Should women be drafted into the military?

[Undead Me]

No. We do not force people to fight. Stop saying that. ALL VOLUNTEER ARMY.

I mean we are punished if we steal or murder or are publicly drunk or drive a car through someone's house.

I'm jokingly comparing capitalism to a religion, not saying we all actually share one.

And believe me, the current no-draft military was founded on economic principles. The great Milton Friedman convinced the government that an all volunteer army would fight better through application of economic principles. You need to understand that the way soldiers are now hired is indeed a free market. The different branches of the military compete with each other to hire soldiers, offering incentives to citizens so as to attract the cream of the crop. You must begin to understand economics in a less narrow view so that you begin to see that the same principles apply throughout many disparate aspects of life.

 

[Seb!]

No. We do not force people to fight. Stop saying that. ALL VOLUNTEER ARMY.

I think what he is referring to is the Selective Service System, which, through its registration of all males between the ages of 18 and 25, implies the possibility of a draft. In which case, only males would drafted.

 

[nabbig2]

No. We do not force people to fight. Stop saying that. ALL VOLUNTEER ARMY.

I mean we are punished if we steal or murder or are publicly drunk or drive a car through someone's house.

I'm jokingly comparing capitalism to a religion, not saying we all actually share one.

And believe me, the current no-draft military was founded on economic principles. The great Milton Friedman convinced the government that an all volunteer army would fight better through application of economic principles. You need to understand that the way soldiers are now hired is indeed a free market. The different branches of the military compete with each other to hire soldiers, offering incentives to citizens so as to attract the cream of the crop. You must begin to understand economics in a less narrow view so that you begin to see that the same principles apply throughout many disparate aspects of life.

But your statement about the Free Market was completely off base. A free market is simply an economy in which the government doesn't interfere with the economy; it still maintains a military. Still don't believe me? See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

And like Seb! said, if there was to be a draft (who is to say there will not be), they will be literally pulling men to war. Not women. And believe me, it is not optional; take example the Vietman War.

Yes, I was refeing to the selective service act as well, thankyou for pointing that out Seb!

 

[Undead Me]

I don't think you have a very firm grounding in game theory, the writings of Milton Friedman, and the principles of modern social economics.

Of course the government maintains a military. One of the reasons given for our establishment of a new constitution was to "provide for the common defense". THe question is how one chooses soldiers. And we do that based on a market analogous system.

Erm about Vietnam. The middle class dodged that. Completely. So did the upper class. Only the poor were dragged off to fight. My history teacher was in college at the time, no one he knew had to fight. If there was ever to be another draft it would need to avoid class discrimination.

 

[esb]

It's time to realize that men and women are NOT equal. They both deserve equal rights and opportunies however. But they just aren't equal. The majority of men are more adapt for war/battle/killing than the majority of women are, mentally and physically. SOME women are as good as any other guy, but to pick them out one by one, they should volunteer at a draft instead. Almost any guy is ready for war and can cope with it better than an average woman.

Yeah, some guys might not handle it either, but most do. Also, we can just repeat history, and as sexist as it may sound, let them take over male's jobs, cook, take care of kids, etc. while the men fight the war. It's been that way since ever. Why change it?

 

[Undead Me]

Wow. Here's something interesting you may be interested to know: No scientist has ever proved that being female inherently affects one's emotional readiness to deal with stressful or traumatic situations. In short: WOMEN CAN FIGHT A WAR AS WELL AS MEN!

Any differences are caused by the indoctrination and insidious tendencies of our society to gradually inflict a calcified gender role on a person. If we are willing to be fair and just and tear up any differences in societal treatment by the roots, other differences will soon vanish.

 

[esb]

Can I see your source for that claim?

It wouldn't surprise me if it was true.

And that just proves the theory of evolution. Society has always put a role on women as being the weaker of the two sexes. It has evolved into being normal and widely accepted. Thus today, woman ARE what society has made them. In short, society made women weaker.
I'm sure if you got a girl, raised her to be just like a guy (not sexuality), and never learn about "women's role", then yeah, she'd probably be good enough for war.

But when we still have parents saying that war is for guys, and that a woman's place is in the kitchen, behind her husband, by her kids, then it's quite hard to agree that women are best suitable, or equally, for war.

 

[Varine]

Look all I'm saying is someone is gonna need to take care of the house. I obviously cannot because my ass got drafted.

 

[nabbig2]

It's time to realize that men and women are NOT equal. They both deserve equal rights and opportunies however. But they just aren't equal. The majority of men are more adapt for war/battle/killing than the majority of women are, mentally and physically. SOME women are as good as any other guy, but to pick them out one by one, they should volunteer at a draft instead. Almost any guy is ready for war and can cope with it better than an average woman.

Yeah, some guys might not handle it either, but most do. Also, we can just repeat history, and as sexist as it may sound, let them take over male's jobs, cook, take care of kids, etc. while the men fight the war. It's been that way since ever. Why change it?

Ofcourse they aren't equal in those terms. However;

"Almost any guy is ready for war and can cope with it better than an average woman."

That's a big assumption you are making. Do you realized how traumatized men come out of war? They have mental stains that last for the rest of their lives; these include beating their wives out of stress and extreme phobias. I don't see how men are any more mentally prepared than women are, especially in terms of "coping" with war. Most guys do not cope better with war at all.

" It's been that way since ever. Why change it?"

Wrong. There are many countries that do draft women into war-this is not how it has always been. Why change it? Because atleast in my opinion, it's time that women and men get equal responsibilities-just because women are supposedly weaker does not excuse them from being drafted. Women not being as prepared for war is due to our society and the numerous stereotypes it places. Women are perfectly capable of fighting war.

Please also note that the majority of large business owners are men, and being a crucial part of our economy, drafting only men would bring us a loss.

 

[Undead Me]

Equal opportunity

That's all that needs to be considered. Equal people need equal opportunities.

 

[C-Death]

I find it very hysterical that women will bitch and moan that they don't get the same rights as men. Ok, here you go women! You get the draft also!

~my idea America.

 

[nabbig2]

I find it very hysterical that women will bitch and moan that they don't get the same rights as men. Ok, here you go women! You get the draft also!

~my idea America.

This.

 

[NoxMortus]

In the British Armed Forces, they are currently reviewing their restrictions on allowing women to serve in frontline and 'close-combat' roles.

Some officials and Generals make the case that having women integrated into the Infantry divisions would 'jeopardise operational effectiveness'.

As far as I'm aware, they do not say that 'women are less physically able to serve' or that 'women should be at home', so I think the OP may have a misunderstanding of the military's stance on the issue.

Though I am speaking of the British Army; If the US Military uses those arguments against enlisting women as infantry, then they are wrong to do so.

 

[Undead Me]

By "jeopardizing operation effectiveness" do they mean that male and female soldiers who are heterosexual may be distracted by one another or have their judgement clouded by romances within the army? Possible I suppose, though on the other hand by that logic all aspects of life should be orientation segregated to keep people away from people they may be attracted to.

 

[Varine]

That's a big assumption you are making. Do you realized how traumatized men come out of war? They have mental stains that last for the rest of their lives; these include beating their wives out of stress and extreme phobias. I don't see how men are any more mentally prepared than women are, especially in terms of "coping" with war. Most guys do not cope better with war at all.

Most come out fine, but that's just not that exciting so why would anyone make a documentary about that?

 

[Dakho]

I think that the draft should *not* include women.

A). Men are naturally physically stronger; they gain muscle mass at a greater rate and their bodies are designed towards physical labor. Women, while having the capacity for great athletic feats as well, simply cannot pull of the feats men can. That is not to say one is better than the other in general.

B). In WWII, the draft actually gave rise to a feminist movement, where women proved that they *could* do the work that men had once said couldn't.

C). We need someone back at home, keeping the economy moving and such. The gender divide is the easiest way to do so.

 

[T.s.e]

they gain muscle mass at a greater rate and their bodies are designed towards physical labor.

It doesn't take great physical strength to pull a trigger, and if you mean stamina, then a lighter body with less muscle to drag around is a much better choice.

In WWII, the draft actually gave rise to a feminist movement, where women proved that they *could* do the work that men had once said couldn't.

And?

We need someone back at home, keeping the economy moving and such. The gender divide is the easiest way to do so.

Easiest isn't neccesarily the best.

 

[Ninva]

I think that the draft should *not* include women.

A). Men are naturally physically stronger; they gain muscle mass at a greater rate and their bodies are designed towards physical labor. Women, while having the capacity for great athletic feats as well, simply cannot pull of the feats men can. That is not to say one is better than the other in general.

B). In WWII, the draft actually gave rise to a feminist movement, where women proved that they *could* do the work that men had once said couldn't.

C). We need someone back at home, keeping the economy moving and such. The gender divide is the easiest way to do so.

This is the Internet at its finest.

I think no one should be drafted, but if feminists think they deserve equality, then let's draft them. Feminism isn't equality.

 

[C-Death]

This is the Internet at its finest.

I think no one should be drafted, but if feminists think they deserve equality, then let's draft them. Feminism isn't equality.

You just became my new hero.

 

[Faust]

No one is (or at least should be) drafted into the military, unless it's war time.
At which time, only men at first. If the war needs more people, then women too.
And I don't mean when the army "runs out of men".
The hinterland should have this balance of sexes.