The Conservative War On Women

Demyx wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

As a pragmatic matter then, do we now open up for new debate either abolishing the selective service or do we now force women to sign up?

I'm not in favor of selective service at all, but if it does happen I see no other way than to include women.

Our armed forces are 100% voluntary right now. And if we have another Pearl Harbor, etc. it is something we need. What I want to see in an amendment to the current bill is a requirement of a formal declaration of war by congress, or an attack from a foreign nation before conscription can begin. That was a big issue with the draft and Vietnam.

But a related issue of women in our volunteer army serving in combat, is that only males can be conscripted into combat. Those are two specifically discriminatory laws.

A lot of women are already seeing regular combat and are on the line in every way but title, though. Let's be honest with ourselves and make it accurate, even if it requires distinguishing between all combat and infantry specifically (Venn diagram-style).

Nevin73 wrote:

The only concerns that I have heard that seem legit are the physical requirements of combat troops. Soldiers carry a lot of weight (like 100-150 lbs) and are expected to be strong enough to carry that as well as more as required (i.e. other, injured troops). If they keep the physical standards the same, I say let anyone who meets them, and wants to, serve on the combat line.

So just limit women to being snipers.

Demyx wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

As a pragmatic matter then, do we now open up for new debate either abolishing the selective service or do we now force women to sign up?

I'm not in favor of selective service at all, but if it does happen I see no other way than to include women.

That is funny that this was brought up. My girlfriend and I were discussing this specific topic a month ago and she hopes that's something that never happens. She is often irritated with many of the feminists who constantly push for equal and fair treatment and not realize it can't always be circumstantial. She for one doesn't want to be drafted and have to go to war, and is afraid if that day ever comes. It's one of those things where you have to ask yourself do you really want to go down that rabbit hole?

The Conformist wrote:
Demyx wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

As a pragmatic matter then, do we now open up for new debate either abolishing the selective service or do we now force women to sign up?

I'm not in favor of selective service at all, but if it does happen I see no other way than to include women.

That is funny that this was brought up. My girlfriend and I were discussing this specific topic a month ago and she hopes that's something that never happens. She is often irritated with many of the feminists who constantly push for equal and fair treatment and not realize it can't always be circumstantial. She for one doesn't want to be drafted and have to go to war, and is afraid if that day ever comes. It's one of those things where you have to ask yourself do you really want to go down that rabbit hole?

I don't want anyone to be drafted and go to war. I don't think women should be exempted from it if one happens though.

I think selective service should be coed. Maybe warmongers and Main Street alike will think more carefully about the consequences of war when it's their daughters shipping out as well as their sons.

But then, I think Israeli-style conscription isn't necessarily a bad thing either.

I doubt we will ever see another draft unless a major world war breaks out. The military doesn't want draftees...they don't tend to make very good or dedicated troops. The selective service as a whole should be trashed.

But I agree with Tanglebones...because someone doesn't want to be drafted isn't a reason to exempt a whole class of individuals.

The Conformist wrote:

That is funny that this was brought up. My girlfriend and I were discussing this specific topic a month ago and she hopes that's something that never happens. She is often irritated with many of the feminists who constantly push for equal and fair treatment and not realize it can't always be circumstantial. She for one doesn't want to be drafted and have to go to war, and is afraid if that day ever comes. It's one of those things where you have to ask yourself do you really want to go down that rabbit hole?

Well sure, but who wants to be drafted? No-one, that's who.

That said, it seems perfectly fair that if my son is going to be drafted, so should your daughter. Why does a vagina get her out of dying for her country while my son gets shot at? (note - I'm too old to be drafted, so I'm using hypothetical kids as that's where it's actually going to affect me).

Equality should be the goal, and that means everyone's drafted, or no-one is.

Tangle, Nevin and Jon already said what I was going to say in response. I sure don't want to ever be drafted either but that's not a good reason to blanket-exclude women.

Jonman wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

That is funny that this was brought up. My girlfriend and I were discussing this specific topic a month ago and she hopes that's something that never happens. She is often irritated with many of the feminists who constantly push for equal and fair treatment and not realize it can't always be circumstantial. She for one doesn't want to be drafted and have to go to war, and is afraid if that day ever comes. It's one of those things where you have to ask yourself do you really want to go down that rabbit hole?

Well sure, but who wants to be drafted? No-one, that's who.

That said, it seems perfectly fair that if my son is going to be drafted, so should your daughter. Why does a vagina get her out of dying for her country while my son gets shot at? (note - I'm too old to be drafted, so I'm using hypothetical kids as that's where it's actually going to affect me).

Equality should be the goal, and that means everyone's drafted, or no-one is.

Newt Gingrich wrote:

If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real. On the other hand, if combat means being on an Aegis-class cruiser managing the computer controls for twelve ships and their rockets, a female may be again dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.

Damn straight. If I don't hunt at least one giraffe a week I kick puppies out of frustration.

The Conformist wrote:

She is often irritated with many of the feminists who constantly push for equal and fair treatment and not realize it can't always be circumstantial. She for one doesn't want to be drafted and have to go to war, and is afraid if that day ever comes. It's one of those things where you have to ask yourself do you really want to go down that rabbit hole?

I have literally never met a feminist who thinks that the equal and fair treatment they are fighting for should be circumstantial. I HAVE, however, heard a lot of people CLAIM that these feminists exist. Perhaps I'll one day meet one?

..."the rabbithole of equality?"

Valmorian wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

She is often irritated with many of the feminists who constantly push for equal and fair treatment and not realize it can't always be circumstantial. She for one doesn't want to be drafted and have to go to war, and is afraid if that day ever comes. It's one of those things where you have to ask yourself do you really want to go down that rabbit hole?

I have literally never met a feminist who thinks that the equal and fair treatment they are fighting for should be circumstantial. I HAVE, however, heard a lot of people CLAIM that these feminists exist. Perhaps I'll one day meet one?

Even if you haven't I would bet money once females were required for draft, they would come out of the woodwork. I am not a father, but if it came to a situation were my son or my daughter met an enemy soldier in hand to hand combat, where strength was a factor, I would feel more comfortable with my son being victorious than my daughter. This is of course taking into account that on the broader scale men are stronger than women, there are obvious exceptions. Because physically, on average, men and women aren't equal no matter how you slice it.

Seth wrote:

..."the rabbithole of equality?"

It has nothing to do with equality, it would be how many family's would be up in arms if there daughters were shipped out to war. This is of course if there was a draft.

Newt is quite a bit more than a "piglet".

The Conformist wrote:
Seth wrote:

..."the rabbithole of equality?"

It has nothing to do with equality, it would be how many family's would be up in arms if there daughters were shipped out to war. This is of course if there was a draft.

I see no reason that a women shouldn't be drafted if I can be.

What does the draft have to do with physical capacity anyway? Plenty of guys drove desks in WWII, or trucks in Vietnam. It's not like you got 4F for being out of shape.

Obviously Newt would know all about combat conditions, having done his service to the country...oh wait.

The Conformist wrote:

Even if you haven't I would bet money once females were required for draft, they would come out of the woodwork.

And women who push to avoid the draft by playing to gender stereotypes should be taken as representative of the unfitness for warfare of their entire gender, just like men who avoided the draft by feigning a conscientious objection to war were?

Spoiler:

Yes, I'm aware that there are plenty of people who legitimately have a conscientious objection to war. Feel free to substitute "joining the National Guard and then repeatedly shirking their duty" if you prefer. :)

The Conformist wrote:

It has nothing to do with equality, it would be how many family's would be up in arms if there daughters were shipped out to war. This is of course if there was a draft.

And there have been plenty of families up in arms about previous drafts of only men. Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposit... I don't see why this would be any different.

If those families don't want their daughters shipped off to war, they should oppose the war. Because there is no reason why men should be forced into the military and women shouldn't be.

That distinction doesn't make any sense to me. Why is it okay for your sons to be forced to go and face danger, but not your daughters? Heck, it was hard enough when my son volunteered.

There are plenty of restrictions in the armed forces rules for where people can and can't be deployed based on physical standards. Girls who don't have the physical prowess can more than effectively participate in combat without ending up raw mudfooting. We don't fight in trenches with bayonets anymore - we fight with machines. And even in the cases where we still are beating feet, there are already testing requirements that prevent anyone, male or female, from doing that if they can't physically keep up. Make sure those standards are fairly and evenly applied and we're good.

I'm not saying there's no risk in combat anymore. The machines don't take that away. But why is it okay for your son to face that but not your daughter?

I do agree giving women the chance to serve as the soldiers they can be means that they should also face the same chances as any male in a draft situation. If it's so anathema to have girls drafted, then get rid of the draft completely. Don't block the women who are already fighting and dying anyways over there from the benefits and other bonuses from being in "combat" out of some sort of misguided notion of what they can and can't do.

The Conformist wrote:

That is funny that this was brought up. My girlfriend and I were discussing this specific topic a month ago and she hopes that's something that never happens. She is often irritated with many of the feminists who constantly push for equal and fair treatment and not realize it can't always be circumstantial. She for one doesn't want to be drafted and have to go to war, and is afraid if that day ever comes. It's one of those things where you have to ask yourself do you really want to go down that rabbit hole?

Just going to jump on the "I don't ever want to be drafted either" bandwagon. Fortunately for me, I'm medically ineligible, so if they ever drafted me, we'd be in such deep sh*t that I don't think I'd object.

Demyx wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

It has nothing to do with equality, it would be how many family's would be up in arms if there daughters were shipped out to war. This is of course if there was a draft.

And there have been plenty of families up in arms about previous drafts of only men. Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposit... I don't see why this would be any different.

If those families don't want their daughters shipped off to war, they should oppose the war. Because there is no reason why men should be forced into the military and women shouldn't be.

Oh don't get me wrong, I know there are isn't a family out there who WANTS their child going to war, I'm simply saying that there would be more of an outcry if women were made to go along with the men. It's something that many people are guilty of feeling, that women are somehow more "gentle" than men. My father was guilty of this, he had a HUGE soft spot for my sister, if she fell down and scraped her knee he would do everything he could to comfort her, if I did the same it was always "you'll be ok, just walk it off". I've seen this in many households. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it happens.

Farscry wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

That is funny that this was brought up. My girlfriend and I were discussing this specific topic a month ago and she hopes that's something that never happens. She is often irritated with many of the feminists who constantly push for equal and fair treatment and not realize it can't always be circumstantial. She for one doesn't want to be drafted and have to go to war, and is afraid if that day ever comes. It's one of those things where you have to ask yourself do you really want to go down that rabbit hole?

Just going to jump on the "I don't ever want to be drafted either" bandwagon. Fortunately for me, I'm medically ineligible, so if they ever drafted me, we'd be in such deep sh*t that I don't think I'd object.

Same here man. I actually wanted to join the marines when I was 19, but unfortunately for medical reasons I cannot. But I would feel sorry for any enemy soldiers that came across me when I was 2 months out of my medication hah.

While we're changing the law can we make sure that any politician who votes for war has to have at least one of their children serve on the front line until the conflict ends? If they die, another one has to be sent. If they have no more children left alive, their spouse has to go. If their spouse dies, they have to go.

I think that realistically The Conformist is right; even if progressives fight for equality in the draft, they'll never achieve it, in part because of the latent sexism he described.

Another part being that from a certain point of view, they're already halfway there; women are exempt from the draft so why not just work on exempting men too?

Seth wrote:

I think that realistically The Conformist is right; even if progressives fight for equality in the draft, they'll never achieve it, in part because of the latent sexism he described.

Another part being that from a certain point of view, they're already halfway there; women are exempt from the draft so why not just work on exempting men too?

Laws being what they are, this might end up leading to an all-Trans army.

The Conformist wrote:
Farscry wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

That is funny that this was brought up. My girlfriend and I were discussing this specific topic a month ago and she hopes that's something that never happens. She is often irritated with many of the feminists who constantly push for equal and fair treatment and not realize it can't always be circumstantial. She for one doesn't want to be drafted and have to go to war, and is afraid if that day ever comes. It's one of those things where you have to ask yourself do you really want to go down that rabbit hole?

Just going to jump on the "I don't ever want to be drafted either" bandwagon. Fortunately for me, I'm medically ineligible, so if they ever drafted me, we'd be in such deep sh*t that I don't think I'd object.

Same here man. I actually wanted to join the marines when I was 19, but unfortunately for medical reasons I cannot. But I would feel sorry for any enemy soldiers that came across me when I was 2 months out of my medication hah.

Is a feminist a woman who calls herself a feminist, or is there a membership fee and a card like the NRA? Because there are plenty of women I have met, or are even in the public eye who want equality, but also special treatment still- men paying for their dates, doors opened. And in the 70's when the suggestion of women for selective service requirement was on the table, feminists did not seem to be lunging at cameras when anti-feminist women called for the governmental patriarchy to protect women from combat.

KingGorilla wrote:

And in the 70's when the suggestion of women for selective service requirement was on the table, feminists did not seem to be lunging at cameras when anti-feminist women called for the governmental patriarchy to protect women from combat.

While I have no links to confirm or deny this, it seems like a strawman. Were there many men "lunging at cameras" to be drafted?