Should women be drafted into the military?

[Faust]

Isn't the training for women is easier than the training for men?
And training is necessary.
Females are not as muscular as males. That is quite obvious and if you don't agree, you should bury yourself.
The difference is evident. Yet if they required the same training... Women would most likely not pass (except for a few maybe).
Watch sports... Like athletics. 100 meter sprint. Compare the best man and best female records.
Women could not pass the training of men, therefore they are not accepted into the military. Why the hell would they be drafted then?
So, the "sexism" of the army, is quite... logical, is it not?


Of course this is only true if the male and female trainings are not the same (but as far as I know and remember, they are not).

[Undead Me]

Soldiers in the army do not need to be Olympic athletes. They need to be extremely fit and very strong. But they don't need to be the best in the world at any particular thing (Such as 100 meter sprint as you brought up). And they aren't.

Females do not have the same tendency to build LARGE muscles as males, however LARGE muscles are not the same thing as EFFECTIVE muscles. My father is an athlete, he runs in triathalons and marathons and does well despite being over 50 years old. But he does not, and never has had large muscles. If you feel his arm it feels like a bar of iron and he is very strong but he does not have the large muscles you claim are necessary to be athletic. So basically, not all men have the ability to build large muscles. And some women do. So if large muscles actually mattered the draft would have to exclude anyone like my dad. Which it didn't. So large muscles are irrelevant. So an athletic and strong woman should be allowed in.

[Varine]

They need to be extremely fit and very strong. But they don't need to be the best in the world at any particular thing (Such as 100 meter sprint as you brought up). And they aren't.

He never said that. He said look at the records. There is a huge difference between the two. He means that women are, in general, not physically as capable. The Olympics is an extreme event where everyone involved is going to push themselves probably harder than they ever have, and men, in general, do better.

That is why women and men do not have the same physical requirements. To pass basic, you have to score at least 60 on each of the courses (for the Army, not sure about the other branches). Like for me, when I joined, I had to do at least 42 pushups in two minutes, 53 situps in two minutes, and 2 miles in like 16 minutes. Women, on the other hand, have to do 19 pushups, same situps (53), and have like 18 or 19 minutes for the run. And it does change depending on age too, older you are generally the less you have to do. I've met a lot of men that can't even do 19 pushups, let alone in 2 minutes, and even more women that can barely do like 10.

And no one said women can't join, they just can't have every MOS and aren't drafted. And I've never really met a woman who was upset that they don't get to do the grunt work, honestly. I imagine they don't see the appeal in running around in 100 degree heat with pretty small water rations while in full gear. That part isn't very much fun.

[Undead Me]

I've met several who wish they were allowed to serve in combat roles though.

[KillerChi]

Women have 1/3 the muscle mass of men.
(Looking for citation)
Testosterone(say that 5 times fast)has a major part of it.

Though, for the most time, I don't believe in drafting whatsoever.

[Siretu]

I fully agree with womens having the same rights as men, but you can't just take all the advantages and skip the disadvantages.

[Samael88]

Originally Posted by Siretu

I fully agree with womens having the same rights as men, but you can't just take all the advantages and skip the disadvantages.

I agre with that. Women have some things they can not do and men have some things we can not do, and we can not just ignore that fact.

Even tho women in the army would not have much problems, there still are some issues such as:
Sexual distraction, emotional distraction and the fact that they have a bit more difficulty getting muscular than men does.

This army question is actually one thing that I take out everytime I get into a discussion about feminism.
I usually say "Is it really a bad thing that you don't have to get into combat when there is a war?", that ususally shuts them up for a while

[nabbig2]

Originally Posted by Samael88

I agre with that. Women have some things they can not do and men have some things we can not do, and we can not just ignore that fact.

Even tho women in the army would not have much problems, there still are some issues such as:
Sexual distraction, emotional distraction and the fact that they have a bit more difficulty getting muscular than men does.

This army question is actually one thing that I take out everytime I get into a discussion about feminism.
I usually say "Is it really a bad thing that you don't have to get into combat when there is a war?", that ususally shuts them up for a while

Yeah, that's the only argument people have against women being drafted, is that they are weaker than men and therefore less useful in war. However, there are plenty of men that are weaker then many women. It's just sexism, and as a result, it really sucks for men.

[Varine]

Originally Posted by nabbig2

Yeah, that's the only argument people have against women being drafted, is that they are weaker than men and therefore less useful in war. However, there are plenty of men that are weaker then many women. It's just sexism, and as a result, it really sucks for men.

No, it's not. Most women aren't physically capable of doing the infantry work. If they were more apt to do it than men, it would be the other way around. It's the same reason that gays aren't allowed in the military, especially in those positions, because sexual or other attraction between people is bad. Like if I'm dug in and trying desperately to find a way out, and there's someone next to me who pretty much as given up, the last thing I'm going to want is them to look over and be like "I love you" or something. It's not sexism, it's just the way it works to avoid issues from arising. Same thing happens in a lot of places; like at work, a lot of companies don't let you have relationships with co-workers. Except at a normal job you're not away from your home for years at a time and can go have a relationship with someone else.

[Siretu]

I don't know what I think of this myself. On one hand, there's the point about sexual distraction etc. On the other hand, there's the equalism side.

Women want to be able to compete in jobs that were considered men-only jobs before. Discussions go on about how women can do it as good as the men.

Now, why shouldn't the women be drafted into the military? They get a harder time since they're not suited for such things, they can't handle it etc.

If women got a harder time with physical work(generally) than men, why would an employer hire women for physically demanding jobs if they demand the same salary?

In my view, it's like the classic cake problem. Some people try to eat the cake and keep it. "Sure, we should get the same salary, we can handle this job as well as you, we girls are at least as good as you.", "No, we can't be demanded into military! We can't handle it as good as men."

I don't know the research made on the subject, but let's assume girls got a harder time with physical work. In this case, drafting them into the military is bad by two reasons(Sexual tensions and actually not managing the hard work) Employers would rightly pay them less salary(in jobs where physical work is a factor, of course)

Now, let's say they are equal when it comes to physical work. They get equal salary(or should at least get it) They get drafted into the military, but there's still the sexual tensions.

How do you solve it?

The solutions I find is:
a) Ignore it
b) Don't draft women into the military.
c) Don't draft men into the military.
d) Don't draft anyone into the military, make it voluntary.

Frankly, I don't see option c and d as alternatives.

I see option b as unfair.

I can't predict the consequences if you ignore the sexual and emotional distraction, so I can't really say what will happen if that would be the case.


This is why I don't like feminism. I'm all for equal rights, but not just for women, it should go both ways(although men got more advantages right now, no question about it)

Equalism is what I like. My personal opinion on the issue is that I don't really know a good solution. It all depends on how big the difference in getting muscular mass really is.

If it were up to me, I'd most likely keep it as it is. It's hard to explain, but drafting women into the military would just make it less serious, it would be almost like confirming your belief in God. I was in a camp to confirm myself. Rest were just there because it was a fun thing.

It just don't think it would work.

[Varine]

If women got a harder time with physical work(generally) than men, why would an employer hire women for physically demanding jobs if they demand the same salary?

I don't think they do very much.

although men got more advantages right now, no question about it

I don't think I get time off work if a kid came along.

[nabbig2]

Originally Posted by Varine

No, it's not. Most women aren't physically capable of doing the infantry work. If they were more apt to do it than men, it would be the other way around. It's the same reason that gays aren't allowed in the military, especially in those positions, because sexual or other attraction between people is bad. Like if I'm dug in and trying desperately to find a way out, and there's someone next to me who pretty much as given up, the last thing I'm going to want is them to look over and be like "I love you" or something. It's not sexism, it's just the way it works to avoid issues from arising. Same thing happens in a lot of places; like at work, a lot of companies don't let you have relationships with co-workers. Except at a normal job you're not away from your home for years at a time and can go have a relationship with someone else.

Most women are physically capable of doing infantry work. It's just that some of them may have to work harder at it.
If a woman can meet the physical and mental standards necessary to successfully participate in a certain role, then there is no good reason for her to be disallowed from this role.

Women have fought for plenty of other countries successfully. Are the women of the US weaker or something, that they can't fight? Seriously, with proper training, a women can very well fight in the army.

The draft should be based off of abilities, not gender.

[Samael88]

Originally Posted by nabbig2

The draft should be based off of abilities, not gender.

You are aware of that gay people are on the same page as women here, right?

It has nothing to do with what they can do. That was not even my top argument.
The thing is that if you are in the army for say 2 years and there are no women, then you sure as hell is going to be horny when you get home!
If you did the same thing but there where women everywhere, then chances are that you would be even more horny.
And not to mention what would happen if someone fell in love, it could compromise mission, it could compromise an entire battle.
Would you like your general to say "Bah, I can make the plans tomorrow, come here woman.", thus never making any battleplans?
It sounds stupid, but the attraction between women and men, and gay and straight, that could do more damage than you think That is why only the women who really want to join the army are allowed, that is why women are not drafted still today.

[Varine]

Most women are physically capable of doing infantry work. It's just that some of them may have to work harder at it.
If a woman can meet the physical and mental standards necessary to successfully participate in a certain role, then there is no good reason for her to be disallowed from this role.

I already explained that. And go give your girlfriend (if you have one) a hundred pound pack and tell her to walk. See how far she gets.

Women have fought for plenty of other countries successfully. Are the women of the US weaker or something, that they can't fight? Seriously, with proper training, a women can very well fight in the army.

I already explained why they aren't allowed. And they do fight, just not in an MOS specifically for fighting where the mentality of the soldiers can't stray. If you're walking through a possible combat zone, haven't been with a girl for a year, and happen to have one in your squad, are you telling me there is no way that you would start dazing off from the fact that someone might pop up and shoot you? It would become a hazard because someone wouldn't be paying attention until after we're under attack.

You are aware of that gay people are on the same page as women here, right?

Not with Obama's new order or whatever he's trying to get done. And I explained that too.

The thing is that if you are in the army for say 2 years and there are no women, then you sure as hell is going to be horny when you get home!

You're rarely deployed for two years. It's usually 12 to 15 months, most people are on 14 month tours. You don't think about it much because there aren't women around working and sleeping in your barracks. Besides there's always prostitutes.

Would you like your general to say "Bah, I can make the plans tomorrow, come here woman.", thus never making any battleplans?

Well usually the plans come from higher up, officers or someone, who tell us what to do. Everything else is kind of done on the fly. Like in my unit, I didn't know what was going to happen so I couldn't tell them exactly what to do until I was there.

[ReVolver]

Why serve the nation when they can make us sandwiches? The battle field of a woman is the kitchen fire and the dishes.

Sexism ftw...

On-Topic

Women are too weak "proven" compared to men I guess its the genes and the way they are built. Nature tends to make the male stronger than the male in most cases (Alpha Male)