The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
If the draft ever got reinstated, should women be included?
Posts
And you're grossly ignorant of all the non combat emergencies that exist that women are taking part in in the military right now with no problem whatsoever.
Dude, even people that were drafted had the sense to protect each other. No one went to 'Nam, said "Fuck everyone else" and had nearly as good a chance. Nor do I think their numbers were even very high. So bring on the proof of this claim.
Women are not a statistic either. They are people. Individuals. And your whole premise is based around some paranoid idea that if they don't pump out babies fast enough some vague bad thing might happen.
The draft is certainly supposed to be about fairness. Which is why people aren't completely randomly picked and, in fact, can have their individual cases judged. Which is, you know, the fair thing to do.
At the same time, none of the military posters on this thread are homophobes or have mentioned problems with laudanum addiction.
Actually, I might be somewhat homophobic
I dunno, I started a thread on it here but my position basically amounts to: full equal rights for gays, reterming the legal definition of marriage to civil unions and make civil unions mandatory for all couples wishing to marry (i.e. leave it to the church if they'll religiously marry people). I think my personal belief that gay people are gay by choice and homosexual acts are a sin might make me homophobic
Get rid of DADT, it's a fucking joke and purposeless
So gays would be...gay about my homophobia?
Eh? EHHHHHHHHHHHH? :winky:
Hmmm.. I just read seconds ago and someone linked a video above about the 3 times more likely for sexual misconduct. This is with people who Volunteered to be in a situation with limited sexual and companionship capabilities. Lets just ignore the fact that we have no fucking idea how the general non-volunteer pop would work out in a co-ed armed forces.
For the most part your right. But in our last 3 Draft instated wars, 2 were during a more gentleman's rules period and Nam was still almost complete a single sex battlefield. I bring this up again, if a Volunteered women is 3 times more likely to be the target of sexual misconduct by a volunteered male, what do you think would happen in an army made of people who didn't want to be there?
All people are fucking statistics to every one. People who die in accidents with drunk drivers are a statistic for MADD. A smoker with Lung cancer is a statistic to those TRUTH fuckers. And a Women still able to have children dieing in battle would be a statistic. That statistic? Lost opportunities in future returns in taxes. If your going to lose tax payers why choose to lose the tax payers that are most responsible for increasing the amount of tax payers. Its not good for future GDP, its not good for future population, where in retrospect all you are losing when an male dies is that single tax payer.
If your basing the draft on a case by case basis then its not random. If its not random its not fair. If being a women is no longer a qualifier for not being part of the draft, why should there be any. Why am I just because a I am a healthy, non obese person, more likely to go out and face death then a 350lbs fat ass who nearly ate himself to death, or the kid with asthma. Fuck send them out to die first they are hurting the economy more then they are helping it.
I get it they want to hand pick the people more likely to succeed then not both to minimize death but maximize potential. But if your going to do that then it doesn't make sense because if you were to separate women's names in one pile, and mens in another, and drew names from each pile, most of the time men are going to be more physically capable.
To my mind it is by far the best solution to the issue of gender wars on the front line. Away from the front line - there really is not an issue.
And lest we forget, the biggest fear for the guy setting this up is the woman coming home in a body bag. Example:
British army in Afghanistan.
3 men died, page three or back of the newspapers.
Woman dies, front page in just about every instance.
Yes it matters from a PR standpoint, whether it should is another thing.
I would say mixed units would be better, if only because I'm not sure most women could be machine gunners (Israel gives women a slightly smaller type of rifle), but are light enough that they'd probably kick ass on mobility and urban stealth.
A little by I am not going to pretend men don't like other men when it comes to the women they love or admire.
Heck my dad fucks around on my mom, leaves the house to live with the other girl 2 weeks after my mom presented him with the knowledge of what he was doing, he has trouble reaching her on the phone one night and she isn't at the house and he has the nerve to go on and on about how he can't believe someone else is screwing his wife. Where was she? At a friends drinking off the frustration of this whole ordeal.
Prove the claim and how detrimental it would be. I don't have to prove a negative.
You didn't actually back this up. And it's sure as fuck not going to change if we hide women forever from those scary mens.
WAR isn't good for the GDP unless you win and even then only under certain circumstances. YOUR statistic violates the rights of one group of people and ignores the abilities of others on the basis of baseless speculation.
Holy shit. You don't know how the draft actually works do you? And to make something clear, random chance while ignoring special =/= fair.
This might be the case if being a woman was equal to a debilitating disease.
Selfish people say and do selfish things. It doesn't mean that the zenith of a man's motivation is his jealousy or libido.
When it comes to combat arms, I think that if you are female and can pass the male APFT and perform your duties on par with the guys then you should be included as well.
So, basically yes.
It's all dependent on the quality of the people, of course, but I agree with this statement.
Indeed. Like I've said, I see a lot of people in all-male units complain about female soldiers and I think it's mainly due to stereotypes. One of the females in the unit and myself put together a griefing session about power-tripping NCO's with all the junior enlisted and took the results up to Dad (First Sergeant) and it's been a huge positive change. None of the other soldiers had the balls (irony) to do it with me, but she did.
It's a different thing, workin with the gals, but I've found it to be pretty damn rewarding once you get past the boys club mentality BCT ingrained in my head.
C for combat, but yes.
I don't see why women would not be included in a draft. Corollary: there shouldn't be a draft, women should be allowed to serve in combat roles, and men should stop being dicks to them.
Yeah, basic combat training.
I go to school with some girls that can get a 375 on the male portion of the APFT, and this is not a rare occurrence. If you hold someone to higher standards, they will rise to meet that standard. 19 pushups minimum compared to what I have to do is a fucking joke, and it's an example of subliminal discrimination against women in the military because they are being told they just can't do everything that us MALES can do, let the MALES show you how it's done!
Women are not less physically capable than men.
Sort of - the distributions are different. The strongest man will be stronger, etc etc, but there are plenty of women of extremely high fitness and capability far beyond many males including myself. I regularly see females out perform males in physical arenas.
But the fact remains that every member doing the same job should have the same test. So all firefighters - man or woman - should be able to lift a 205 pound man down a ladder. As long as they meet the same standards, that should not be an issue. Having different standards is wrong, absolutely, I agree with you entirely. It should be done away with.
The same or even higher effort by a female would result in lower strength/endurance benefit and top athletes seem to tell me the males have a higher physical limit, so I'm not sure what you are saying?
It doesn't really matter tho, for the army there should be a single physical test and as long as a candidate covers it, you shouldn't give a fuck about his/hers gender.
Same goes if you start a draft that doesn't require physical conditioning.
/facepalm
Did it hurt?
Yes.
Good. Keep hitting. I think that's the best way to contribute.
Maybe you should have tried it instead of posting "No you're wrong" without any supporting evidence.
For the job of combat arms, I don't see women as being incapable. I just feel they aren't given the challenge so they can't rise up to it since the opportunity doesn't exist. But, biologically speaking, men can achieve greater physical strength than women.
Supporting evidence about what?
There is a ~20%(in some cases significantly more) in purely physical sports performances between the two genders at a top athlete level.
Feel free to cherry pick a sport and verify for yourself.
While it is possible that popularity and opportunity to actually make a career out of sport play a partial role and we may be missing on a lot of superb female athletes, I don't see how it could result in a gap that wide.
Y, I could link dozens of studies showing male advantage in strength/endurance, but you'll just link back another set that shows advantage for female physical abilities when it gets closer to survival rather than sport and I'm genuinely not interested in arguing with somebody that starts a conversation with "facepalm".
Keep on being a dick.
Edit: Now that I think of it, I may have given you too much credit. Most likely somebody else would have linked the extreme endurance studies, you'd have just kept on punching yourself.
An efficiency that women aren't capable of.
That, plus no one should forget Audie Fucking Murphy.
This delightful young man was 16 when he joined up. He was 5' 5" and 110 pounds. Once he'd finished growing, he was 5' 7" and 145 pounds.
Let's see a description of his combat capabilities:
So I mean there are some hurdles that come with being smaller, but they can be overcome.
Pretty sure he also took out a tank single-handed.
Oh, you have daddy issues, that explains it.
I did some light research for this topic in high school and I remember coming across a study done by the American military under Eisenhower that demonstrated that mixed-gender units were more effective than single-gender of either type, but I can't seem to find it now.
Do you understand the astounding difference between men achieving a level of physical perfection being a lot easier than women, and the fact that it isn't difficult for a woman to meet the MINIMUM standards required by the Army?
No correlation between the two, and unless you can site some studies besides "popular sports lawl" I suggest you don't post in the thread.
The reason women can easily achieve the minimum standards required by the Army is that the Army has much, much lower fitness standards for women. If we required females to get 180 on the male APFT scale, we would lose a good half or more of our females.
EDIT: Just saw your last post. And yes, women getting 375 on the male scale is a fucking outlandishly rare event. I've been to five schools (three of them officer, where PT scores are much higher on average) and never seen or heard of someone doing this. And of course it's never happened in a regular unit I've been it. And it would definitely make waves.
No, no we wouldn't. I'm saying that the minimum standards for males is not difficult to achieve for females, either.
That, and who says that female frontline troops will have to toe to a lower line? I mean, I guess if it's found that a female soldier who can only do X number of Y is as effective on average as a male soldier who can do A number of B, then they'd lower it. But it's not like anyone's suggesting we just make all units female for balance's sake or something. The fitness standards aren't actually what we're competing based on. We don't do angry sit-ups en masse to kill people. They're a way of gauging effectiveness, one of many.