Military Draft in the US

[Brainteaserfan]

I was wondering what your opinions were, if the need arose for an American draft, as to whether women should be drafted alongside men. Pros? Cons?

[toastywombel]

I was wondering what your opinions were, if the need arose for an American draft, as to whether women should be drafted alongside men. Pros? Cons?

 

A draft is an obvious and blatant violation of one's freedom however the draft can be very practical and necessary in certain other situations. That being said, I do not know of many situations in which the current American government could institute a draft without there being a real social issue. Now posing the question of whether women should be drafted with men?

 

There are several issues with that which come to mind immediately:

 

Women are the child bearers of our species, and with current technology women can reproduce without men. Furthermore, such a feat is much harder when you have a bunch of men. So conventional wisdom would be, and usually always has been in successful societies, that one should protect women and children. The future of the species truly depends on them.

 

Furthermore, women being drafted into the armed forces (marines, infantry, etc.) is just not practical. It is quite obvious that males, on average, are stronger and faster than their female counterparts. This can be known by understanding simple biology. However, I would believe women who are capable should feel free to join the armed forces.

 

Finally to institute a draft and include women? Could you imagine the push back if the government started drafting a bunch of high school and college girls? Seriously? And could you imagine seeing some girls like that on the battlefield.

 

The only justification I could ever see for such a draft would be along the lines of zombie apocalypses and alien invasions. But even then, it would not be practical unless you lived in a nation of amazons.

 

That all being said, though, I believe women are just as capable as men, and many women far more capable than men, but drafting women into the armed forces, to go fight battles just seems really wrong.

Edited October 14, 2011 by toastywombel

[iNow]

Drafting anyone seems wrong in and of itself. With that said, if we do have a draft, then it should be equal. Equality which is applied only in the places where we subjectively think it makes sense is no equality at all.

 

In many countries, military service is compulsory, and women are not excluded from that. Likewise, if a draft were in place women should also not be excluded.

 

I say all of this while largely agreeing with toasty's comments on issues above.

Edited October 14, 2011 by iNow

[swansont]

Finally to institute a draft and include women? Could you imagine the push back if the government started drafting a bunch of high school and college girls? Seriously? And could you imagine seeing some girls like that on the battlefield.

 

Imagine the pushback if they didn't. "High school and college girls" are currently in the military. This isn't 40-50 years ago, when women did not serve in combat situations.

[toastywombel]

Imagine the pushback if they didn't. "High school and college girls" are currently in the military. This isn't 40-50 years ago, when women did not serve in combat situations.

 

Pushback from who? Do you think that upset drafted males are going to provide such push back, or do you think that women are going to be upset they aren't getting drafted? I fail to see how any significant push back would come from the 'let's draft women' movement. I understand that some high school and college girls are in the military, but for example could you imagine someone like Taylor Swift getting drafted? I mean come on. A draft alone, not including females would have significant push back, especially in today's society. But then you throw females into the mix? It would not be hard to imagine the riots in the streets.

 

I think applying values like "equality" to such an issue as "should women be drafted?" is too broad and simple of an answer. There are clear differences between men and women and I think our legal system recognizes that.

 

Also, I think soon this question might be no longer applicable. As technology grows, and as globalization continues not only does the amount of troops needed for military actions decrease, but the need for large scale military actions that would require things like a draft decrease.

 

Drafting anyone seems wrong in and of itself. With that said, if we do have a draft, then it should be equal. Equality which is applied only in the places where we subjectively think it makes sense is no equality at all..

 

So would you take the position that male and female bathrooms are examples of inequality?

 

Also its funny that we are three men discussing whether women should be drafted, maybe we should see what some women think?

Edited October 16, 2011 by toastywombel

[swansont]

Pushback from who? Do you think that upset drafted males are going to provide such push back, or do you think that women are going to be upset they aren't getting drafted? I fail to see how any significant push back would come from the 'let's draft women' movement. I understand that some high school and college girls are in the military, but for example could you imagine someone like Taylor Swift getting drafted? I mean come on. A draft alone, not including females would have significant push back, especially in today's society. But then you throw females into the mix? It would not be hard to imagine the riots in the streets.

 

I don't think there would be pushback from women, since anyone interested could still volunteer. But men? Sure. I'd be a tad upset if I were drafted and half of the population were exempt. It's discriminatory. I don't really know who Taylor Swift is offhand, but I can imagine a lot of people — of both genders — who would be ill-suited to the military. Being drafted doesn't mean you necessarily serve. Unfit people would be weeded out. And serving doesn't mean infantry duty, either. Women work in civilian jobs that are similar to military jobs, the main difference is the way you get yelled at and having to do physical training.

[iNow]

So would you take the position that male and female bathrooms are examples of inequality?

It's an interesting question, but the answer is yes. Why would this be any different than if we had all white or all black bathrooms? I think unisex bathrooms are fine, and several cultures already use them proving there is really no issue doing it this way. It's setup the way it is today IMO due merely to some outdated puritanical view of how the sexes should be kept separate, much like women and men must sit on different sides of the McDonald's in Saudi Arabia, or use different entrances to the KFC in Iran. Either way, we choose which bathrooms we wish to frequent. We don't choose whether or not we can ourselves be drafted.

 

If a draft is in place, there is no reason to exempt women. Much like swansont already noted above, you prevent unfit people from serving based on performance and skill, not based on having descended testes or ones which formed into ovaries due the presence of a Y or extra X chromosome.

[Phi for All]

As long as everyone has the same access to conscientious objector status, I don't see why women shouldn't be drafted alongside men.

 

I admit though that one of my first thoughts was that there would be some women who would consider the idea so repugnant that they would take extreme measures to avoid military service. I'm sure pregnancies would increase dramatically, right along with a rise in gun-cleaning accidents involving men's feet.

 

Also its funny that we are three men discussing whether women should be drafted, maybe we should see what some women think?

I'm sure mooeypoo will respond when she gets the time. Since Israel has had conscripted military service for some time now, and she has served in the IDF, I'd like to hear her POV as well.

[toastywombel]

I'm sure mooeypoo will respond when she gets the time. Since Israel has had conscripted military service for some time now, and she has served in the IDF, I'd like to hear her POV as well.

 

Yeah I remember that.

 

But this is a hard topic and I imagine its practicality vs equality. Obviously back in prehistoric times, sending the women of your tribe into battle would prove to be a very bad idea. However as technology progresses it definitely begins to equalize the need for inequality. And as swansont mentioned, when one gets drafted he or maybe she does not necessarily have to endure combat.

 

I stand by the separate bathrooms however. haha

 

Hopefully though, such technologies will lead us to a future where the draft and war is obsolete.

Edited October 17, 2011 by toastywombel

[CaptainPanic]

Women and men are not equal... we differ in almost every way, except that both men and women are humans.

 

In social life, women are different from men.

In a professional life, women are different from men.

Physically, women are different from men, and it should be mentioned that women can get pregnant, men can't.

Emotionally women are different from men.

 

Despite equal chances (at least on paper) for several decades, the work distribution between men and women is still different too. Either men don't give women equal chances, or women don't take them... But it is obvious that we are not equal.

 

So, why should we apply any equal treatment to women regarding draft if there is no equality in almost any other way? I oppose draft for women, and I dismiss any argument that we should be treated equally.

 

p.s. and maybe we should reconsider the equality in a lot of other ways too... the fact that women have equal rights now is a step in the right direction (coming from complete inequality), but perhaps this can be refined in the future.

Edited October 17, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[swansont]

equal ≠ identical

[CaptainPanic]

equal ≠ identical

Only identical twins are sort of identical. But if you think I was wrong, or you misunderstood, I will rewrite the post to be more clear:

 

In social life, women behave differently towards men and women, and men behave differently towards men and women, so, almost none of us treats the different sexes equally. It's often not even a voluntary choice (for example, men are not shy towards women because they discriminate them).

 

In a professional life, women are different from men. Just look at the management positions in any company. Men and women are not equal.

Despite equal chances (at least on paper) for several decades, the work distribution between men and women is still different too. Either men don't give women equal chances, or women don't take them... But it is obvious that we are not equal.

 

Physically, women are different from men, and it should be mentioned that women can get pregnant, men can't. This is a good reason not to treat men and women as equals. Otherwise, it would only be fair that men get pregnant too, and that more women work in heavy labor jobs such as construction.

 

In sports, we have separated men and women for obvious reasons: we're not equals, and women wouldn't stand a chance against men in most sports.

 

So, I maintain that men and women are not equal (and obviously also not identical).

 

(and copy pasting the conclusion from my previous post):

So, why should we apply any equal treatment to women regarding draft if there is no equality in almost any other way? I oppose draft for women, and I dismiss any argument that we should be treated equally.

 

p.s. and maybe we should reconsider the equality in a lot of other ways too... the fact that women have equal rights now is a step in the right direction (coming from complete inequality), but perhaps this can be refined in the future.

[swansont]

Only identical twins are sort of identical. But if you think I was wrong, or you misunderstood, I will rewrite the post to be more clear:

 

In social life, women behave differently towards men and women, and men behave differently towards men and women, so, almost none of us treats the different sexes equally. It's often not even a voluntary choice (for example, men are not shy towards women because they discriminate them).

 

In a professional life, women are different from men. Just look at the management positions in any company. Men and women are not equal.

Despite equal chances (at least on paper) for several decades, the work distribution between men and women is still different too. Either men don't give women equal chances, or women don't take them... But it is obvious that we are not equal.

 

I am not persuaded by an argument that sounds a lot like "women are not treated equally, therefore we should not treat them equally".

 

Physically, women are different from men, and it should be mentioned that women can get pregnant, men can't. This is a good reason not to treat men and women as equals. Otherwise, it would only be fair that men get pregnant too, and that more women work in heavy labor jobs such as construction.

 

In sports, we have separated men and women for obvious reasons: we're not equals, and women wouldn't stand a chance against men in most sports.

 

So, I maintain that men and women are not equal (and obviously also not identical).

 

Again, this is substituting identical for equal. We do have equality of opportunity in sports in the US. Title IX. Women have to have equal access to sports if the institution gets federal funding. You don't categorically exclude women from construction jobs, you require a certain physical ability. If women can't perform the job and don't get hired, it's because they aren't strong enough, not because they are female. That's discrimination on the basis of ability, which is allowed. You hire the best qualified applicant, regardless of gender, race, etc.

 

(and copy pasting the conclusion from my previous post):

So, why should we apply any equal treatment to women regarding draft if there is no equality in almost any other way? I oppose draft for women, and I dismiss any argument that we should be treated equally.

 

p.s. and maybe we should reconsider the equality in a lot of other ways too... the fact that women have equal rights now is a step in the right direction (coming from complete inequality), but perhaps this can be refined in the future.

I don't see how you can have equal rights without equal responsibility. Why should the discrimination only be present in this form? If men were to be preferentially called upon to defend the country, why shouldn't they be afforded preferential treatment elsewhere in society?

[A Tripolation]

I don't see how you can have equal rights without equal responsibility. Why should the discrimination only be present in this form? If men were to be preferentially called upon to defend the country, why shouldn't they be afforded preferential treatment elsewhere in society?

 

QFT

[Brainteaserfan]

I have been enjoying reading everyone's responses!

I don't see how you can have equal rights without equal responsibility. Why should the discrimination only be present in this form? If men were to be preferentially called upon to defend the country, why shouldn't they be afforded preferential treatment elsewhere in society?

Well, women are called upon to "make" more men to defend the country, so they are helping in a way.

[CaptainPanic]

I am not persuaded by an argument that sounds a lot like "women are not treated equally, therefore we should not treat them equally".

That's not what I meant, although I can understand that you misunderstood me. I'll rephrase again:

 

We should start treating women more equally and grant them equal opporunities before we (we = men+women, not just men) impose more duties on women from an equality point of view.

 

Again, this is substituting identical for equal. We do have equality of opportunity in sports in the US. Title IX. Women have to have equal access to sports if the institution gets federal funding. You don't categorically exclude women from construction jobs, you require a certain physical ability. If women can't perform the job and don't get hired, it's because they aren't strong enough, not because they are female. That's discrimination on the basis of ability, which is allowed. You hire the best qualified applicant, regardless of gender, race, etc.

It is true that women have equal access to sports, but women compete in women's leagues because they aren't strong or quick enough for the men's leagues.

To make the parallel: We give women equal access to the army, but put them in a women's batallion, to fight the women's armies of other countries? It wouldn't be fair to let women fight against men (in sports, it's not fair... so logically, in war where winning is a lot more important than in sports, it's not fair either).

 

I don't see how you can have equal rights without equal responsibility. Why should the discrimination only be present in this form? If men were to be preferentially called upon to defend the country, why shouldn't they be afforded preferential treatment elsewhere in society?

You make it sound like men aren't treated preferentially already. But men are... we don't need anyone's help to get any preferential treatment. Men are quite capable of giving this treatment to themselves.

For example: Men are represented in positions of power (management, government) way above average. And that's not just the very top. Any position just one step up from rock bottom is far more likely to have a man doing that job than a woman.

[swansont]

That's not what I meant, although I can understand that you misunderstood me. I'll rephrase again:

 

We should start treating women more equally and grant them equal opporunities before we (we = men+women, not just men) impose more duties on women from an equality point of view.

 

Wouldn't including women in a draft be a step forward in equality? An actual act instead of lip service?

 

It is true that women have equal access to sports, but women compete in women's leagues because they aren't strong or quick enough for the men's leagues.

To make the parallel: We give women equal access to the army, but put them in a women's batallion, to fight the women's armies of other countries? It wouldn't be fair to let women fight against men (in sports, it's not fair... so logically, in war where winning is a lot more important than in sports, it's not fair either).

 

There are women who are better than many men at sports. Couldn't the women's soccer team beat just about any men's college team? But that's not the issue. There is more to the military than being in the infantry. If the position is that women wouldn't do well in the military, that's tantamount to saying that women will not succeed in the workplace, either. Why are they not capable of being a doctor/lawyer/electrician/supply manager in the military if they are in the private sector?

 

You make it sound like men aren't treated preferentially already. But men are... we don't need anyone's help to get any preferential treatment. Men are quite capable of giving this treatment to themselves.

For example: Men are represented in positions of power (management, government) way above average. And that's not just the very top. Any position just one step up from rock bottom is far more likely to have a man doing that job than a woman.

The irony is that if a draft were to be reinstated it would be congress, a bunch of predominantly white men, making the decision to do so. But then that's true of other decisions regarding laws affecting rights for women (and minorities)

[CaptainPanic]

Wouldn't including women in a draft be a step forward in equality? An actual act instead of lip service?

 

The way I see it (this is an opinion): women would lose the liberty of being excused for the draft, rather than gain the ability to be drafted... which is why I think we should also offer something 'nice' in compensation for forcing them to serve in their country's army for a certain amount of time for a low income.

 

There are women who are better than many men at sports. Couldn't the women's soccer team beat just about any men's college team? But that's not the issue. There is more to the military than being in the infantry. If the position is that women wouldn't do well in the military, that's tantamount to saying that women will not succeed in the workplace, either. Why are they not capable of being a doctor/lawyer/electrician/supply manager in the military if they are in the private sector?

 

I don't know... are they just as capable? There is a measurable income disparity between the two sexes... even when you look at a very specific and detailed sample of workers (graduates of the University of Michigan Law School).

Several studies compensated for pretty much everything they could think of, but some percentage of the income gap remained unexplained.

 

We are indeed equal for the law. In many plans and regulations men and women are equal. We might be equally competent in our jobs. But in practice, we are measurably inequally rewarded for doing the job.

 

The irony is that if a draft were to be reinstated it would be congress, a bunch of predominantly white men, making the decision to do so. But then that's true of other decisions regarding laws affecting rights for women (and minorities)

Exactly my point: give women an equal representation in the government before forcing them to fight in an army. First give them something valuable like equal opportunities and rewards before forcing them to do something undesirable (again, it's my opinion that being drafted is undesirable, so my argument is based on an opinion).

 

Not quite related to my previous arguments:

It is suggested that men naturally compete more than women. Wars, of course, are the ultimate competition. If men fight to get into a position of power, and if men are the reason the competitions (wars) exist, wouldn't it be only natural that wars are fought by only men?

[swansont]

I don't know... are they just as capable? There is a measurable income disparity between the two sexes... even when you look at a very specific and detailed sample of workers (graduates of the University of Michigan Law School).

Several studies compensated for pretty much everything they could think of, but some percentage of the income gap remained unexplained.

 

We are indeed equal for the law. In many plans and regulations men and women are equal. We might be equally competent in our jobs. But in practice, we are measurably inequally rewarded for doing the job.

 

Wait, what? A pay disparity exists after you account for education, experience etc. How does that show that women can't do the jobs? It shows they aren't being paid the same, but it does not show that they lack the ability. This is a non-sequitur.

 

And BTW, in the military, men and women do get equal pay for equal rank/rate.

[CaptainPanic]

My point is very simple really: In the real world, men and women are not treated equally. I try to give many examples to make that point... We are not equal in sports, physical strength, in payments, in types of jobs, etc, etc. And even when men and women have the same job, and every factor is taken into account, the payment is not the same. The reason of that is left without conclusion (discrimination, something else)?

 

But we must accept that men and women are at least not treated equally. Therefore, men and women shouldn't be both drafted into an army using equality as an argument.

 

I'm not a sexist bastard btw... (I can understand if my previous posts makes you think so). I believe that everyone is equal in that everyone must do their very best to make society a better place. But everyone is different, and we all have our strengths and weaknesses, and we should utilize our strengths and avoid being hampered by our weaknesses as much as possible to be the most useful for our society.

 

It makes far more sense to draft only the most capable people into your army, and put them in the positions where they fit best. And in order to do that, you must first admit that everyone has different capabilities and competencies.

[swansont]

My point is very simple really: In the real world, men and women are not treated equally. I try to give many examples to make that point... We are not equal in sports, physical strength, in payments, in types of jobs, etc, etc. And even when men and women have the same job, and every factor is taken into account, the payment is not the same. The reason of that is left without conclusion (discrimination, something else)?

 

But we must accept that men and women are at least not treated equally. Therefore, men and women shouldn't be both drafted into an army using equality as an argument.

 

Again, "men and women aren't treated equally, therefore they should not be treated equally" is not a compelling argument as far as I am concerned and you continue to substitute "equal" for "identical".

 

Equal is how we are trying to treat people, despite the physical difference between them. We have a spectrum of heights among people. We can treat people equally by not using height as a criterion unless it's an actual requirement for some task even though in practice there does seem to be some bias toward tall people in some circumstances. That's very different form saying that short people can't do certain specific tasks and are discriminated against to some extent, therefore we should exclude short people from military duty.

 

I'm not a sexist bastard btw... (I can understand if my previous posts makes you think so). I believe that everyone is equal in that everyone must do their very best to make society a better place. But everyone is different, and we all have our strengths and weaknesses, and we should utilize our strengths and avoid being hampered by our weaknesses as much as possible to be the most useful for our society.

 

It makes far more sense to draft only the most capable people into your army, and put them in the positions where they fit best. And in order to do that, you must first admit that everyone has different capabilities and competencies.

 

Yes, we should draft capable people. It would be nice if you admitted that there are women who are very capable and would excel at military service. That some of them would not be fit is not an excuse to not consider them, because some men aren't fit for military duty, either. What I'm saying is they should be treated equally in terms of consideration of their fitness for service, i.e. you make them all eligible for the draft and accept those that are fit for duty.

[Brainteaserfan]

Wait, what? A pay disparity exists after you account for education, experience etc. How does that show that women can't do the jobs? It shows they aren't being paid the same, but it does not show that they lack the ability. This is a non-sequitur.

 

And BTW, in the military, men and women do get equal pay for equal rank/rate.

But maybe they wouldn't be put into the same rank...

Secondly, are you saying women aren't being paid what they are worth? Why would an employer choose a male over an equally suited female? If you say because the employer is scared she will get pregnant or something, than she isn't equally suited for the job, is she?

 

Yes, we should draft capable people. It would be nice if you admitted that there are women who are very capable and would excel at military service. That some of them would not be fit is not an excuse to not consider them, because some men aren't fit for military duty, either. What I'm saying is they should be treated equally in terms of consideration of their fitness for service, i.e. you make them all eligible for the draft and accept those that are fit for duty.

They would also probably be very capable of bearing children, though.

[swansont]

But maybe they wouldn't be put into the same rank...

Secondly, are you saying women aren't being paid what they are worth? Why would an employer choose a male over an equally suited female? If you say because the employer is scared she will get pregnant or something, than she isn't equally suited for the job, is she?

AFAIK it's illegal to discriminate on that basis.

[CaptainPanic]

Equal is how we are trying to treat people, despite the physical difference between them.

Payment is a form of "treatment".

Putting people in different leagues (men's and women's) is a "treatment".

Because of differences, people get a different treatment.

 

I don't have the time at the moment to explain my point again... but I fear we're having a miscommunication rather than a disagreement

[swansont]

Payment is a form of "treatment".

Putting people in different leagues (men's and women's) is a "treatment".

Because of differences, people get a different treatment.

 

I don't have the time at the moment to explain my point again... but I fear we're having a miscommunication rather than a disagreement

 

Probably.

 

I'm saying that treatment is a separate issue. We are supposed to have equality, but we don't. However, IMO that's not a valid reason for perpetuating the unequal treatment.