Women and the Military Draft

[Eviora]

As a conscientious objector, you would be exempt from the draft, either fully or in part, depending on the totality of your stance. Or you could willingly go to another country whose laws and policies better suit you. You have that freedom of choice. If you want things to change or stay the same, you have to fight for it either physically or politically.

The country doesn't own its citizens, but its citizens should own up to their country or else it won't be a country anymore in those circumstances. Whatever the choices and results, we'd all have to live with it.

But yeah, all that is why it exists, but isn't used. Even if a massive war erupted tomorrow, they'd jump up recruitment, mobilize more of the active duty, call in the reserves, and call back people who are out of the military but are still in their inactive ready reserve window.... long before they'd even begin to imagine using a draft.

I don't think "conform or leave our country" is a particularly good argument. My family, most of my friends, etc all live in the U.S. In a lot of ways, leaving would turn my life upside down. I'm afraid no country is justified in presenting its citizens with potentially life-destroying ultimatums just because they were born in the nation. You act like the will of the government is above question, but how did they come to "own" this land? If I recall, they did a lot of horrible, inhumane things to the people they found here. The basis of the government's rule is appalling use of force, but might does not make right.

The U.S. prides itself in being "the land of the free", but I can't think of much less like freedom than being forced to fight in some war that's not of my making. (And, no, I'm not responsible for the things politicians do when the only ones who can win offices are those with access to enough money to advertise themselves, and none of those represent my opinion particularly well.) If the country is truly worth saving, there should be ample people willing to defend it in a crisis without being coerced. The need to resort to threats in itself would reduce this country to a sham, an entity that backs out of everything it claims to stand for just because things are getting tough.

[Chase]

I think I would have to applaud our country's military branches for consistency, but I am not one for forcing unwilling women into combat. Luckily for men and women who do -not- wish to enlist, the draft is very much a last resort that would come with severe consequences to the country should the nation lose.

However, aside from physical reasoning, this isn't just about Chauvinists vs. Feminists. There are two other categories that are more moderate positions with regards to the role of women in society.

• Complimentarianism is a theological based view that men and women are not in-equal, but designed for differing roles. With regards to the question at hand, it means that women may have advantageous positions in the military but are not suited for everything - which fits well with already mentioned physical limitations.
• Egalitarianism is the notion that all people are capable of any role, specifically in that women are not necessarily -better- than men in doing so.

I fit very much with the first role. Women are simply biologically built and are capable of things men aren't for a reason.

If you are leaning toward the right of the spectrum, you probably are not terribly -keen- on forcing women into the draft. If you fit on the left - then in order to hold on to a basis of ability or equality, then you should probably be accepting of the fact.

For the record - I'm a tad undecided on the issue. I think if we're going to be consistent in making the world truly equal for all - that includes female draftees. If we're going to be respecting of physical capability and want to maintain a sense of pecking order in a potential crisis - drafting women isn't the most ideal due to previously mentioned results and physical limitations.

[Darvan Korematsu]

Okay to be honest here, I'd find not much of a problem in allowing women into the draft. If they can pick up and fire a gun, use machinery, or have any generally useful skills, they should be able to serve their country. Oh don't worry they can sure try to find something for you to do.

The biggest problem I see with this argument is people generally associate the draft automatically with duty on the front lines. That is not always the case however. If you are proven or suspected to be unfit for it but are still of use for them, they could stick you in somewhere like cleaning, cooking, mechanics, etc. The military and their establishments function like their own little town on a base of any kind. Now would I be supporting women for front line duty? Personally I'm against it unless they're proven otherwise, because historically men have been the warriors and women have been in the clerical roles and it hardly should change here.

Actually, in retort to someone's "mandatory service" comment, I would definitely support a system where 18 year olds automatically serve their country for 4 years. I believe Mael could also back me up here, because the military teaches you more than how to shoot a gun. You learn survival, discipline, combat, and a slew of other useful skills depending on your M.O (where you work). It would discourage general laziness, educate and sharpen the populace, and maybe give people a potential path to go after the mandatory 4 years in over. Plus in America, the benefits for retired and active servicemen is amazing. Particularly free healthcare (that's a HUGE game changer when you'll never have to pay much for hospital bills and other med shit).

Also, to put it in perspective, here's another little quote.

"You wanna live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, but the brave can't be free if the land isn't home and that land won't be home so long as folks out there want to take that American flag and shove it so far up your anus that you crap stars and stripes for a week, and as you're sitting there on the toilet with the star spangled Moctezuma's Revenge (real bad diarrhea travelers get) there's one thing I can guarantee, you won't care then..."

- NSA agent, South Park (on security)

http://genius.com/South-park-nsa-monologue-annotated

Basically unless your homeland has regally screwed you beyond all recognition, you should serve in the military when you are called to arms. It's an innate human instinct to protect all that you have worked for.

- Darv K.

[Shamitako]

Based on what Mael has said. I'm getting the impression he feels the draft isn't "forcing people to fight" it's "begging people to fight because if they don't we're all very likely to die anyways"

Which assuming the draft is only done when we're not the aggressors, I can probably agree with

EDIT: "Plus in America, the benefits for retired and active servicemen is amazing."

Since when? I've very often heard that veterans have it pretty bad

[Maelstrom]

No, you either do something to change it or deal with it in your own way if you cannot.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

When you break it down to just forcing people into dangerous situations, you pull it out of context. There is no realistic compromise in your ideal. Ideally, no one would go to war. Ideally, if we did, we would always have all the people we need and win every engagement with zero casualties. Ideally, it would never happen. But realistically, what would you do?

But I guess we will agree to disagree. I see the military necessity of its existence and I accept it.

When a building catches fire, we call the firemen to handle it. When the whole city is on fire, we'd all better become firemen real quick.

[Darvan Korematsu]

EDIT: "Plus in America, the benefits for retired and active servicemen is amazing."

Since when? I've very often heard that veterans have it pretty bad

Okay amazing is probably an exaggeration, but they don't screw you over for serving in the Armed Forces. Read up on these. They're fairly nice to people who have served before (my grandfather and uncle who both served in the US Air Force are still eligible for the first as far as I know).

GI Bill:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill

GI Bill (Education for post 9/11):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-9/11_Veterans_Educational_Assistance_Act_of_2008

[Maelstrom]

Yeah, we get some good benefits, though I hear the VA is really slow and overbooked. My body didn't get too too broken so I escaped most of the inconvenience.

The GI bills are definitely a strong recruiting incentive. They wouldn't offer it if they made a service term mandatory for everyone.

It's true, a lot of people could benefit from a boot camp experience, but it could definitely hurt the incapable and the unwilling, which is why it's a last resort. Besides, that's what military boarding schools are about.

Or those reality tv shows where they take delinquents and take them to jail or put 'em into boot camp. I should really watch one of those at some point. I get the feeling I'd be laughing a lot.

[Ice Cream Sand Witch]

I didn't know the draft could also put people into positions like cooking. I knew the military had other jobs besides just combat, but I thought that was strictly what the draft was for. I'm still against the idea of someone possibly being arrested if they don't want to do it. Even in the most desperate circumstances, that's... extreme. What's even the point? Jails and prisons are supposed to be for dangerous people who hurt others. Not wanting to go into the military doesn't make someone dangerous (neither do a few other illegal things, for that matter). I think jury duty also does this, where you have to show up or you'll go to jail. I also think jury duty should be a job, not something random people who may or may not have critical thinking skills can just be asked to do. And from what I've heard of jury duty, not having transportation doesn't excuse you from attending.

I literally stopped aging/developing at 12 so I'd never be considered for a draft even if there was a situation so drastic they started using lions tigers and bears. But if I were an adult selected to draft, I'd have an elaborate plan to fake an "accident" or "incident", and try to make a new identity in another continent if I thought it was even the slightest bit possible I'd meet the standards for combat. Actually I'd probably just move the second they started doing the draft. (ironically on what I believe is our real planet, kids my age actually can do combat, but that's a very different place from earth where school is also optional, people don't look for reasons to start a war, and we're stronger/faster/have better senses. plus combat there is actually fun and interesting, not boring half the time and terrifying the other half)

[FeralGator]

I had a boss at my old job who was in the military. She would be sent off every so often for training. She could kick the asses of many guys if she wanted to. Long story short, plain old answer is: "I don't know."

The performance of every single woman cannot be categorized based on what only a few may show. There are probably woman out there a shit ton more capable than guys when it comes to certain field positions. That includes carrying the 60 lbs (my boss could easily do that). What all of this comes down to is simple 'he said', 'she said' notions that while yes, we have an opinion to state, and no more true than they are false.

Woman are a capable creature.

Men are a capable creature.

It boils down to the individuals themselves rather than the inclusion of an entire populace.

[Maelstrom]

Sounds like someone in the reserve or national guard. Active duty personnel don't have time to have another job.

And it IS an individual thing. If they can pass, they get the qualification. Ranger school is a very tough challenge, even for men. It takes a very unusual woman to make it through. In the bell curve of females, they're the high end outliers. They are the exception, rather than the rule. And the military is now open to that.

They still haven't changed the fact that I could do the physical fitness test and pass it with perfect scores on the female scale... and fail all three parts with the exact same score if you use the male standards. I would be discharged from the army in disgrace as being physically unfit while females would be commended as capable and be better looked at for promotion opportunities, even within the same job as males. I'd rather see this discrepancy fixed before opening all jobs to females, but that's a subject for another thread. Equal treatment involves equal responsibilities.

[Eviora]

No, you either do something to change it or deal with it in your own way if you cannot.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

When you break it down to just forcing people into dangerous situations, you pull it out of context. There is no realistic compromise in your ideal. Ideally, no one would go to war. Ideally, if we did, we would always have all the people we need and win every engagement with zero casualties. Ideally, it would never happen. But realistically, what would you do?

But I guess we will agree to disagree. I see the military necessity of its existence and I accept it.

When a building catches fire, we call the firemen to handle it. When the whole city is on fire, we'd all better become firemen real quick.

If my whole city was on fire I think I'd want to rescue its inhabitants and get out. It seems rather silly to endanger all those lives to cling to infrastructure that will end up charred to a shell even if we do extinguish the fire.

I find it funny that you say my ideal lacks compromise, but it is you who advocate for forcing tons of people to take the action you deem most prudent in the event of a crisis. Let me put a question to you: How, exactly, do you define freedom? Is freedom really freedom when you're forced to serve a certain entity to keep it?

[Kurotsune]

If my whole city was on fire I think I'd want to rescue its inhabitants and get out. It seems rather silly to endanger all those lives to cling to infrastructure that will end up charred to a shell even if we do extinguish the fire.

I find it funny that you say my ideal lacks compromise, but it is you who advocate for forcing tons of people to take the action you deem most prudent in the event of a crisis. Let me put a question to you: How, exactly, do you define freedom? Is freedom really freedom when you're forced to serve a certain entity to keep it?

First of all firefighters don't just put out fires, they also rescue people. You've just said you'd be willing to rescue others, so that's already a point in favor of Mael's point; Given the event of a crisis, most people would want to help in some fashion.

As for whether or not your ideal lacks compromise, it feels like you're ignoring the context. Drafts are the last case scenario, not the first. When it comes time to draft people in it most likely means the war has been going on for a couple of years and your country has been losing and a scenario where you're forced to surrender and be anexed to another - potentially tyrannical - leader is nigh.

At such a point, it's no longer a matter of "do you want to go to war" insomuch as "do you want to risk the consequences of not doing so?" in this hipothetical scenario, not going to war means giving up the battle, losing, and probably having to suffer occupation and the woes that come with it. It can also mean dying in an attack or losing a loved one in a similar fashion. Saying that "either you join or you flee" isn't fair disregards the context in which the situation would occur. At such a point, your options become:

A) Fight

B­) Being conquered/pillaged by the enemy

C) Flee

Also, the freedom you refer to is hipocritical in nature. Yes, the constitutional freedom you refer to only applies as long as you serve the entity that enforces it - Simple example; Break the law and you go to jail.

Inconstitutional freedom doesn't exist. It's a government in some sort that guarantees your freedom because it is an entity large and strong enough to uphold it and retaliate if someone tries to take that freedom from you.

Take away the government, the protection of the constitution and it's ability to enforce it, and your freedom belongs to whoever is strong enough to keep it - Be it you or anyone else.

So, yes, this freedom comes with a cost. The government gives you freedom and all your rights as estabilished constitutionally, but in return you have to serve your country should the need arise it - That's what citizenship is. The meaning of "citizenship" is "being vested with the rights, priviledges and duties of a citizen" "citizen", in turn, meaning "natural or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to it's government and is entitled to it's protection"

What you describe, instead, is wanting to have all duties and priviledges of being a citizen without having to perform your duties. It's the same thing as saying you want to buy something without actually paying for it. Citizenship is a transaction between person and country, and you are free to give up your citizenship if you disagree with the terms of the deal. The reason why it's fair that you would have to give up home and family behind to do so by fleeing is as simple as, that territory was never yours to begin with. It belongs to and is annexed to the country you belong and you are actually also free to try and emancipate it, becoming a sovereign nation of your own, except at such point you're victim to the possibility of being attacked and annexed by another country (maybe even the one you used to be a part of!) and you're the only one who has to figure out how to defend yourself.

All the amenities you have which are given by your government are only given because of the terms of the contract; In turn, when your service is requested, you have to serve. If you don't want to serve, then first give up your rights as a citizen.

Which at the end is simply fair.

Summary: The government gives you a crapload of shit, in turn it asks you to do shit if it's required. If you don't want to do shit, then give your shit up first.

[Eviora]

Whether I would want to rescue others or not is actually completely irrelevant. The point is that people should be free to choose for themselves, not be coerced into a particular course of action.

I understand that we're talking about quite dire circumstances. You're giving me a very clear picture of what you would want to do in the scenario you outlined. But in such dire circumstances, would the efforts of scarcely trained civilians even matter? if some power is beating our colossal army, all our allies, and the nukes we'd almost certainly have deployed in such a desperate situation, what on earth makes you think throwing a few million more people at the enemy would help? And, in that desperate situation, would you prefer to have police officers arresting harmless non-combatants or fighting that overwhelming foe? No, such a conflict would plunge the world into complete chaos. That scenario scarcely even matters.

However, all this drafting legislation leaves us open to being enlisted over more frivolous matters. You may think there won't ever be a draft for an offensive war again, but you don't know that. As long as the possibility is open, the draft is a tool waiting to be abused.

As for that last bit, it's just backwards. The government isn't some benevolent entity granting us our rights from on high, it's a tool created by the people of the country to serve those people in protecting the rights they claim for themselves. You're not allowed to commit crimes because (assuming those crimes violate fair laws) doing so is an infringement on the freedom of someone else. "The country" has exactly as much right to occupy this land as I do; it just has more weapons to bully people with. Of course the government claims you owe it your allegiance, but that is just conceit, an abuse of power. I'll say it again: Might does not make right.

[Deleted User]

You're right, people shouldn't be drafted, if the need arises, they SHOULD be willing to fight for their freedom. Not just expect someone else to do it for you, while you sit at home.

[Pyon Pyon Kyuu!~]

MURICA.

MURICA WAS GOING TO BE BROUGHT DOWN BY THE BRITTISH, THEY PRESSED DOWN THEIR BOOTS AGAINST THE MURICANS.

BUT THE MURICAN CITIZENS SAID "NO WE WILL FIGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT"

AND A FEW MURICAN CITIZENS BROUGHT DOWN ALL OF THE FORCES OF THE BRITISH IMPERIALISTS.

LONG LIVE MURICA

(Talk to me about Portuguese history and I can give you even more examples of how civilian forces defeated dumb Spanish invaders. Sure you mentioned nukes, but nukes make pretty much everything irrelevant)

[Eviora]

You're right, people shouldn't be drafted, if the need arises, they SHOULD be willing to fight for their freedom. Not just expect someone else to do it for you, while you sit at home.

You... do realize that quote supports my opinion, right?

[Kurotsune]

Saying civillian soldiers can't win wars is disregarding all historical evidence to the contrary, including the one Pyon mentioned above.

If the tactic never worked, it would not be employed. And yes, it's a desperate measure. That's why it's a last resort. At that point, the war is lost, but most people will choose to go down fighting.

That said, I'm curious. how are drafts the government not serving the people?

The drafts occur because they're in the law.

The law was created by officials of the government

The people elected the officials based on the democratic system

The democratic system was chosen by the people as the tool to be employed to govern their nation

The draft law exists because the people chose someone who created it. At the end of the day even the drafts are still the government upholding it's part of the bargain and following the laws that the people themselves collaborated in their creation.

It wasn't through some grand machination of an evil entity but through the democratic process itself. The people chose this law, and they have to follow it.

Even if it wasn't a direct decision by the people, it's a consequence of the administrative system the people chose.

[Deleted User]

You... do realize that quote supports my opinion, right?

If you twist its meaning sure it does.

[Eviora]

Sure, civilian forces have won wars throughout history. But these days, technology plays a much larger role that it once did, and we're talking about a scenario where nukes would be flying. We would barely matter at all in the face of that sort of power.

Drafts are a violation of the very freedom we pride ourselves in. Yes, the people have some say in the government's policies, but there are certain rights we hold inalienable - for instance, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Drafts would have some people sacrifice all three of those - especially appalling if we've already lost and you just want a token last stand. You talk about bargains, but frankly, I never agreed to anything like what you describe. I was just born. That's not a contract. To force me to fight in your country's war is to prove yourself every bit as authoritarian as whatever invader you want to fend off. If individual human rights are trumped by the edict of the masses, then no one is free at all.

[Kurotsune]

I never agreed to anything like what you describe. I was just born. That's not a contract.

You've been given the rights and duties by birth, yes, but again, you're free to reject your citizenship so that the laws of your country no longer apply to you, as long as you're fine with no longer being afforded the rights as a citizen.

[Eviora]

If you twist its meaning sure it does.

Well, unless you disagree that life is an essential liberty, at worst it just doesn't describe the situation.

Edit:

@Kurotsune

What then? Jump in the ocean and drown myself? (I actually would prefer that to being drafted...) Go to another country that would try to force their draft on me? None of these countries have any real right to drive anyone off their land. Their "ownership" of their territory is a matter of point their guns at those who say otherwise. Might. Does. Not. Make. Right.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Eviora

[Pyon Pyon Kyuu!~]

Sure, civilian forces have won wars throughout history. But these days, technology plays a much larger role that it once did, and we're talking about a scenario where nukes would be flying. We would barely matter at all in the face of that sort of power.

Drafts are a violation of the very freedom we pride ourselves in. Yes, the people have some say in the government's policies, but there are certain rights we hold inalienable - for instance, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Drafts would have some people sacrifice all three of those - especially appalling if we've already lost and you just want a token last stand. You talk about bargains, but frankly, I never agreed to anything like what you describe. I was just born. That's not a contract. To force me to fight in your country's war is to prove yourself every bit as authoritarian as whatever invader you want to fend off. If individual human rights are trumped by the edict of the masses, then no one is free at all.

By the way I don't want to really be that much of a part of the conversation, I'm just reading it every once in a while.

But nukes don't need to be flying.

Imagine a war between Portugal and Spain. Neither country has nuclear technology. Spain starts winning the battle front, Portugal drafts it's civilians. No nukes, but civilians are in the Portuguese front lines. They can still win, technology now a days is made so anyone can pick up a gun and use it.

Of course a trained soldier will always be better than a civilian picking up a gun for the first time, but civilians still matter. And not every conflict involves high end technology. The conflicts that don't involve high end technology is where drafts would even come in to play. The people who operate this high end technology would be well and safe.

[Deleted User]

Well, unless you disagree that life is an essential liberty, at worst it just doesn't describe the situation.

Is life worth living if you're not free?

You're right, people shouldn't be drafted, if the need arises, they SHOULD be willing to fight for their freedom.

Because I guarantee you this, if you're not going to fight for your freedom, someone WILL take it away from you when push comes to shove. We're making two completely different but not necessarily opposing points.

You're saying that no one should be drafted into a fight they don't want to participate in.

I'm saying that no one should be drafted because I'd expect people to actually be willing to fight for their freedom. If you aren't willing to fight for your freedom, then you deserve to be ruled by a tyrannical dictator who will leave you much worse off.

[Eviora]

Is life worth living if you're not free?

Because I guarantee you this, if you're not going to fight for your freedom, someone WILL take it away from you when push comes to shove. We're making two completely different but not necessarily opposing points.

You're saying that no one should be drafted into a fight they don't want to participate in.

I'm saying that no one should be drafted because I'd expect people to actually be willing to fight for their freedom. If you aren't willing to fight for your freedom, then you deserve to be ruled by a tyrannical dictator who will leave you much worse off.

That's beside the point. Is life an essential freedom?

Why do people who are too weak (physically or emotionally) to fight for their freedom DESERVE to be ruled by a dictator? Who are you to determine that, and what criteria did you use?

[Kurotsune]

What you're arguing is ideology. Jericho "didn't determine that", life did. it's how it works. You can kick and shout all you want, at the end of the day, those are the rules of the game. You can either accept it, or try to change them, but you can't not play; Someone will drag you into it and make you.

(Not referring to drafts, but the part about dictatorship. My point is that no one here WANTS the strong to bully the weak, we just don't romantize an ideal world where they wouldn't because they always will; So arguing "why" they do it is pointless opposed to arguing how to stop it).