, but while girls may like sewing and other activities as such, boys are less likely to like them and vica versa. I that might seem sexist, but it is true to a degree. Theres my rant.

I am sore about facing the possibility that I will be forced to do something I don't want to do and not understanding how come half of the population is automatically exempt merely based on their gender. Women are perfectly capable of performing the four months of military service.

I presented the third option, in the event of the two first options being rejected.
Aha, it is as I expected "wah wah wah, that's not fair, there might be an instance of gender inequality in which women dont come off worse, that is unfair to me, wah, wah, wah"
Do you think females might be sore at the fact that they are more likely to be raped than males, merely based on their gender, or the fact that if they want biological children they have to go through pregnancy and worse giving-birth while half the population is exempt from this necessity merely based on their gender....?

You want all the advantages of not giving birth, but you also want the disadvantages of not giving birth extended to those that do give birth.

Again I suggest you are not interested in fairness or gender-equality, but rather are (metaphorically speaking) throwing your toys out of the cot because even though you've got 5 toys, you dont have one of the 3 toys the kid in the cot next door has got....:rolleyes:

Aha, it is as I expected "wah wah wah, that's not fair, there might be an instance of gender inequality in which women dont come off worse, that is unfair to me, wah, wah, wah"
Do you think females might be sore at the fact that they are more likely to be raped than males, merely based on their gender, or the fact that if they want biological children they have to go through pregnancy and worse giving-birth while half the population is exempt from this necessity merely based on their gender....?

You want all the advantages of not giving birth, but you also want the disadvantages of not giving birth extended to those that do give birth.

Again I suggest you are not interested in fairness or gender-equality, but rather are (metaphorically speaking) throwing your toys out of the cot because even though you've got 5 toys, you dont have one of the 3 toys the kid in the cot next door has got....:rolleyes:

Actually, you see, it's not my choice whether or not I can have children. There is no way that I can change that. I never even introduced anything about child birth into this, you did, so I don't see how you can make the assumption that I don't want to give birth to a child.

However, while isn't my choice whether or not I have to my military service, I can change that.

There is a difference between child birth and mandatory military service.

For rape, that's why we have police forces and why we should support them when they do a good job and criticize them when they do a bad job. I'd say reducing the amount of actually rapes occuring would be a good thing (just reducing the amount of rapes being reported would be a bad thing).

It's discrimination against women and it's discrimination against men at the same time.


And if I have to follow your line of thought:
Women can choose to have children or not.
I want to be able to choose whether to join the military or not.

Okay, I'm all for equality of the sexes, but having seperations between girl scouts and boy scouts is a valid move. especially as children, boys and girls are completely different and develop differently. Putting them together and forcing them to grow in the same way, its a disadvantage for both, but more so for boys. A lot of actions that are natural for boys are not looked upon kindly so it stunts their mental gorwth and personal development. And it may be steriotypical, but while girls may like sewing and other activities as such, boys are less likely to like them and vica versa. I that might seem sexist, but it is true to a degree. Theres my rant.

I've yet to hear anyone complain about the many mixed scout groups that I know of throughout Europe. Sure, there are seperated ones too, but there are far more mixed ones.

I've yet to hear anyone complain about the many mixed scout groups that I know of throughout Europe. Sure, there are seperated ones too, but there are far more mixed ones.
Ya, though you don't have the same sexual views we do. You throw a bunch of girls and boys out in a tent out there, it will be a LOT more then sleeping. I knew enough of that when I was in scouts myself. :P

Aha, it is as I expected "wah wah wah, that's not fair, there might be an instance of gender inequality in which women dont come off worse, that is unfair to me, wah, wah, wah"
Do you think females might be sore at the fact that they are more likely to be raped than males, merely based on their gender, or the fact that if they want biological children they have to go through pregnancy and worse giving-birth while half the population is exempt from this necessity merely based on their gender....?

You want all the advantages of not giving birth, but you also want the disadvantages of not giving birth extended to those that do give birth.

Again I suggest you are not interested in fairness or gender-equality, but rather are (metaphorically speaking) throwing your toys out of the cot because even though you've got 5 toys, you dont have one of the 3 toys the kid in the cot next door has got....:rolleyes:

Fairness would be having both sexes being forced into serving if the men are. Just because you are female does not give you and out nor should it. So you would lose child bearing time? Military service is about sacrifice for your country. Men are losing time as well. Both could be doing things if they were not required to be in the military. This entire idea here sounds like a strawman to me.

The other problem: scouts.

Any western country which still seperates scouts into boy and girl scouts without having a general scouts option is horribly outdated in their idea of what scouting is about. Scouting is about learning to become a responsible and productive member of your society, while remaining a free and capable individual. To this end, it doesn't matter if you're a boy or a girl, you should learn the same damn things.

Okay, rant over, ignore or comment as you please.
I don't know about you, but I don't want no stinking boy scout cookies.

Ya, though you don't have the same sexual views we do. You throw a bunch of girls and boys out in a tent out there, it will be a LOT more then sleeping. I knew enough of that when I was in scouts myself. :P

You mean in mixed scout groups they don't even give any kind of seperation between the sexes? The tents are just intermingled with each other?

You mean in mixed scout groups they don't even give any kind of seperation between the sexes? The tents are just intermingled with each other?

I LIVE IN AMERICA!
I was in the BOY SCOUTS.

Though we did have on more then several occaisons other boys sneaking into my tent and other things. Hehe. When the scoutmaster snores the boys will play. :P

Mind you it was VERY cold and we all got into each others blankets and would talk and do whatever for a LONG time and then sneak back out to the other tents. You saying boys and girls won't do the same?

I LIVE IN AMERICA!
I was in the BOY SCOUTS.

Though we did have on more then several occaisons other boys sneaking into my tent and other things. Hehe. When the scoutmaster snores the boys will play. :P

Mind you it was VERY cold and we all got into each others blankets and would talk and do whatever for a LONG time and then sneak back out to the other tents. You saying boys and girls won't do the same?

I would think the consequences of being caught would be dire, if they aren't then should be. I bet parents would love to know the stuff that happens on campouts. :D

Anyway I understand the boy scouts obviously but I know nothing about them so who knows if the boy/girl scouts ever have any kind of intermingling? I certanly don't know. Wasn't in the scouts myself, never cared for the outdoors. ;)

You mean in mixed scout groups they don't even give any kind of seperation between the sexes? The tents are just intermingled with each other?

With us, yes, but who in their right mind would have any sort of intercourse when there's half a dozen other people in the same tent?

I would think the consequences of being caught would be dire, if they aren't then should be. I bet parents would love to know the stuff that happens on campouts. :D

Anyway I understand the boy scouts obviously but I know nothing about them so who knows if the boy/girl scouts ever have any kind of intermingling? I certanly don't know. Wasn't in the scouts myself, never cared for the outdoors. ;)

There would be no co-bedding lol. That's just asking for it!

With us, yes, but who in their right mind would have any sort of intercourse when there's half a dozen other people in the same tent?

Oh....we only have 2-3 people TOPS in a tent. Mind you they were also incredibly small so 6 would be out of the question unless you layed on top of each other! Usually it was two people only. :o When we gathered, no more then 4.

With us, yes, but who in their right mind would have any sort of intercourse when there's half a dozen other people in the same tent?

I'm sure there would always be a few who wouldn't care. :D

Actually, you see, it's not my choice whether or not I can have children. There is no way that I can change that.
Same goes for everyone, same goes for anyone effected by mandatory conscription....

I never even introduced anything about child birth into this, you did, so I don't see how you can make the assumption that I don't want to give birth to a child.
Unless you are a masochist you dont want to go through labour.
You have missed the point either way. The fact is being female and being male are not identical states. Your primary concern appears to be that you might have to do something someone else 'gets off' from. Well you get off from giving birth...

However, while isn't my choice whether or not I have to my military service, I can change that.
But instead you seem to prefer that others be forced alongside you...

There is a difference between child birth and mandatory military service.

Yeh, child birth is more of an imposition...

For rape, that's why we have police forces and why we should support them when they do a good job and criticize them when they do a bad job. I'd say reducing the amount of actually rapes occuring would be a good thing (just reducing the amount of rapes being reported would be a bad thing).
Right, well since most people would rather have 4 months impressed labour than be raped, perhaps if we ought to priortise removing the imposition of increased liklihood of rape amongst women ahead of ensuring conscription of them...

It's discrimination against women and it's discrimination against men at the same time.
Expecting females to assimulate as though the male centric world were 'normal' and feminity a gender role that woman can only indulge in at the cost of their basic human rights is not equality, it's discrimination of the worst kind.

And if I have to follow your line of thought:
Women can choose to have children or not.
I want to be able to choose whether to join the military or not.
You dont follow my line of thought. Why should only females face impositions as a result of their gender? So far as I can tell you assume that 'male-centricity' is 'normal' and that females must 'join normalicy' to claim basic human rights.

I'm sure there would always be a few who wouldn't care. :D

Little hard when you have that many people. Though in our small tents it would be MUCH MUCH easier.

I'm sure there would always be a few who wouldn't care. :D
Or would join in!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Fairness would be having both sexes being forced into serving if the men are.
Says you, I say fairness would be forcing neither...
Just because you are female does not give you and out nor should it.
Why not? Who instituted militarys, and conscription? What class of person is the military designed to suit?
And if a female is pregnant then what exactly is the plan?

So you would lose child bearing time? Military service is about sacrifice for your country. Men are losing time as well.
Males however loose a significantly lesser portion of their reproductive life-span per time conscripted.

Both could be doing things if they were not required to be in the military. This entire idea here sounds like a strawman to me.
Of the two only females have the shortened reproductive span that is centred on the years that females would 'come up' for conscription during. There is no male menopause, just another gender advantage males prefer to ignore when they are doing the 'assimulate or settle for second rate' whinge.

Or would join in!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
With 2 people in a tent, and a newcomer....yes. :)

Of the two only females have the shortened reproductive span that is centred on the years that females would 'come up' for conscription during. There is no male menopause, just another gender advantage males prefer to ignore when they are doing the 'assimulate or settle for second rate' whinge.

Like I said this just sounds as an excuse for women to avoid service in countries where men have to serve as well. I certainly agree that such mandatory service is wrong but where it exists? Women serving as well would give nations badly needed troops. Sacrifice is needed and since women would be serving at 18 anyay I don't see them loosing their reproductive time anyway since few will be having children at such an age. Pregnancy should be prevented with mandatory birth control and should it occur both parties should be punished for wasting military resources in getting the woman out of harms way. However it comes down to equality. Women cannot claim to be equal with men until they share the same responsibilities as men.

Zagat, you're making it sound like the only purpose women should have is popping out babies.

which is distinctly anti-feminist.

War typically damages the sexual superior males that would be ideal for having children. This comes from World War I and World War II mainly, many of the most able-bodied men were killed and countries like Germany, France and Russia lost many of its males that could and should go on to have a good successful family.

In a study by some neo-feminist scientist, found that the Y-Chromosome has been damaged and it has more genetic problems then before in history. This means that either men are going extinct (BS. It can repair itself like other cells do) or that killing millions upon millions of young men who are examples of health and strength at their prime being killed or mamed for a weakened male or ones being unable to fight or ones affected by war itself would reproduce and carry on these flaws.

Zagat, you're making it sound like the only purpose women should have is popping out babies.

which is distinctly anti-feminist.

Yes, then there is that! Thank you for making a simple statement that I couldn't seem to get out in my posts. :)

It is discrimination, and you know it. Biological differences are not human imposed discrimination. I say if conscription occures, it should be for both sex's, all religions, all races, all nationalities (i.e. if your a resident non citizen, you should still be subject to it to live in the nation) ect. I'd rather have a unit of 80 then 40, and thats what female conscription would do. Israel and Syria both know they need as many people as they can get (since they are surronded by agressors..namly each other :P ) and they know females are capable of being effective soldiers, and have no qualms about using them. That is quite fair.

Yes, then there is that! Thank you for making a simple statement that I couldn't seem to get out in my posts. :)

LOL! Are you seriously like that and are just masking it? O.o O

LOL! Are you seriously like that and are just masking it? O.o O

I seem to sometimes have a problem making something with a simple response and turning it into a complicated mess. Other times I'm TOO simplistic. It is an affliction. :)

Like I said this just sounds as an excuse for women to avoid service in countries where men have to serve as well.
And like I said this just sounds like you assume females must assimulate or settle for second rate.

I certainly agree that such mandatory service is wrong but where it exists? Women serving as well would give nations badly needed troops.
I'm not aware of a shortage of troops in any nation that has a mandatory service and anything that can accurately be described as 'gender equality'...

Sacrifice is needed and since women would be serving at 18 anyay I don't see them loosing their reproductive time anyway since few will be having children at such an age.
Right so now you have gone from conscripting woman to controlling their reproduction, an imposition that is not currently visited on males.
It all comes down to 'inequality is ok so long as the disadvantage goes to the females'.

Pregnancy should be prevented with mandatory birth control and should it occur both parties should be punished for wasting military resources in getting the woman out of harms way. Controlling a person's reproduction is a huge personal violation, and a huge violation of civil and human rights. Of course since such a huge violation would fall on woman, and since the alternative is men might face a much lesser imposition and/or violation that woman dont face, it's only fair to force woman to undergo violations we would never otherwise consider.
Let's be clear this is not about making anything less of an imposition on anyone, it's simply about ensuring that if a male faces an imposition females face equal or greater impositions.
At the end of the day it is sour grapes because you percieve that as an exception to the established rule the disadvantage of a particular 'gender inequality' doesnt get shafted off onto the females. You are in fact quite happy to face the imposition and to subject females to a much greater imposition, so long as males come out no worse off than females...females coming out worse off than males is however acceptable...


However it comes down to equality. Women cannot claim to be equal with men until they share the same responsibilities as men.
You mistake assimulation for equality, they are not the same thing. Women shaping themselves to fit the mould of men in order to not be second class citizens is not equality, but rather inequality.

Zagat, you're making it sound like the only purpose women should have is popping out babies.

which is distinctly anti-feminist.
I didnt make any such implication. If you infer such a thing from my being reluctant to force on people circumstances that can effect to such a large degree on a person's 'life-trajectory choices' that is entirely your own work.

-snip-

I certainly don't expect anything second rate, hence EQUALITY. I also hardly see this as some conspiracy to control womens reproduction or to force them to do something that men have to do because we are disgruntled they we have to and they don't. Just a couple decades ago it was deemed a MAN'S job to serve and for women to stay home. With the feminism movement comes equality and with that women should be equal in all ways with men which would include miltary service. Controlling their reproduction while in service is smart so that they do not loose effective troops to pregnancy and once in the armed service, all loose rights that civilians have. It is the MILITARY. I wouldn't mind hearing from many women if they think "oh, I can't seve because I'll lose baby-making time!" I'm sure the majority will use that excuse. :rolleyes:

Same goes for everyone, same goes for anyone effected by mandatory conscription....


Unless you are a masochist you dont want to go through labour.
You have missed the point either way. The fact is being female and being male are not identical states. Your primary concern appears to be that you might have to do something someone else 'gets off' from. Well you get off from giving birth...


But instead you seem to prefer that others be forced alongside you...


Yeh, child birth is more of an imposition...


Right, well since most people would rather have 4 months impressed labour than be raped, perhaps if we ought to priortise removing the imposition of increased liklihood of rape amongst women ahead of ensuring conscription of them...


Expecting females to assimulate as though the male centric world were 'normal' and feminity a gender role that woman can only indulge in at the cost of their basic human rights is not equality, it's discrimination of the worst kind.


You dont follow my line of thought. Why should only females face impositions as a result of their gender? So far as I can tell you assume that 'male-centricity' is 'normal' and that females must 'join normalicy' to claim basic human rights.

First and foremost, I am claiming that mandatory military service is bad and should be abolished.

Secondly, I am claiming that if you're not going to abolish it, make it mandatory for everyone. It's not a gender issue like child birth is.

Thirdly, I am claiming that if you want to abolish it, but keep the responsibility bonus of mandatory military service, you institute a mandatory civil service. A mandatory civil service would make sense compared to a mandatory military service.

This is only a gender issue because you make it one. I want to un-make it a gender issue.

I certainly don't expect anything second rate, hence EQUALITY.
Except what you suggest isnt equality.

I also hardly see this as some conspiracy to control womens reproduction or to force them to do something that men have to do because we are disgruntled they we have to and they don't.
You suggest we control their reproduction, not me. So far as I know no such control is exercised over the reproductive capacities of male conscripts.
As for conspiracy....er, nice hyperbole....

Just a couple decades ago it was deemed a MAN'S job to serve and for women to stay home.
No kidding, so tell me do you think in a few decades the world has suddenly become 'not male-centric, designed and structured, or is it as I suggest, women must assimulate to or settle for second rate?

With the feminism movement comes equality and with that women should be equal in all ways with men which would include miltary service.
Right, assimulate, assimulate. You realise how little imput females have had in the structuring of the institutions you now expect them to mould themselves to? You realise these insititions were shaped and adapted by and to fit males? So basically males carry on, and if females want equality they have to 'join in' with the 'real world'....aka the 'male world'...
Again I reiterate assimulation of the subordinate group by the dominant is not equality, it's just another form of discrimination and oppression.

Controlling their reproduction while in service is smart so that they do not loose effective troops to pregnancy and once in the armed service, all loose rights that civilians have.
Right so to be clear you are advocating taking control of females' reproduction (which you surely realise we dont do to males)? This is an astonishing length you will go to in order to ensure that any disadvantage steming from gender inequality is pushed off onto women. To control a person's reproduction denies their most basic of civil rights, yet you are happy to do this to females, not to prevent any imposition to males, but just to ensure that if their is inequality, it's not males who are disadvantaged.

It is the MILITARY. I wouldn't mind hearing from many women if they think "oh, I can't seve because I'll lose baby-making time!" I'm sure the majority will use that excuse. :rolleyes:
No kidding!
The choices are
males only imposed on, only to degree of impressed service for period of time
or
males imposed on to degree of impressed service for period of time
females imposed on to degree of impressed service for period of time
females most basic civil and personal rights violated

You dont want equality, you just want to be sure that any disadvantage falls on females, so much so you will even go to the length of controlling their reproduction if it ensures that females will have to meet any obligation that falls on males...

Zagat, you used to make sense, now you're saying we have different civil and social rights and in fact, there is no equality? Sorry, but I think it's better to make equality and the current system definitely isn't equal, so I suggest you propose something that is, rather than stick with a system that is clearly beneficial to women.

I say we should follow Monty Python: "he can't have babies, but he has the right to have them!"

Actaully, the military does control males reproduction. You are not allowed to have relations will on duty. So in an army that is 24/7 on duty, you are not allowed to be fooling around. Male or female. Nor are you allowed to do things that may make you medically infit for service will on active duty (such as elective surgery, drugs, being drunk, ect) You must have leave/premission and not being allowed to get pregenant will on active duty would fall under these rules, without the need to add additional rules.

Your just a tool.

First and foremost, I am claiming that mandatory military service is bad and should be abolished.
Which is a point we agree on.

Secondly, I am claiming that if you're not going to abolish it, make it mandatory for everyone. It's not a gender issue like child birth is.

It is a gender issue, we know this because you yourself have pointed out the need to control female reproductivity during their mandated service...

Thirdly, I am claiming that if you want to abolish it, but keep the responsibility bonus of mandatory military service, you institute a mandatory civil service. A mandatory civil service would make sense compared to a mandatory military service.
I have no idea why we would implement a novel form of 'civil impressment'....

This is only a gender issue because you make it one. I want to un-make it a gender issue.
If that were true we wouldnt need to make a single exception in how we treat conscripted women....you've already stated we would need to impose on females' reproductive capacity during their service, we dont need to do that with males - it is a gender issue. The only difference between conscriptees we dont control the reproductive capacities of and the ones you suggest we would need to, is gender. For a state to impose on a person to the extent of having a say in their reproductive choices/capacity, is a huge invasion of privacy a denial of basic human and civil rights....but it's ok as long as it's necessary to ensure males dont carry the burden of gender inequality denying females basic human rights like self-determination over their own reproductive capacities is fine....:rolleyes:

No kidding!
The choices are
males only imposed on, only to degree of impressed service for period of time
or
males imposed on to degree of impressed service for period of time
females imposed on to degree of impressed service for period of time
females most basic civil and personal rights violated

You dont want equality, you just want to be sure that any disadvantage falls on females, so much so you will even go to the length of controlling their reproduction if it ensures that females will have to meet any obligation that falls on males...

You know I don't know why I am continuing this. It is just a strawman, equality means both sexes serving in the military. Nothing less. Any rights that may have to be temporarily lost will have to be accepted in military service. You cannot exactly have women getting pregnant in Iraq and have to be brought home thereby losing a trained soldier. Restricting reproduction in the military is just common sense.

Zagat, you used to make sense, now you're saying we have different civil and social rights and in fact, there is no equality?
What?
Sorry, but I think it's better to make equality and the current system definitely isn't equal, so I suggest you propose something that is, rather than stick with a system that is clearly beneficial to women.
It's not necessarily clearly beneficial to anyone to have people off in militaries. I suggest we get rid of mandatory service, I suggest until we do that we not conscript more people into mandatory service because it further entrenches mandatory service and makes it more diffiucult to get rid of. I certainly dont think people the military was not designed for and whose needs it doesnt necessarily take into account (as a 'class' or category) ought to be roped into a system not of their design or making, already standing.
It will never be equality to 'draft' females so long as the military remains so overtly male-centric. You want to 'draft' females in then you need to make sure the military is structured to suit the 'female disposition' at least as well as it suits the male disposition that military institions have evolved to be adapted for.

I say we should follow Monty Python: "he can't have babies, but he has the right to have them!"
Of course, and any male who is pregnant should be exempted from mandatory service for life.

Actaully, the military does control males reproduction. You are not allowed to have relations will on duty.
No, this is controlling labour and time.

So in an army that is 24/7 on duty, you are not allowed to be fooling around.
You can do what you like when you come up for leave, immediately before you commence service etc...

Male or female. Nor are you allowed to do things that may make you medically infit for service will on active duty (such as elective surgery, drugs, being drunk, ect) You must have leave/premission and not being allowed to get pregenant will on active duty would fall under these rules, without the need to add additional rules.
Which is fine if one has agreed to the rules. Enlisting voluntarily so chosing to abide by the military rules is not the same as being forced to.
If males or females agree to the rule and join of their own volition then they choose to abide by military rules about 'getting pregnant', they are still (through their ability to chose to enlist or not) in control of their own reproductive choices.
If you draft a male, then he can procreate with breaking the rule about making themselves unfit for service, so the military does not gain control of their reproductive capacities.
If you draft females you either have to put up with loses due to pregnancy or control their reproduction.
I'm really not sure why you couldnt work out as much for yourself....
Your just a tool.
:rolleyes:

It is a gender issue, we know this because you yourself have pointed out the need to control female reproductivity during their mandated service...


I have no idea why we would implement a novel form of 'civil impressment'....

When did I say any such thing? You treat women in the military the same you do in any job, even if it's mandatory. There are regulations and laws in place to deal with what you do with women who get pregnant while they work. Often they will try to ease the situation for both the woman and the employer.

My point is, I never stated that we should control female reporductivity. If I did, I would like you to quote the passage where I said such a thing.

And we would implement 'civil impressment' if there somehow was a need for the youth to learn something from it. Sometimes, it seems there is, other times, the need doesn't seem so great.

You know I don't know why I am continuing this. It is just a strawman, equality means both sexes serving in the military.
So to you equality means women having to reshape themselves to fit the roles of men. So women either assimulate or second rate....
Nothing less. Any rights that may have to be temporarily lost will have to be accepted in military service.
Right so equality means everyone has the same rights except for women who have to loose rights men retain if women are to be equal - do you really not see the paradox of forcing women to forgo a right men have for the purpose of achieving equality?

You cannot exactly have women getting pregnant in Iraq and have to be brought home thereby losing a trained soldier. Restricting reproduction in the military is just common sense.
Right so you cannot conscript women without breaching their human rights...but hey dehumanising women in the name of equality makes perfect sense.
I reiterate, you dont want inequality you just want to ensure that if there is gender inequality that it isnt males who are ever disadvantaged.
Determination over one's reproductive capacities is an internationally recognised human right, not being conscripted in the armed services is not. So it's not ok if inequality means females 'get off' something males have to do, but it is inequality if in order to facilitate females 'not getting off' we deny them basic human rights....

NO, you are imposing on the medical choices. Pregnancy is a medical condition, and as such, they would be subject to avoid things that may result in lost service time. If a male does something that makes him unfit for service for 9 months, he gets in a *world* of shit. So would the female. It just so happens one of the things she can do to be unfit is reproductive.

Besides, they also control sexuality vis a vis many milatries not allowing any homosexual relations during enlistment time at all. Regardless of gender. I.e. being openly gay or lesbian in the US forces is verboten. So I dont see why banning sex will in the military would be a violation of civil rights.

When did I say any such thing?
You didnt (or at least I didnt notice that you did)....:rolleyes: I thought I was replying to someone else....:rolleyes:

You treat women in the military the same you do in any job, even if it's mandatory. There are regulations and laws in place to deal with what you do with women who get pregnant while they work. Often they will try to ease the situation for both the woman and the employer.
I dont believe the measures that work in 'normal employment' will be sufficient for this circumstance. How do we stop every female that gets called up becoming pregnant and continuing to do so until past the age of conscription?

My point is, I never stated that we should control female reporductivity. If I did, I would like you to quote the passage where I said such a thing.
I'm inclined at this point to agree with your particular point that you never made such a point - it may well be past my coffee time...:p

And we would implement 'civil impressment' if there somehow was a need for the youth to learn something from it. Sometimes, it seems there is, other times, the need doesn't seem so great.
Well I dont believe I can imagine every contingency, but surfice it to say of those contingencies I can imagine, I dont see 'civil impressment' as desirable...

You didnt (or at least I didnt notice that you did)....:rolleyes: I thought I was replying to someone else....:rolleyes:

That's okay, np.

I dont believe the measures that work in 'normal employment' will be sufficient for this circumstance. How do we stop every female that gets called up becoming pregnant and continuing to do so until past the age of conscription?

Because conscription is only four months long and they probably want the free education that comes afterwards (whether or not they are conscripted, they get this free education, as do men), I somehow doubt that most of them will want to risk pregnancy.

Of course, they can postpone military services until they have finished their education (which will still be free, it has nothing to do with the military that it is free). Then, of course, they might have children, but again, unless you intend to have a child, would you rather have a child or serve four months in the military?

I do notice the slight problem that women might be indirectly pressured to have children. However, it's their choice. Often, it's easier to just fake some disability or illness (the doctors are usually quite helpful, even if you aren't suffering from anything).

I'm inclined at this point to agree with your particular point that you never made such a point - it may well be past my coffee time...:p

:P

Well I dont believe I can imagine every contingency, but surfice it to say of those contingencies I can imagine, I dont see 'civil impressment' as desirable...

*shrug*

Same goes for everyone, same goes for anyone effected by mandatory conscription....

But instead you seem to prefer that others be forced alongside you...

You dont follow my line of thought. Why should only females face impositions as a result of their gender? So far as I can tell you assume that 'male-centricity' is 'normal' and that females must 'join normalicy' to claim basic human rights.

I don't think I responded to this, so I will. The ideas will probably already have been noted however.

No. Mandatory military service can changed to include both or neither. You can't change a man to be able to have babies.

And I think we already agreed that it's better to do away with it entirely.

And finally, why should only males face impositions as a result of their gender?


Again:
You have a choice whether or not you want to have a child.
I want a choice whether or not to join the military. Either that, or I want it to be an overall case that everybody has to join for a couple months, because anything else is just unfair.

Also, how is the military male-centric? I don't want a roll-eyes, I want a detailed argument, please.

So to you equality means women having to reshape themselves to fit the roles of men. So women either assimulate or second rate....

That right there is a sexist statement. Women are perfectly suited to military service, it is not just a "male role".

Right so equality means everyone has the same rights except for women who have to loose rights men retain if women are to be equal - do you really not see the paradox of forcing women to forgo a right men have for the purpose of achieving equality?

What, the right to become pregnant? As I said the military has every right to restrict rights that hinder its effectiveness and pregnancy would certainly do that.

Right so you cannot conscript women without breaching their human rights...but hey dehumanising women in the name of equality makes perfect sense.

I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous.

I reiterate, you dont want inequality you just want to ensure that if there is gender inequality that it isnt males who are ever disadvantaged.
Determination over one's reproductive capacities is an internationally recognised human right, not being conscripted in the armed services is not. So it's not ok if inequality means females 'get off' something males have to do, but it is inequality if in order to facilitate females 'not getting off' we deny them basic human rights....

Same as above. Crazy. Do you think any military in the world would say it is perfectly fine for their female soldiers to become pregnant? I don't care where you are, it would result in loss of money in the training of soldier and becomes a risk in a conflict when the soldier will have to be taken off the field. Keeping them on the field by preventing pregnancy is hardly a violation of civil rights. :rolleyes:

NO, you are imposing on the medical choices. Pregnancy is a medical condition, and as such, they would be subject to avoid things that may result in lost service time. If a male does something that makes him unfit for service for 9 months, he gets in a *world* of shit. So would the female. It just so happens one of the things she can do to be unfit is reproductive.
Way to dance around the point while missing it entirely. Whether or not pregnancy is a medical condition it remains a reproductive capacity. Control of one's own reproductive capacities is a basic human right.

Besides, they also control sexuality vis a vis many milatries not allowing any homosexual relations during enlistment time at all. Regardless of gender. I.e. being openly gay or lesbian in the US forces is verboten. So I dont see why banning sex will in the military would be a violation of civil rights.
Your example is non-sequitor. Not behaving in a way that makes it clear one is homosexual does not require that one not engage in any homosexual relations...
It is not banning sex, it is banning females from becoming pregnant - it is controlling their reproductive capacities in an acceptable fashion.

Women can't do jobs men can do as equally. That is why women should not be on the battlefield. :)

So ban sex, period. aLot of civil rights are banned in the military, Freedom of movement, freedom of speach (for one, not being able to say your gay is a imposistion on the guarenteed civil right of freedom of speech) ect. So an imposistion on sexual freedoms is not at all uncalled for, and infact, are currently in place for males, as they would be also in place for females.

Its funny too. My friend who is joining the forces me, seems to think she'l feel more equal in the armed forces, not less equal. Granbted we are both voulenteers, and have no draft here. But females are just as capable and suited to the military as males. Saying they are not is sexist, do you think females can not handle the rigors of the military?

Women can't do jobs men can do as equally. That is why women should not be on the battlefield. :)

You are just picking a fight now. Why not just say they are too stupid or something and get yourself flammed. :p

So ban sex, period. aLot of civil rights are banned in the military, Freedom of movement, freedom of speach (for one, not being able to say your gay is a imposistion on the guarenteed civil right of freedom of speech) ect. So an imposistion on sexual freedoms is not at all uncalled for, and infact, are currently in place for males, as they would be also in place for females.

Its funny too. My friend who is joining the forces me, seems to think she'l feel more equal in the armed forces, not less equal. Granbted we are both voulenteers, and have no draft here. But females are just as capable and suited to the military as males. Saying they are not is sexist, do you think females can not handle the rigors of the military?
Its proven they are not equal, saying everyone is equal when everyone is CLEARLY not is communism. :)

You are just picking a fight now. Why not just say they are too stupid or something and get yourself flammed. :p
In my library was a ENTIRE book on it. It was about 600pages long and it was about women in the military. It made it clear where women belonged and don't belong.

That right there is a sexist statement. Women are perfectly suited to military service, it is not just a "male role".
No it is not a sexist statement. It is a statement that doesnt ignore historical reality. It doesnt refer to merely the military it refers to all areas of public life that until very recently women were either marginalised in or excluded from entirely.

What, the right to become pregnant? As I said the military has every right to restrict rights that hinder its effectiveness and pregnancy would certainly do that.
Which military? Certainly not any military of a nation that is a signatary to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women since the military having such a right would contravene section (e) of Article 16.....:rolleyes:

I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous.

How so? The right to control over one's own reproduction is an internationally recognised human right and it is considered an act of dehumanisation to deny someone their 'human rights'.

Same as above. Crazy. Do you think any military in the world would say it is perfectly fine for their female soldiers to become pregnant?
You keep missing the point. I know that 'pregnant women on battle field = not good'. That is my point. The only way to effectively draft women without them being able to 'get off' through pregnancy is to contravene their human rights (specifically their right to control their own reproduction). This is a primary reason why I dont believe gender equality will be enhanced by 'drafting' women into military service.

I don't care where you are, it would result in loss of money in the training of soldier and becomes a risk in a conflict when the soldier will have to be taken off the field. Keeping them on the field by preventing pregnancy is hardly a violation of civil rights. :rolleyes:
Yes it is a violation of their rights, not only their civil rights, but rather their internationally recognised human rights. What you are suggesting is so abhorrent that over 90% of the nations in the UN got together and signed a document promising they wouldnt do it...:rolleyes:

In my library was a ENTIRE book on it. It was about 600pages long and it was about women in the military. It made it clear where women belonged and don't belong.

Heh. People like that are in the minority now, the unseen minority at that. Women have been dying in Iraq and loosing limbs and I have heard no murmer whatsoever on whether or not they should be over there.

So, your saying that a military does not have the right to give an order saying you are not allowed to have during the term of your enlistment? That is reproductive imposition, for both male and females. Lots of militaries do it, and they are thus according to your interpretation (you a lawyer versed in intl law?) violating intl law?

Yes it is a violation of their rights, not only their civil rights, but rather their internationally recognised human rights. What you are suggesting is so abhorrent that over 90% of the nations in the UN got together and signed a document promising they wouldnt do it...:rolleyes:

I wouldn't mind seeing a link to this. If the UN really has nothing better to do then promise to let female soldiers become pregnant, saying it is a matter of human rights then they have a real priority problem with the genocides and wars going on in Africa. Deal with matters that actually affect your life before going after something that is completely stupid and until I hear women everywhere crying out how the military won't let them be pregnant then I am going to see this as making an issue out of something that isn't there which for some is a favorite pastime.

The other problem: scouts.

Any western country which still seperates scouts into boy and girl scouts without having a general scouts option is horribly outdated in their idea of what scouting is about. Scouting is about learning to become a responsible and productive member of your society, while remaining a free and capable individual. To this end, it doesn't matter if you're a boy or a girl, you should learn the same damn things.

Okay, rant over, ignore or comment as you please.
or they could just join Campfire. (http://www.campfire.org/) There is a point in time when girls don't want to be around boys and the other way around, when kids are you know a little more comfortable with their own gender. Forcing a private club to fit into your idea of what should be is ludicrious, especially when there is a group that already fits that definition. If you don't like scouts don't join, it's simple.

Heh. People like that are in the minority now, the unseen minority at that. Women have been dying in Iraq and loosing limbs and I have heard no murmer whatsoever on whether or not they should be over there.

In a full scale war though, this was a tiny little thing. IN a real war men and women are proven to be inequal and would spend more time saving a women who was dying then 5 other men who could be saved.

In a full scale war though, this was a tiny little thing. IN a real war men and women are proven to be inequal and would spend more time saving a women who was dying then 5 other men who could be saved.

Like female soviet Snipers and Fighter pilots during wwiiWho kicked huge amounts of ass ?

In a full scale war though, this was a tiny little thing. IN a real war men and women are proven to be inequal and would spend more time saving a women who was dying then 5 other men who could be saved.

Sounds that you are underestimating the training soldiers go through if they will be more concerned over a female in trouble then anyone else. What would the scale matter? I haven't heard anything about male soldiers leaping to the aid of the poor injured female. Sounds like macho propaganda about how war is for men only. Stupid really, given the boost in troop strength that women would give in bodies to put throught the grinder. Besides I would consider Iraq to be a "real war."

That's okay, np.
You might be pleased to know I have kettle on the boil now...:p

Because conscription is only four months long and they probably want the free education that comes afterwards (whether or not they are conscripted, they get this free education, as do men), I somehow doubt that most of them will want to risk pregnancy.

Wow, sounds so good one wonders why they'd need to be conscripted, surely the military will be turning down volunteers in droves....?

Of course, they can postpone military services until they have finished their education (which will still be free, it has nothing to do with the military that it is free). Then, of course, they might have children, but again, unless you intend to have a child, would you rather have a child or serve four months in the military?
Honestly, even if it were only a very small group, I cant see a minority of early pregnancy solo mother teens not causing outrage among 'mainstream' (read economically and politically influential) sections of society when their daughters are drafted and the 'welfare moms' are not....I just honestly cant see it flying with the politically/economically influential whose daughters are less likely to be pregnant at a young age and so less likely to 'get out' of the draft due to pregnancy...

I do notice the slight problem that women might be indirectly pressured to have children. However, it's their choice. Often, it's easier to just fake some disability or illness (the doctors are usually quite helpful, even if you aren't suffering from anything).

Kind makes a draft seem, pointless. Why draft women when any men who dont want to be drafted can just find a helpful doctor?

:P
*shrug*

teehee:D - my bad...

I don't think I responded to this, so I will. The ideas will probably already have been noted however.

No. Mandatory military service can changed to include both or neither. You can't change a man to be able to have babies.
Not at all the point intended. The point is that everyone has constraints on them and we cannot no matter what we do make these constraints identical and universal. We should aim to make people unconstrained rather than try to constrain others to match them....

And I think we already agreed that it's better to do away with it entirely.

And finally, why should only males face impositions as a result of their gender?


Again:
You have a choice whether or not you want to have a child.
I want a choice whether or not to join the military. Either that, or I want it to be an overall case that everybody has to join for a couple months, because anything else is just unfair.
I dont have a choice about whether or not I give birth to my biological child, either I must or I cannot. The point is that people face different constraints. Men cannot give birth - true and their role in the military throughout history is not unrelated to this. Now in order to have equality women are expected to carry on with the burden of child bearing but also to bear the burden of compulsory military service. Seems to me that women are being expected to assimulate to male intitiated structures and modes of social organisation without concern for the suitability of the structures for the female 'mode of being', including the fact that females bear our young.

Also, how is the military male-centric? I don't want a roll-eyes, I want a detailed argument, please.
Well for a start it would be a complete freak turn out if an organisation designed by males, for males, would somehow not be male-centric.
Consider that whenever adaptations were made (historically) to the structure of the military institution (or any particular military organisation) the adaptations were made either with males in mind or in response to the behaviour of males.
The imput from the top has been male, the material that the structure has been applied (ie the troops) have been male, the people that the structure responded to with adaptive changes were male, and the people the 'planners' had in mind whenever they made changes were male.

Like female soviet Snipers and Fighter pilots during wwiiWho kicked huge amounts of ass ?

Name three.

Sounds that you are underestimating the training soldiers go through if they will be more concerned over a female in trouble then anyone else. What would the scale matter? I haven't heard anything about male soldiers leaping to the aid of the poor injured female. Sounds like macho propaganda about how war is for men only. Stupid really, given the boost in troop strength that women would give in bodies to put throught the grinder. Besides I would consider Iraq to be a "real war."

Iraq was like picking on a runt. It couldn't even defend itself for a long time. I am talking like China or Russia. Women who have been injured tend to get more care from men then other men who are injured. Women are also physically weaker then men and their ability to carry the heavy loads are not as easy to find as in men.

Well for a start it would be a complete freak turn out if an organisation designed by males, for males, would somehow not be male-centric.
Consider that whenever adaptations were made (historically) to the structure of the military institution (or any particular military organisation) the adaptations were made either with males in mind or in response to the behaviour of males.
The imput from the top has been male, the material that the structure has been applied (ie the troops) have been male, the people that the structure responded to with adaptive changes were male, and the people the 'planners' had in mind whenever they made changes were male.

So since the system was designed by men, women should not even bother trying to change the military? That it is a male society there is no question and that is why women should continue to join to change that, not give up and say that it is not their place. It will be the same way women have gotten positions in every other job in America. This will be no different.

Iraq was like picking on a runt. It couldn't even defend itself for a long time. I am talking like China or Russia. Women who have been injured tend to get more care from men then other men who are injured. Women are also physically weaker then men and their ability to carry the heavy loads are not as easy to find as in men.

Which is why you have equal standards in training to make sure women can meet the requirements of service. As for Russia and China they are different countries with different cultures and comparing them to America doesn't work. No world power has been in a "real" war for a while so it is hard to say what the result will be.

So, your saying that a military does not have the right to give an order saying you are not allowed to have during the term of your enlistment? That is reproductive imposition, for both male and females. Lots of militaries do it, and they are thus according to your interpretation (you a lawyer versed in intl law?) violating intl law?
Have what?
What I am saying is that if the military drafts women and either orders them not to become pregnant of forces them to take contraceptives or in any way constrains their reproductive choices, then either the military belongs to one of the less than 10% of nations that didnt sign the convention, or the military and it's parent nation are contravening an international convention that they are signitories to.

I wouldn't mind seeing a link to this. If the UN really has nothing better to do then promise to let female soldiers become pregnant, saying it is a matter of human rights then they have a real priority problem with the genocides and wars going on in Africa.
Er, what are you on about?
It's quite simple, there is a convention that sets out females' basic human right to make their own determinations over their reproductive capacities - this applies regardless whether or not they are soldiers. If a female is drafted (ie didnt choose to enlist) and then faces any constraint on her reproductive capacities, since she didnt choose to abide by such constraints, her right to make her own determinations about her reproductive capacities has been contravened. It doesnt matter if she is 'drafted' to be a soldier, a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker. If she didnt have a choice in being subject to such constraints then her human rights have been contravened.

linkie (http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm)

Deal with matters that actually affect your life before going after something that is completely stupid and until I hear women everywhere crying out how the military won't let them be pregnant then I am going to see this as making an issue out of something that isn't there which for some is a favorite pastime.
Right, until you hear women who agreed to abide by certain rules and whose rights are not contravened by them choosing to do so, you wont accept the existence of rights that would be contravened by your suggested 'mandatory military service contraception programe'...:confused:

Which is why you have equal standards in training to make sure women can meet the requirements of service. As for Russia and China they are different countries with different cultures and comparing them to America doesn't work. No world power has been in a "real" war for a while so it is hard to say what the result will be.
True. Though this was done a long time ago to.

Name three.
Lyudmila Mikhailovna Pavlichenko 309 confirmed kills. 36 being other snipers.
Marie Ljalková 30 confirmed kills (which is respectable indeed)
Lt. Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya 300 kills (from what I can find, some conflicting numbres seem to come up)

29 female pilots of the USSR won Gold Star Hero Of Soviet Union, which is similar to a Medal of Honor or a Victoria Cross.

The 586th Fighter Aviation Regiment(all female) 38 kills

Lilya Litvyak(46th guards regiment) attacked by four Bf-109s making two kills and the other two retreat.

The all womens air bombardment unit was the most decorated Soviet Air unit of the war.

Need more?

Er, what are you on about?
It's quite simple, there is a convention that sets out females' basic human right to make their own determinations over their reproductive capacities - this applies regardless whether or not they are soldiers. If a female is drafted (ie didnt choose to enlist) and then faces any constraint on her reproductive capacities, since she didnt choose to abide by such constraints, her right to make her own determinations about her reproductive capacities has been contravened. It doesnt matter if she is 'drafted' to be a soldier, a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker. If she didnt have a choice in being subject to such constraints then her human rights have been contravened.

Ah, you meant women have rights in reproduction in general. Obviously that is true but the simple fact is that once in the military you do not have the civil rights that civilians enjoy. There is nothing wrong with that as they are trying to be effective in war. Women accept the restrictions on themselves just as men do. Even if it is conscription and the woman didn't "choose" the military doesn't matter as it is still the practical move to make. Now it is only the morals of conscription because this issue you are making is as I've said repeatedly is only common sense.

I wholeheartedly support women being drafted/conscripted alongside men. The very idea that the nation can force me to go to war, but that women get a free pass because of their gender is ridiculous. If a nation has conscription(I don't support it, but it happens), then anyone competant should be on the list, man or woman, black or white, tall or short, etc.

So since the system was designed by men, women should not even bother trying to change the military?
Where do you get such ideas? Since the system was designed by men, for men and in response to men, in the absence of any proof of it not being gender biased against women, I believe that forcing women to 'assimulate' into the model is unreasonable.
Of course women who are so inclined ought to join the military, and in fact I would say that if the military is to become non-gender biased then it is necessary that females join the ranks.

That it is a male society there is no question and that is why women should continue to join to change that, not give up and say that it is not their place.
How is refusing to unquestioningly assimulate into male-centric structures and modes of organisation equivalent to 'giving up'?

It will be the same way women have gotten positions in every other job in America. This will be no different.
Yes it will be entirely different. There is a huge difference between chosing to enter the workforce, and being drafted into a military and told what to do with your own reproductive capacties.

Ah, you meant women have rights in reproduction in general. Obviously that is true but the simple fact is that once in the military you do not have the civil rights that civilians enjoy.
Which is why we cannot draft women without contravening their basic human rights.

There is nothing wrong with that as they are trying to be effective in war.
No, so far as I know Denmark is not at war....we are discussing manditory service - can you specify which nations are currently at war, have manditory military service and are characterised by any semblence of gender equality? The OP was concerned with any particular need but rather simply with the fact that in some countries males are conscripted into military service and females are not. Denmark is the specific example I recall....

Women accept the restrictions on themselves just as men do. Even if it is conscription and the woman didn't "choose" the military doesn't matter as it is still the practical move to make.
Yes it does matter. You see the point of an international convention is not to promise that 'if it's practical we will do as the convention says' but rather to promise that 'come what may, even if it is impractical to do so, we will do what the convention says'.


Now it is only the morals of conscription because this issue you are making is as I've said repeatedly is only common sense.

No if ignoring promises made in international conventions whenever such promises were impractical to keep was 'common sense' such conventions wouldnt really have much of a point would they? The whole point of signing such a convention is to bind the nation to the promises made even if it doesnt seem to be practical or common sense.

First of all, I would like to applaud Zagat for her excellent defense and rebuttal of many attacks. All alone she has defended her side of the argument beautifully and eloquently, without resorting to profanity.






I certainly dont think people the military was not designed for and whose needs it doesnt necessarily take into account (as a 'class' or category) ought to be roped into a system not of their design or making, already standing.
It will never be equality to 'draft' females so long as the military remains so overtly male-centric. You want to 'draft' females in then you need to make sure the military is structured to suit the 'female disposition' at least as well as it suits the male disposition that military institions have evolved to be adapted for.




I have a slight problem with this right here. I am an American, so I have little right to be saying anything about forced enlistment, but saying that one needs to change the system entirely to accomodate femals with a more feminine environment is a bad idea, and does not hold to how things work. If the Forces were to do this, then what about the issue of homosexuals? In the armed forces they are often discriminated against, yet they can be drafted easily. The same goes for any minority, African-Americans, Hispanics... In American forces, you have a large percantage of southern white males, who (and I know this is being very general) are not as tolerant as most. Im not sure my thoughts have gotten through, and for sure it isn't eloquent, but that is my view.

can you specify which nations are currently at war, have manditory military service and are characterised by any semblence of gender equality?


Israel. It is at war (a war on terror...but a war still) has mandatory service for both genders and is generally free and equal to both genders.

Oh, Denmark is at war, they are one of the nations in Iraq.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

First of all, I would like to applaud Zagat for her excellent defense and rebuttal of many attacks. All alone she has defended her side of the argument beautifully and eloquently, without resorting to profanity.

Yes, I think this argument has been very civil on both sides. Kudos!

Either way, I have nothing more to add and take my leave.

Oh, Denmark is at war, they are one of the nations in Iraq.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

Yes, but I do have something to add:

As a drafted soldier, you are 100% sure that you will never EVER be sent anywhere.

(In Denmark that is)

LOL, denmark is still at war tho. But this has been a fun thread, Thanks to Both sides, and sorry if I was rude by accident (I had no intention to be) :)

First of all, I would like to applaud Zagat for her excellent defense and rebuttal of many attacks. All alone she has defended her side of the argument beautifully and eloquently, without resorting to profanity.
Well that is really very kind of you to say Zandoman!:)
:fluffle:

I have a slight problem with this right here. I am an American, so I have little right to be saying anything about forced enlistment, but saying that one needs to change the system entirely to accomodate femals with a more feminine environment is a bad idea, and does not hold to how things work.
I dont suggest that we change the system entirely to accomodate females, what I do assert is that it is unreasonable to force females to assimulate into an environment that was structured for, around and by men, without making some concession to how female needs and propensities differ (as a group) from those of males (as a group). Such a situation would force females to compromise and accomodate without the organistion or society that benefits making any recipricol concession, purportedly in order to achieve gender-equality even though males are not conscripted to an equivalent female-centric environment.

It isnt consistent to force women into the environment in the name of gender equality, without ensuring that the environment accomodates them equally as well as it accomodates men.

If the Forces were to do this, then what about the issue of homosexuals? In the armed forces they are often discriminated against, yet they can be drafted easily.
I dont know that the numbers of homosexual males in the military are greatly different to that in wider society.
It's not just a matter of discrimination, it is a matter of the environment having been shaped without any need to accomodate female needs or propensities. The best way to maintain discipline and morale amongst a group of primarily males is not necessarily the best way to maintain discipline and morale amongst a group made up primarily of females.
While in my opinion peoples' traits/propensities/needs/etc exist as a continum rather than in discrete categories, there are propensities that correlate to gender. We know that socialisation plays a role in these propensities (but we also know that gender based tendencies are observable in new-born infants (one study found that new-born female infants are more responsive to the cries of other infants than are new-born male infants). So we know that whatever role socialisation plays in genderisation, there are biological propensities and tendencies that exist prior to socialisation.
So it's not unreasonable to suggest that an environment produced, by, for and in response to males and their tendencies and propensities might be ill-suited to female tendencies and propensities.
Why should females be forced to 'squeeze' into a mould made for men? Forcing females to be 'as males' is not gender equality, it's just oppression in a different form.

The same goes for any minority, African-Americans, Hispanics... In American forces, you have a large percantage of southern white males, who (and I know this is being very general) are not as tolerant as most. Im not sure my thoughts have gotten through, and for sure it isn't eloquent, but that is my view.
I think I catch your drift, but if I'm correct then the point you are addressing isnt the one I was making. It isnt simply discrimination that concerns me, but rather that the environment is 'gender-specialised' in such a way that it is not equitable to force both genders to serve in that environment.

PS, I agree with earlier posters who said it's been a good chat/discussion; go us!;) :D