|Early post Friday topic: If there were a military draft....||Silverback|
Aug 15, 2002 9:00 AM
|There's been some talk, probably just rumor, of reinstating a military draft. Probably a bunch of us are old enough to remember the last one (for those who don't, they took pretty much every male who wasn't rich or a congressman's son at about age 18 and kept them for two years WHETHER THEY WANTED TO GO OR NOT! This means you!).
Times and politics are much different now, though. If a draft were reinstated--let's not argue that, I'm just saying IF--should it include women? Why or why not? If they're not suited for combat, couldn't they do other jobs and free more men to get killed?
Came up at work this morning, and I'm just curious.
Aug 15, 2002 9:38 AM
|Women are experts at cooking and cleaning, so we could release all the men currently doing those jobs so they can fight.
Yes, I am being sarcastic.
There won't be a draft anytime soon. We don't fight the kinds of wars that require large amounts of people anymore. The only good reason to have conscription is to provide cannon fodder for combat. There are already plenty of people in the military who can perform non-combat roles. So as long as women are excluded from combat, they should logically be excluded from the draft as well.
|an exception to your rule||Starliner|
Aug 15, 2002 10:54 AM
|A good woman friend of mine is a lousy cook and hates housekeeping. But she's great between the sheets and is fun to be around. Real good draft material.|
|welcome to boot camp||mr_spin|
Aug 15, 2002 11:28 AM
|Most guys can't shoot worth a damn, can't storm beaches, can't fly airplanes, can't jump out of airplanes, can't sail ships, etc., but we teach them and they become the best in the world.
I don't see any reason why we can't teach your woman friend to cook and clean.
(Note: still being sarcastic)
|she'd do fine storming the beach||Starliner|
Aug 15, 2002 12:39 PM
|She has mother issues, so I think she has resistance with traditional motherly tasks. She never got married, nor had children. She adored her dad, who died a few years ago of pancreatic cancer (BTW, he was a cowboy who by chance became the first Marlboro ad man). She tries hard, however, and that makes all the difference in the world.|
|If there is anyone I want with me in a foxhole on a ...||Sintesi|
Aug 15, 2002 10:01 AM
|cold lonely night at the front, it's hot chick. War is so much more enjoyable that way.|
|Yes, but ...||ms|
Aug 15, 2002 10:09 AM
|If women are to have equal rights in society (which I believe they should have), they also should bear society's burdens equally. However, the issue of drafting women, women in combat and the like are hot button issues. It is unlikely that most politicians would have the backbone to withstand the outcry that would occur if there were a serious proposal to draft women. An unrelated, but instructive parallel: many people who have no qualms about capital punishment become squeamish when it comes to executing women, even if the women are as reprehensible as the men that are executed on a regular basis in the United States.|
|like I've said before ...||Starliner|
Aug 15, 2002 11:12 AM
|the powerful men of our society (lawyers, politicians) are stuck back in the 19th century when it comes to the concept of caring for and tending a woman. They have the means to do so, so the old ways of gallantry with women live on, even though long-time advantages men have had over women in the arenas of employment and education are gone, in the present time.
With no strong men's organizations providing a voice to start exposing and breaking down inequalities in such areas as the draft, divorce and family law, and the entire concept of how we as a society treat our men vs. how we treat our women; coupled with the ambivalence of the political hacks, strong pro-feminist access and sentiment in many key areas of the government, media and society, I don't forsee things changing soon.
|like I've said before ...||TJeanloz|
Aug 15, 2002 11:31 AM
|Actually there are some "men's right's" groups out there that have made great strides in these areas. They obviously can't do anything about a hypothetical draft that doesn't exist. But a civil trial just wrapped up in PA regarding the rights of a father to chose in an abortion case. In those reports it was also noted that the advantage that mothers have in custody battles is mostly gone, and it is likewise gone in divorce cases.
It's actually quite surprising how far men's rights have come in the last 10 years.
|that's good to hear, but it's just a start||Starliner|
Aug 15, 2002 12:30 PM
|Maybe a stride, but not "great". Much more needs to be exposed, evaluated, debated and changed. I don't know of any men's rights groups that have the teeth to do such things on a national scale as do some of the women's groups.
Abortion rights is a good example to discuss. Women have successfully argued that it's their issue, that it's a control issue (over her body), and that they must have the choice to bear the child or to not. Basically, father-to-be's or not-to-be's go butt out, we'll let you know.
The big national issue with abortion is whether abortion itself is moral or not. Virtually never debated is whether the "father" should have a voice in the decision.
Is a fetus really the property of the woman? Nature has certainly determined a woman will carry the fetus, but that doesn't mean a man should lose his rights over any birth/no birth decisions that will be made. The fact is, he is responsible for the fetus as much as she is. And, he should have recognized input in any birth/no birth decision. Especially if the woman and the man had an agreement prior to the pregnancy, and then she changes her mind afterwards.
Your post also stated the advantage that mothers have in custody battles is mostly gone, and it is likewise gone in divorce cases. Do you have statistics? My understanding is that 3/4 of custody decisions favor the mother. Are not total alimony and child support payments are also skewed when compared to labor statistics between the sexes?
|You were obviously not watching the news two weeks ago,||TJeanloz|
Aug 15, 2002 1:14 PM
|Two weeks ago it was widely debated over what voice the father should have in an abortion decision. It wasn't any more than passing interest for me, as I flipped to the news channels between innings of the Red Sox games.
The inherent advantage to mothers is mostly gone, that is the law does not show a bias towards the mother any more. But each side must still offer an explanation about why they can provide better care for the children, and it is often the mother who is better able to make this argument.
|Results from the debate?||Starliner|
Aug 20, 2002 9:34 AM
|No, that weekend I was busy getting flat tires on my bike. And I haven't read any articles on the subject then or since, so indeed I missed it. It was widely debated? I'm interested to know what was said.
In family law decisions, the stats do suggest a bias toward the mother. Apparently, the courts have little regard for data from surveys and studies which show higher death rates, poorer school performance, higher drug use, increased anxiety and depression, and increased anti-social (violent) behavior among teenage boys who are not living with their natural fathers, and that most child abuse is committed by female caregivers.
I don't see how anybody could support the discrepancies in court judgements in the area of family law. The system shows a bias which ultimately fans the flames of violence and drug abuse in our society. A total change in our mindset needs to be made before we can ever have any hope of getting a handle on these societal issues.
|re: Early post Friday topic: If there were a military draft....||firstrax|
Aug 15, 2002 10:28 AM
|My only problem with women in combat is not with the women but with the men. Men act different around women. The men will do stupid things to impress or protect the women. The enemy will know this and use it.|
|Bad justification for not including women...||Wayne|
Aug 15, 2002 11:18 AM
|I think the military is rather found of people doing stupid things, at least in the infantry. That's why they draft 18 yr olds and not 30 yr olds, in part. One of the reasons given for the Allied success on D-day is the greeness of our troops, most of whom had never seen combat. Consequently they did stupid things that got alot of them killed but also allowed them to move up the beach. Based on your reasoning women could possibly increase the chance of this type of behavior even in soldiers who should know better!|
|Bad justification for not including women...||firstrax|
Aug 15, 2002 1:00 PM
|I will agree that its a poor reason to keep women out of the military, but it is true.
I am little bothered by the thought that D-day succeeded because of stupidity. No one stormed the beach at Normandy because they were stupid. I would rather use words like "courage, bravery and determination" when describing the 18 year olds of that generation. I consider them the greatest generation this country has ever seen.
As for the 18 year olds from the baby boomers generation on up, I will accept your logic.
Aug 16, 2002 5:10 AM
|there's a fine line between stupidity and heroism (like the former just gets you killed while the latter gets you killed and saves your comrades). I chose the word stupid because that's how many of the people who stormed the beach that day described their own actions, not because I was trying to belittle what they did. As for the 18 yr olds today I have little doubt if the enemy was knocking at the door and was really a direct, dire threat to our way of life they would step up to the plate.|
|you know something...||Starliner|
Aug 15, 2002 11:21 AM
|maybe we'll never get wise until we realize the unfairness of having to pick up the tab, while at work, we labor under a female supervisor.|
|WARNING....Goober threat alert!||critmass|
Aug 15, 2002 12:53 PM